11:55 a.m.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:50:49 -0700 Chidananda Jayakeerti
<ajchida(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Nice to meet you. Sorry to be so late responding to your posting,
but I've been away from the office for a week. And I lost your
original email. And my dog ate my homework. Just kidding.
Anyway, I'll make an attempt at answering your question; other
members will probably have different ideas than mine. That is OK,
I'm just thinking out loud here.
I have been resorting to "googling" for Fedora HCL due to
the lack of
such a guide. I have a crude list of hardware list built from
experience. This is in no means a official HCL and has very few
hardware.
I understand your interest in having a Fedora HCL, so that when you
configure a system you have at least _some_ hope that the result will be
functional. However, looking at some of the public comments about
past experiences with HCL's are revealing.
I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for Fedora. Red
Hat was able to publish their HCL because one of their business services
was to certify that a certain combination of vendor hardware and
software worked when RH tested it. They were paid handsomely for this
service. Vendors liked the idea, but the next engineering change to
either the hardware or the software rendered that particular
certification worthless because the entry was actually a tuple:
Certification[N] = [Hardware(Model,ECO,Options), Software
(Version,patch]]
Because of the cost involved, many vendors never re-certified for new
versions.
The HCL also contained some anecdotal entries, of the "this worked for
me" variety.
The end result was the HCL rapidly became stale. Translation: big
maintenance chore. Also, it was never intended to be
authoritative, but that's the way it was used. If someone wanted to
install Linux, they would check the HCL and then panic because their
particular combination was not listed.
In the end, the HCL has languished and gotten only sporadic attention.
Fedora now includes an Installation Guide and Release Notes that
describe the minimal hardware configuration, in generic terms.
Google.com is probably the best solution to this issue; especially given
the short development cycle of the Fedora project.
However, looking at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=129784
I realise i might as well start off an official one. Are there any
writiers understaking such a task?
How do I go about starting one? I could do the SelfIntroduction stuff
(although i'm not too comfortable reveling my residence address to a
mailing list :).
We would welcome your contribution to the Docs project. A
self-introduction is, rather firmly, the most minimal of membership
requirements. We won't come to your house to check your address, but
notice the section that asks "Why should we trust you?".
I think an address of at least the city? country? continent? world?
solar system? galaxy? 'verse? is intended to give folks some idea of
whom you are. Wade, is this right?
Cheers!
12:58 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 11:55 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:50:49 -0700 Chidananda Jayakeerti
<snip>
<ajchida(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for Fedora.
Fedora now includes an Installation Guide and Release Notes that
describe the minimal hardware configuration, in generic terms.
I definitely agree with Tommy that attempting a HCL would be a bad idea.
Thinking about it, perhaps the problem itself has changed over the years
too - these days the install process will probably complete on any
common Intel-compatible hardware, so the question is no longer "can I
install Linux on this machine ?", but "will I need to carry out extra
steps afterwards to get some functions to work ?"
I also agree that getting specific information on particular makes and
models is best done by Googling. Perhaps we can usefully make some
general statements in the Release Notes, though ? For example, when I
install Fedora on a laptop it's almost a certainty that neither the
modem nor the wireless card will work, and ACPI is unlikely as well, but
our existing documentation doesn't really acknowledge this, or provide
positive guidance as to how to go about finding solutions.
--
Stuart Ellis
stuart(a)elsn.org
Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
GPG key ID: 7098ABEA
GPG key fingerprint: 68B0 E291 FB19 C845 E60E 9569 292E E365 7098 ABEA
2:07 p.m.
Stuart Ellis wrote:
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 11:55 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:50:49 -0700 Chidananda Jayakeerti
><ajchida(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for Fedora.
<snip>
>Fedora now includes an Installation Guide and Release Notes that
>describe the minimal hardware configuration, in generic terms.
I definitely agree with Tommy that attempting a HCL would be a bad idea.
Thinking about it, perhaps the problem itself has changed over the years
too - these days the install process will probably complete on any
common Intel-compatible hardware, so the question is no longer "can I
install Linux on this machine ?", but "will I need to carry out extra
steps afterwards to get some functions to work ?"
I also agree that getting specific information on particular makes and
models is best done by Googling. Perhaps we can usefully make some
general statements in the Release Notes, though ? For example, when I
install Fedora on a laptop it's almost a certainty that neither the
modem nor the wireless card will work, and ACPI is unlikely as well, but
our existing documentation doesn't really acknowledge this, or provide
positive guidance as to how to go about finding solutions.
While I agree that taking on the task of an HCL is a monumental
job, as a five year Red Hat/Fedora user, I believe it would be
a tremendous service to the user community to have a HIL (Hardware
Incompatibility List). Many times I hesitate to buy new hardware
because I can't find information about what models will work with
my OS, and it is a daunting job to even begin the task of finding
out. A list of things to stay away from would be a great help.
George
3:23 p.m.
George Ganoe wrote:
Stuart Ellis wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 11:55 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:50:49 -0700 Chidananda Jayakeerti
>
>> <ajchida(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for Fedora.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Fedora now includes an Installation Guide and Release Notes that
>> describe the minimal hardware configuration, in generic terms.
>
>
>
> I definitely agree with Tommy that attempting a HCL would be a bad idea.
> Thinking about it, perhaps the problem itself has changed over the years
> too - these days the install process will probably complete on any
> common Intel-compatible hardware, so the question is no longer "can I
> install Linux on this machine ?", but "will I need to carry out extra
> steps afterwards to get some functions to work ?"
>
> I also agree that getting specific information on particular makes and
> models is best done by Googling. Perhaps we can usefully make some
> general statements in the Release Notes, though ? For example, when I
> install Fedora on a laptop it's almost a certainty that neither the
> modem nor the wireless card will work, and ACPI is unlikely as well, but
> our existing documentation doesn't really acknowledge this, or provide
> positive guidance as to how to go about finding solutions.
>
>
While I agree that taking on the task of an HCL is a monumental
job, as a five year Red Hat/Fedora user, I believe it would be
a tremendous service to the user community to have a HIL (Hardware
Incompatibility List). Many times I hesitate to buy new hardware
because I can't find information about what models will work with
my OS, and it is a daunting job to even begin the task of finding
out. A list of things to stay away from would be a great help.
George
I think an 'HIL' would suffer exactly the same problems and an HCL, just
from a different perspective. Anymore, such a list is really not even
necessary. Very, very little hardware still cannot be used with Linux.
Some older, proprietary, and rare hardware will not run, but overall
your odds are as good with Linux as they are with Windows. The only
concern is how much effort getting the hardware to run will take. An
HCL/HIL will not solve that, but Google queries work nicely to pull up
guides for most hardware. This will become even more of a moot point
going forward. At the moment, you have much better odds of hardware
working on a 64-bit Linux system than you do with a 64-bit Windows
system. Linux is not the niche OS it once was. The need for HCL/HIL's is
fading.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
3:58 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 15:23 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
I think an 'HIL' would suffer exactly the same problems and
an HCL, just
from a different perspective.
+1. The rate of change is very high, especially in some of the problem
areas (wireless, graphics).
Anymore, such a list is really not even
necessary. Very, very little hardware still cannot be used with Linux.
Some older, proprietary, and rare hardware will not run, but overall
your odds are as good with Linux as they are with Windows. The only
concern is how much effort getting the hardware to run will take.
Yes. Most issues/complaints are now around certain types of feature
cannot be supported out-of-the-box, often because the manufacturers are
opposed (3D acceleration with most standard graphics chips, 802.11g
wireless, Winmodems). So I would be in favour of some general
information that explains why the issues exist, and makes some
suggestions (check support sites, www.google.com/linux with chipset
number etc.). Arguably some types of hardware are common enough and
have well-known fixes, so specific notes might be feasible (Centrino
wireless, Nvidia graphics). A list of specific models that incorporate
these chips would be doomed, though, IMO.
--
Stuart Ellis
stuart(a)elsn.org
Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
GPG key ID: 7098ABEA
GPG key fingerprint: 68B0 E291 FB19 C845 E60E 9569 292E E365 7098 ABEA
9:22 p.m.
Patrick Barnes wrote:
I think an 'HIL' would suffer exactly the same problems and an HCL, just
from a different perspective. Anymore, such a list is really not even
necessary. Very, very little hardware still cannot be used with Linux.
Some older, proprietary, and rare hardware will not run, but overall
your odds are as good with Linux as they are with Windows. The only
concern is how much effort getting the hardware to run will take. An
HCL/HIL will not solve that, but Google queries work nicely to pull up
guides for most hardware. This will become even more of a moot point
going forward. At the moment, you have much better odds of hardware
working on a 64-bit Linux system than you do with a 64-bit Windows
system. Linux is not the niche OS it once was. The need for HCL/HIL's is
fading.
If indeed, it is true that very little hardware cannot be used, that
should make the job of producing a HIL list very easy. Such a list
would reduce the duplication of effort required by every user trying
to get hardware for their system. Also, such a list would provide
incentive for manufacturers who produce proprietary hardware to get
themselves off the list. I have been burned a few times already by
getting hardware that I found out later lacked a Linux driver because
it was proprietary and the manufacturer either didn't care or felt no
need to enable the open source community to create drivers. Even if
the hardware is returned, the time and effort involved is often more
valuable than the purchase price of the hardware.
It may not be the job of the FDP to create such a list, but it would
be a great community service for someone to do it, and the FDP has
the visibility to make influence and support such an effort.
George
4:19 p.m.
Uttered George Ganoe <geoganoe(a)cox.net>, spake thus:
> > I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for
Fedora.
> I definitely agree with Tommy that attempting a HCL would be a bad idea.
While I agree that taking on the task of an HCL is a monumental
job, as a five year Red Hat/Fedora user, I believe it would be
a tremendous service to the user community to have a HIL (Hardware
Incompatibility List). Many times I hesitate to buy new hardware
because I can't find information about what models will work with
my OS, and it is a daunting job to even begin the task of finding
out. A list of things to stay away from would be a great help.
Yeah, I've carefully bought stuff that turned out to be a MicroSorft
brick. Tip: shop only where sales returns are not a hassle.
Hmm... an "avoid like the plague" list might be helpful but it may
also annoy folks (liability issues for lost revenue?). This list,
too, will probably prove to be rather volatile.
But, what I would endorse would be a "Got Drivers?" list. The Linux
kernel ships with nearly 6 million lines of code: the kernel is about
1.5 million and all the rest are those lovely device drivers.
Could somebody scan each of those drivers to see just what
the heck hardware they support?
For some drivers, just looking through the kernel configuration help
should be enough. Others should have a simple table of PCI
vendor/device code pairs. Others will need a code audit.
Herculean? Not really, because every one of those drivers has a
author, or at least a maintainer, clearly listed. We just need
someone to bulldog down that list with a spate of emails. Then make
the "Got Drivers?" list from that.
Any takers?
Cheers
4:34 p.m.
Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered George Ganoe <geoganoe(a)cox.net>, spake thus:
>>>I do not think that having an HCL will be a good idea for Fedora.
>>>
>>>
>>I definitely agree with Tommy that attempting a HCL would be a bad idea.
>>
>>
>While I agree that taking on the task of an HCL is a monumental
>job, as a five year Red Hat/Fedora user, I believe it would be
>a tremendous service to the user community to have a HIL (Hardware
>Incompatibility List). Many times I hesitate to buy new hardware
>because I can't find information about what models will work with
>my OS, and it is a daunting job to even begin the task of finding
>out. A list of things to stay away from would be a great help.
>
>
Yeah, I've carefully bought stuff that turned out to be a MicroSorft
brick. Tip: shop only where sales returns are not a hassle.
Hmm... an "avoid like the plague" list might be helpful but it may
also annoy folks (liability issues for lost revenue?). This list,
too, will probably prove to be rather volatile.
But, what I would endorse would be a "Got Drivers?" list. The Linux
kernel ships with nearly 6 million lines of code: the kernel is about
1.5 million and all the rest are those lovely device drivers.
Could somebody scan each of those drivers to see just what
the heck hardware they support?
For some drivers, just looking through the kernel configuration help
should be enough. Others should have a simple table of PCI
vendor/device code pairs. Others will need a code audit.
Herculean? Not really, because every one of those drivers has a
author, or at least a maintainer, clearly listed. We just need
someone to bulldog down that list with a spate of emails. Then make
the "Got Drivers?" list from that.
Any takers?
Cheers
Yet again, we hit some of the same issues. Support in the kernel is
always evolving, and sometimes things break. This would prove equally
volatile. Also, just because there is/isn't a driver in the kernel
doesn't necessarily mean that hardware will/won't work. Additional
factors exist, such as modules not included with the kernel. Also, when
considering hardware purchases, you can't effectively compare PCI data.
You would be better off spending your time writing guides for the pieces
of hardware that don't work out of the box.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
5:53 p.m.
Thanks for the comments so far. I do understand the task is
monumental. However, if drivers are being written and maintained for
hardware, maintaining a compatibility list should be possible and will
be immensly use to users.
Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin
with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to
maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers
(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc.
We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories.
Chida
6:25 p.m.
Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote:
Thanks for the comments so far. I do understand the task is
monumental. However, if drivers are being written and maintained for
hardware, maintaining a compatibility list should be possible and will
be immensly use to users.
Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin
with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to
maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers
(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc.
We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories.
Chida
Trying, especially with a non-commercial project, to maintain any sort
of HCL is a dangerous effort. Those writing the HCL will always be
chasing the facts. Things simply change too rapidly. Even when you
break it down to a small subset, attempting maintenance is a daunting
task. On top of that, it is impossible to guarantee that any particular
piece of hardware will work. There are simply too many variables.
Certifying hardware for a price is one thing, trying to compile a list
of all working vs. non-working hardware is another. Even certification
programs have not been very successful. It creates a huge user-support
nightmare, with people constantly complaining because the list says one
thing and they get different results. There is no way to avoid this
problem. The effort would be better spent trying to make the stuff
work, not listing what works and what doesn't.
The Fedora Project trying to maintain a list of compatible hardware
would be a never-ending nightmare, creating more problems than it
solves, and with no gain for the community or the project. We don't
have a very large team of writers as it is, and the other developers
need not waste their time maintaining such a list. You should ask Mike
Harris for his opinion on telling people whether or not something should
work. He makes a good point. It is simply not something we should
engage at any level.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
www.n-man.com
--
6:40 p.m.
Uttered Patrick Barnes <nman64(a)n-man.com>, spake thus:
Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote:
>Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin
>with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to
>maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers
>(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc.
>We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories.
Trying, especially with a non-commercial project, to maintain any sort
of HCL is a dangerous effort. Those writing the HCL will always be
chasing the facts. Things simply change too rapidly.
Well, that may be overstating things a bit.
Consider: every X months (X=3 or so), a new FCn release is made with
a FINITE number of included device drivers. Currently we are in the
semi-ridiculous position of attempting to offer an operating system
without even an un-clear statement of what hardware that release
supports.
Now, there are actually only a handful or so of new devices added
between FC(n) and FC(n+1). After the initial effort of producing the
first:
Manufacturer,Device,(FCn version, tested date)*
list tracking the Fedora Core (only) shouldn't be that onerous a
maintanance task. The "Supported Devices" list should earn a place on
the distro CD, just as the Release Notes have done. And be just as
stable.
I dislike the HCL idea, and the HIL, because they are unbounded
activities more suitable to a personal web site than part of the FDP
which is about the differentiation of the Fedora Core releases from
other Linux projects. Thus, I think the "Got Drivers?" doc entirely
appropriate as a FDP project and the HCL/HIL more of a personal
Wiki-type effort.
In summary: HCL/HIL good project, just not authoritative to be an
FDP. Contriwise, the "Got Drivers?" listing should be part of the
product definition.
See the difference?
Cheers
7:35 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 18:40 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered Patrick Barnes <nman64(a)n-man.com>, spake thus:
> Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote:
> >Is it possible to achieve an HCL for limited set of hardware, to begin
> >with. Servers and workstations can be a good start. We do not have to
> >maintain an exhaustive list of webcams' keyboards, printers
> >(linuxprinting does a good job) and mice etc.
> >We could also have several maintainers for the HCL based on categories.
> Trying, especially with a non-commercial project, to maintain any sort
> of HCL is a dangerous effort. Those writing the HCL will always be
> chasing the facts. Things simply change too rapidly.
Well, that may be overstating things a bit.
Consider: every X months (X=3 or so), a new FCn release is made with
a FINITE number of included device drivers. Currently we are in the
semi-ridiculous position of attempting to offer an operating system
without even an un-clear statement of what hardware that release
supports.
I really think you completely underestimate the task just a single
example - wireless cards are a particular bane as a manufacturers card
will just change chipset with no other necessary difference. So a
vendor/brandname wireless card can go from supported to unsupported
depending on what "version" (usually invisible) you purchase. Sometimes
you can differenciate between things like Made in X or Made in Y on the
back of the card, but without full chipset info on the boxes having it's
fruitless.
Now, there are actually only a handful or so of new devices added
between FC(n) and FC(n+1).
But things change rapidly - eg support for synaptics/input devices does
vary between kernel versions and also laptop models (some people seem to
have quite odd issues) - again you need to have documented the touchpad
chipset (ALPS/Synaptics) and against kernel, xorg driver and particular
laptop quirks.
After the initial effort of producing the
first:
Manufacturer,Device,(FCn version, tested date)*
See above why this is impossible for some hardware to provide the user
with any particularly meaningful data.
Paul
10:26 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 15:53 -0700, Chidananda Jayakeerti wrote:
Thanks for the comments so far. I do understand the task is
monumental. However, if drivers are being written and maintained for
hardware, maintaining a compatibility list should be possible and will
be immensly use to users.
When looking over a writing project for FDP support, I think of two main
things:
a) Is it focused on and useful for Fedora?
b) Will the writer(s) have some reasonable chance of success?
Perhaps when we are a more established project with a number of
successes, we might be in a better position to change b) somewhat.
This concern about success is not as much for the project as it is for
the writers themselves.
Our most valuable resource is our writers, and burning them out on
nearly impossible tasks is not good.
Here are the ideas that don't sound feasible right now:
* Hardware Compatability List
* Hardware Incompatability List
* Driver List by release
The arguments against each of these ideas are compelling.
Looking at that list, I also see that they are far from short, task-
based documentation. Believe me, no one wants to get *paid* to maintain
these lists, we surely don't want to volunteer to do so.
These ideas sound useful and could be persued:
* Short addition to relnotes about how to find help with a user's
hardware combination.
* Tutorial on the same, but more complex. Talks the reader through
discovering exactly what hardware they have (including booting with a
live CD in order to get hardware details before installing), explains
how to find out the latest details on that hardware, and presents how-to
information on many of the common commands useful in making hardware
work. Some common examples such as the ipw2200 or synaptics drivers
would be appropriate.
* True automagic that will take a snapshot of what drivers we apparently
ship with, done as part of the release notes build. In essence, a long
list of what you find through the config tool when you are configuring a
piece of hardware.
* Dedicated hardware beat writer for the release notes who keeps on top
of nasty combinations known to do evil things and clever fixes that tend
to work (ide=nodma for example).
The fact is, our true hardware (in)compatability list is always and only
within community knowledge. By the time we take a snapshot of that
knowledge, it will have changed.
Think of one of the lists as akin to a list of places to go fish. It
can never truly tell you what you will find when you get to a fishing
hole. Nor does it tell you *how* to be successful at fishing.
Chida and others who are interested in resolving the hardware problems
Fedora users face -- I think the better challenge is in teaching users
how to fish. It will not solve any number of particular problems, but
it will help to solve many times more actual problems.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
12:36 a.m.
Hi
Hmm... an "avoid like the plague" list might be helpful but
it may
also annoy folks (liability issues for lost revenue?). This list,
too, will probably prove to be rather volatile.
Some devices just dont work on Linux. If just stating that these devices
dont work on Linux would annoy those vendors, they should really be
working on fixing the problem. I like the idea of having a a good HIL.
If there is enough interest in this people can even start working on
both ways but dont understimate the work involved here.
regards
Rahul
10:52 a.m.
New subject: self-introductions (was Re: HCL Considered Harmfull [Re: Fedora HCL guide writers?])
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 11:55 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> How do I go about starting one? I could do the SelfIntroduction
stuff
> (although i'm not too comfortable reveling my residence address to a
> mailing list :).
We would welcome your contribution to the Docs project. A
self-introduction is, rather firmly, the most minimal of membership
requirements. We won't come to your house to check your address, but
notice the section that asks "Why should we trust you?".
I think an address of at least the city? country? continent? world?
solar system? galaxy? 'verse? is intended to give folks some idea of
whom you are. Wade, is this right?
Anonymity outside of this project can be OK, but we do need to know who
people are. Where you are at is an important part of this. It fosters
real-world community that is essential for our success.
That said, a specific hard-address should not be required. A city,
country, or even timezone would be helpful. The instructions only call
for city or country currently.
If I see that someone is from the Pacific timezone, I might send a
personal email asking if they are near my town of Santa Cruz,
California.
There are certainly communities on the Internet that are entirely
anonymous and one is known by your work alone. I don't think that model
will work for Fedora.
I've updated the Wiki to reflect this philosophy.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
2:57 a.m.
New subject: HCL Considered Harmful [Re: Fedora HCL guide writers?]
I still actually think that the solution to the HCL problem is the
"Fedora Hardware Project" that I proposed eons and eons ago, but I never
actually got around to working on. I think the original spec is still up
at my (now very old) site:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~maxka/fhp/
Basically, it makes an sort of "unofficial" HCL through participation
of the Fedora community. I think it's a very Fedora-like solution.
-Max
--
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Fedora is definitely part of the "everything" in Everything Solved.
8:49 a.m.
New subject: HCL Considered Harmful [Re: Fedora HCL guide writers?]
Uttered Max Kanat-Alexander <max_list(a)fedorafaq.org>, spake thus:
I still actually think that the solution to the HCL problem is the
"Fedora Hardware Project" that I proposed eons and eons ago, but I never
actually got around to working on. I think the original spec is still up
at my (now very old) site:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~maxka/fhp/
Basically, it makes an sort of "unofficial" HCL through participation
of the Fedora community. I think it's a very Fedora-like solution.
I think a Wiki-like page somewhere that lets contributors record
their experiences with particular hardware would be helpful. I agree
with you, this is best handled as a non-official project.
Cheers
6892
days inactive
6901
days old
16 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Chida -
George Ganoe -
Karsten Wade -
Max Kanat-Alexander -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Paul Nasrat -
Rahul Sundaram -
Stuart Ellis -
Tommy Reynolds