Mark Neidorff wrote at 2012-02-16 04:38 -0600: > On Wednesday 15 February 2012 2:01:22 pm green wrote: > > When you purchased the server on which you run Lenny, did you know for sure > > that the installation would go smoothly and all hardware would work > > correctly? > > Yes. I knew because, for a server, I bought slightly "behind the curve." For > the server, I knew that I didn't need the latest and gretest, so I was able to > look at hardware that had been on the market for about a year and check > compatibility easily. Then the install "just worked." I don't really get how you "check compatibility easily". Are there any particular resources you use? > IMO, in getting "the latest and greatest" can be as much of an ego thing as a > productivity thing. True, but irrelevant. I do not care about "latest and greatest", unless fanless is considered as such. > Question is: what are your specific needs going to be? That will determine > the power and features that you need. Okay. Basic desktop use, fanless. 100% supported by free software. 802.11g, ethernet, 2.5 inch bay and SATA port, USB, audio with microphone port, video out. Fairly solid hardware. > > Many vendors mention various versions of Windows on their hardware pages, > > but nothing about Linux. So as a consumer, do I just blindly assume that, > > although the vendor apparently does not care enough about Linux to even > > mention it, that it will all "just work"? > > Here's another way of looking at the same thing. Other M$ require that > hardware goes through a certification process before it gets the "works > with..." sticker. They have a roll-out scheudle of once every few years. Is > that what you want? That costs the consumer $$$. Are you willing to spend > for that? It probably depends on how much it costs. A manufacturer could probably only guarantee support for a particular kernel version, and that does not seem so difficult to me. > True, audio and video devices have been less than perfectly supported in > linux. Look at why. Video hardware goes through benchmark testing. The > "ed's choice" hardware does the best on the benchmarks and sells the best. > So, the hardware is built to work best ON THE BENCHMARKS, but not necessarily > in the real world. So what linux faces is hardware that is tweaked to do well > on benchmarks on a different OS. This has lead to hardware manufacturers not > releasing their code to linux, bucause they would reveal how they make the > hardware look good on the benchmarks. Okay, thanks for the explanation. But yet there are audio and video devices that do work with 100% free software. So the hardware is out there. > > Okay, I could look through the specifications carefully and research eg. > > the wireless hardware, but what about when vendors change the chipset > > mid-model? > > Yep. that is always a problem with buying the "latest and greatest." What? If the chipset changes mid-model, then identifying that device will be forever more difficult, regardless of whether it is recent hardware. This is one reason why I feel it is difficult to guarantee support *before* I have the device in my hands, versus testing it *after*. > > It is not for my own use, but at a location where tech support is not > > available, and where the system will quite likely be in use for 5+ years. > > One question. Do you expect the device to continue to be 100% functional when > the infostructure around it will change over the next 5+ years? That is not > reasonable. The desktop I intend to replace is more than 5 years old and it is still capable of running squeeze. It has an Abit KR7A-133R motherboard (reviewed 2002-04-12) and a AMD Athlon XP 1900+ (introduced 2001-11-04). Both available over 9 years ago. The only hardware changes that might be more recent are PCI wireless and a PATA hard drive. It also has much of what I mentioned above: ethernet, USB, audio, video out, 802.11g (may be more recent)--but not fanless, SATA, or 100% free software support. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/motherboards/article.php/1008771/ABIT-KR7A-133R-KT266A-Motherboard-Review.htm http://techreport.com/articles.x/3086/1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature