Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9346 > unrolled thread

OT: For all the Window haters

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-05 21:47 +0100
    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-08-06 00:58 +0100
      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-08-06 07:48 +0100
        Re: OT: For all the Window haters David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-08-06 08:43 +0100
          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-08-06 10:28 +0100
          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-06 09:57 +0000
          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> - 2015-08-06 10:58 +0100
            Re: OT: For all the Window haters Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-08-06 14:55 +0100
              Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-06 19:27 +0100
                Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-06 19:46 +0100
                  Re: OT: For all the Window haters Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2015-08-06 20:59 +0100
                  Re: OT: For all the Window haters Graham. <me@privicy.net> - 2015-08-07 00:22 +0100
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-07 17:12 +0100
                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-08-07 16:22 +0000
      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-06 09:55 +0000
    Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-06 10:38 +0100
    Re: OT: For all the Window haters druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-08-07 08:18 +0100
    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> - 2015-08-07 18:53 -0300
      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-08 08:13 +0000
        Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-08 10:01 +0100
        Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-08 14:14 +0100
          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-08 13:31 +0000
            Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-09 00:14 +0100
              Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-09 07:22 +0000
                Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-09 10:11 +0000
                  Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-09 11:28 +0000
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-08-09 13:30 +0100
                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-09 16:00 +0100
                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-09 18:04 +0000
                          Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-09 20:11 +0100
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-09 14:06 +0000
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-08-09 21:32 +0100
                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2015-08-09 21:16 +0000
                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-08-10 11:05 +0100
                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-10 13:51 +0100
                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-10 17:13 +0000
                          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-08-11 11:40 +0100
                            Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> - 2015-08-11 13:07 +0200
                            Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-11 12:59 +0000
                              Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-08-15 09:44 +0100
                                Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-15 10:07 +0000
                                  Re: OT: For all the Window haters Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-08-15 16:13 +0100
                                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-15 19:54 +0000
                                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-15 23:59 +0100
                                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-16 00:13 +0000
                                          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 11:02 +0100
                                            Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-16 12:58 +0100
                                          Re: OT: For all the Window haters Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-16 10:51 -0400
                                            Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-16 19:05 +0000
                                          Re: OT: For all the Window haters druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-08-16 23:03 +0100
                                            Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-16 22:55 +0000
                                              Re: OT: For all the Window haters druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-08-17 21:46 +0100
                                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> - 2015-08-16 14:26 +0100
                                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-08-16 17:02 +0100
                                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-08-16 17:02 +0100
                                        Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-16 19:18 +0000
                              Re: OT: For all the Window haters "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-18 19:39 +0100
                  Re: OT: For all the Window haters The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-09 15:56 +0100
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-09 14:59 +0000
                    Re: OT: For all the Window haters Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-08-09 16:55 +0000
                      Re: OT: For all the Window haters Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-09 16:38 -0400
                Re: OT: For all the Window haters mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2015-08-09 19:55 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#9382

On 08/08/2015 09:13, Rob wrote:
> even in cases where a Linux driver
> cannot be found or is of such abysmal quality that you would not want
> to have it on your system (or cannot, because it does not compile).
>

Well after failing with a 6200AGN, I tried a 6300AGN. No problems with 
Linux, Wifi was found as the xfce desktop appeared. The same Intel 6x00 
driver installer happily found the 6300AGN and the drivers worked on 
Windows. So now I have dual band 300mbps Wifi on Linux and Windows. I 
did a very simple performance test, connect at 2.4 then 5GHz and 
download a 250MB file from another machine on the local net using Linux 
and Windows. There was nothing in it, all the downloads ended up at 
around the same figures. Nothing pointed to any band/OS combination 
being the winner which is reassuring and pleasing.

That's not the case with an RALink 802.11n 2.4GHz USB Wifi adapter. 
(RA2780?) That has about 35-40% more throughput using Windows that Linux 
on the same hardware.

> However, when comparing the collection of drivers included on the
> installation media, so that a freshly installed system works without
> having to Google for drivers and download and install them one by one
> until all the yellow exclamation marks (except one) are gone, Linux
> wins hands down!  And that has been the case for many years.
>

That's because the basic Windows media images are getting very long in 
the tooth now (certainly for Win7) and much of the hardware wasn't 
around when the images were made. If you have a machine which came 
preinstalled with Windows, then the Windows media that came with the 
machine will have the right drivers. It's always been that case for me.

In the case of Dell, you can use the service tag info or model number to 
get to the drivers download on Dell's website. I had to do that when 
reimaging this Dell laptop as I couldn't find the original media. Both 
ethernet and Wifi were not working and I had to download elsewhere and 
save to USB memory stick. Not painful but just not smooth.

> In fact, with Windows it is normal that you will have to hunt down
> drivers after install but it is possible, with Linux it usually works
> out of the box and if not it is a sign of serious trouble ahead.
> (because installing separate drivers into the system is usually not
> going to work well, except for some special cases like video card drivers)

Depends on how much experience you've had with Linux drivers. Given that 
part of my job entails making Linux drivers work with our chip designs 
on x86/ARM/MIPS I don't find it as hard as other people will. But yes, 
if you don't this for a living it can be very challenging!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9383

mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 09:13, Rob wrote:
>> even in cases where a Linux driver
>> cannot be found or is of such abysmal quality that you would not want
>> to have it on your system (or cannot, because it does not compile).
>> In fact, with Windows it is normal that you will have to hunt down
>> drivers after install but it is possible, with Linux it usually works
>> out of the box and if not it is a sign of serious trouble ahead.
>> (because installing separate drivers into the system is usually not
>> going to work well, except for some special cases like video card drivers)
>
> Depends on how much experience you've had with Linux drivers. Given that 
> part of my job entails making Linux drivers work with our chip designs 
> on x86/ARM/MIPS I don't find it as hard as other people will. But yes, 
> if you don't this for a living it can be very challenging!

I am talking about drivers for devices like multiport serial/parallel
cards.  When you find a serial card on a far-east webshop, that advertises
"with Linux driver", you will normally find a .tar.gz file on the small
CD in the box that you are supposed to unpack and compile as a module
with your current system.

I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little
as 1 year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.

The hardware manufacturers do not update their drivers every 6 months,
and so your device is not going to work.

On the other hand, a number of such drivers exist in the kernel source
tree, and they do work.  So, chances are that your device will just
work when you plug it in (whereas it would not work under Windows
until you install the driver, as Windows does not include any such
specialist drivers like Linux does).

When it does not work and cannot be made to work by just patching some
PCI ID table, just toss it in the bin!  It will be a never-ending
battle to get an uptodate driver that works with the current kernel
and will still be working after a kernel update.

Some commercial vendors of video cards and other such more common hardware
go to great lengths to keep their driver compatible with those kernel
changes without getting it integrated in the source tree.  That is a
lot of work, and it is actively counter-acted by the kernel developers.
That is unfortunate.

In Windows, there is more compatability in the driver interface and
sloppy manufacturers can keep distributing a working driver for longer
than is possible with Linux.

In the old days, manufacturers avoided this problem by sticking to a
de-facto standard chip/functionality for a certain device.  Like all
the serial cards acted like a 16450 or a number of those.  That is
no longer true, so you always need a matching driver.
It has happened to me that I ordered a 4-port serial card in China
(for like 25 euro, so no great loss) that is advertised with a certain
chip for which I first checked there is a driver in Linux, then I get
the card shipped and it contains the next revision of the chip for no
working driver exists.  So it is kind of hard to deal with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9387

On 08/08/2015 14:31, Rob wrote:
> I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
> going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
> architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
> include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
> and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little
> as 1 year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.

There's some serious pain you have there.

The driver APIs don't change willy-nilly but do change. It's all 
discussed on the kernel mailing lists but if you don't follow them then 
it can come as a surprise.

Assuming the driver was complete and did compile at one time then making 
it compile for a new kernel is just bit-rot fixing. If you are trying to 
move from a 2.6.9 kernel to 3.17.0 you'll be in for some serious fun and 
games. Most of the time it's tedious stuff but not impossible. But as I 
do it as part of my job, I suppose I'm used to doing it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9390

mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 14:31, Rob wrote:
>> I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
>> going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
>> architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
>> include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
>> and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little
>> as 1 year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.
>
> There's some serious pain you have there.
>
> The driver APIs don't change willy-nilly but do change. It's all 
> discussed on the kernel mailing lists but if you don't follow them then 
> it can come as a surprise.

You are telling me that when I want to buy hardware that requires a
driver, and that says "driver for Linux included", I need to track
the kernel developers to be alerted that they again are breaking things?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9391

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 07:22:56 +0000, Rob wrote:

> mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2015 14:31, Rob wrote:
>>> I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
>>> going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
>>> architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
>>> include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
>>> and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little as 1
>>> year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.
>>
>> There's some serious pain you have there.
>>
>> The driver APIs don't change willy-nilly but do change. It's all
>> discussed on the kernel mailing lists but if you don't follow them then
>> it can come as a surprise.
> 
> You are telling me that when I want to buy hardware that requires a
> driver, and that says "driver for Linux included", I need to track the
> kernel developers to be alerted that they again are breaking things?
>
If the driver is old, kick the people who wrote it, not the kernel devs. 
Its part of the driver maintainers job to track kernel changes and update 
their driver as needed. Thats no different from doing their other jobs, 
i.e. fixing bugs and updating their drivers as the chips in their 
hardware change, e.g. everybody whose display hardware used 8250 UARTs 
probably had to upgrade to 16550s at some point.
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9392

Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 07:22:56 +0000, Rob wrote:
>
>> mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2015 14:31, Rob wrote:
>>>> I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
>>>> going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
>>>> architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
>>>> include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
>>>> and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little as 1
>>>> year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.
>>>
>>> There's some serious pain you have there.
>>>
>>> The driver APIs don't change willy-nilly but do change. It's all
>>> discussed on the kernel mailing lists but if you don't follow them then
>>> it can come as a surprise.
>> 
>> You are telling me that when I want to buy hardware that requires a
>> driver, and that says "driver for Linux included", I need to track the
>> kernel developers to be alerted that they again are breaking things?
>>
> If the driver is old, kick the people who wrote it, not the kernel devs. 
> Its part of the driver maintainers job to track kernel changes and update 
> their driver as needed. Thats no different from doing their other jobs, 
> i.e. fixing bugs and updating their drivers as the chips in their 
> hardware change, e.g. everybody whose display hardware used 8250 UARTs 
> probably had to upgrade to 16550s at some point.

Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux drivers
when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part of the
development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is released.
Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux kernel folks
are up to this week.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9393

On 09 Aug 2015 11:28:44 GMT
Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:

> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux
> drivers when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part
> of the development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is
> released. Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux
> kernel folks are up to this week.

But if it's open source then whoever cares about it working can keep it
updated, or pay somebody else to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9397

On 09/08/15 13:30, Rob Morley wrote:
> On 09 Aug 2015 11:28:44 GMT
> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux
>> drivers when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part
>> of the development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is
>> released. Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux
>> kernel folks are up to this week.
>
> But if it's open source then whoever cares about it working can keep it
> updated, or pay somebody else to.
>
>
Mosatly making a driver work with a new kernel is as simple as 
recompiling it with the new headers etc.

Its not that hard.

And the distro people normally do that as a matter of course *if* they 
have the source.

Where it breaks down is when te hardware manufacturer wont release 
source or even linkable modules so the driver is as it is and whether it 
works is pot luck.



-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9401

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/08/15 13:30, Rob Morley wrote:
>> On 09 Aug 2015 11:28:44 GMT
>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux
>>> drivers when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part
>>> of the development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is
>>> released. Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux
>>> kernel folks are up to this week.
>>
>> But if it's open source then whoever cares about it working can keep it
>> updated, or pay somebody else to.
>>
>>
> Mosatly making a driver work with a new kernel is as simple as 
> recompiling it with the new headers etc.
>
> Its not that hard.

I challenge you to get the WCH Multi-I/O Board Device Driver, which
supports many kernel versions up to 3.6, compiled for a recent kernel.
It is not that hard, you claim.  So prove it.

> And the distro people normally do that as a matter of course *if* they 
> have the source.
>
> Where it breaks down is when te hardware manufacturer wont release 
> source or even linkable modules so the driver is as it is and whether it 
> works is pot luck.

No, where it breaks down is when the kernel developers change the
driver interface all the time and existing drivers, with full source,
fail to compile.

Also the kernel developers do not provide the change documents that
specify how existing driver sources have to be modified for the new
driver interface.  So every driver developer will have to find out
themselves what has changed.  In the above case, the whole method
of linking data structures to device instances has been overhauled,
and getting the driver to support that is not a simple matter of
recompiling with new headers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9403

On 09/08/2015 19:04, Rob wrote:
> Also the kernel developers do not provide the change documents that
> specify how existing driver sources have to be modified for the new
> driver interface.

Ain't life a bitch.

Some of us just get on and find the changes and fix the driver. As I 
have said many times, that's part of what I get paid to do so I don't 
find it too challenging.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9394

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:28:44 +0000, Rob wrote:

> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 07:22:56 +0000, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2015 14:31, Rob wrote:
>>>>> I can tell you from experience: there is ZERO chance that this is
>>>>> going to work.  The Linux developers make changes in the driver
>>>>> architecture willy-nilly, and the compile will fail with missing
>>>>> include files, missing defines, differently named structure members,
>>>>> and the like.  It worked on the system of the developer as little as
>>>>> 1 year ago (often 3-4 years), but it is not going to work today.
>>>>
>>>> There's some serious pain you have there.
>>>>
>>>> The driver APIs don't change willy-nilly but do change. It's all
>>>> discussed on the kernel mailing lists but if you don't follow them
>>>> then it can come as a surprise.
>>> 
>>> You are telling me that when I want to buy hardware that requires a
>>> driver, and that says "driver for Linux included", I need to track the
>>> kernel developers to be alerted that they again are breaking things?
>>>
>> If the driver is old, kick the people who wrote it, not the kernel
>> devs. Its part of the driver maintainers job to track kernel changes
>> and update their driver as needed. Thats no different from doing their
>> other jobs, i.e. fixing bugs and updating their drivers as the chips in
>> their hardware change, e.g. everybody whose display hardware used 8250
>> UARTs probably had to upgrade to 16550s at some point.
> 
> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux drivers
> when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part of the
> development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is released.
> Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux kernel folks
> are up to this week.
>
In this case you're talking about hardware where the advertising says 
says on the box 'driver for Linux included', so its *highly* unlikely 
that the developers are unconnected with the hardware maker. Since the 
drivers are part of a product, you're fully entitled to expect that they 
will be covered by the guarantee. 

If the kernel changes during that period, you're entitled to expect that 
a revised driver will be made available for download: that's SOP for 
reputable firms.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9405

On 09/08/2015 12:28, Rob wrote:
> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux drivers
> when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part of the
> development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is released.
> Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux kernel folks
> are up to this week.

If you are talking about a device made by a no name Chinese firm which 
is a copy of a copy of a copy, you have to treat it as disposable and 
chuck it when anything changes on your machine.

You need pay a bit more than rock bottom and buy from someone who is 
likely to develop new drivers for new versions of the OS, of whatever 
flavour, and just as importantly produce security updates for the life 
of the device.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9408

druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 12:28, Rob wrote:
>> Of course it is not surprising that people stop supporting Linux drivers
>> when it works that way...  they see writing a driver as part of the
>> development of a new piece of hardware, finished when it is released.
>> Not as a lifetime commitment to track whatever the Linux kernel folks
>> are up to this week.
>
> If you are talking about a device made by a no name Chinese firm which 
> is a copy of a copy of a copy, you have to treat it as disposable and 
> chuck it when anything changes on your machine.

The driver is actually written by the maker of the chip, not by the
firms that make the boards.  All makers of such boards ship the same
driver CD with it.

> You need pay a bit more than rock bottom and buy from someone who is 
> likely to develop new drivers for new versions of the OS, of whatever 
> flavour, and just as importantly produce security updates for the life 
> of the device.

Nice to hear your opinion, but I want to point out that those concerns
apparently do not apply to Windows users.  They get the driver, written
at the same time (in 2012) as the Linux driver, and it just works.

Why?  Because Microsoft do not change the driver interface every few
months, so the developers do not have to play catch-up.


Anyway, I think the discussion is irrelevant.

My point is:

- Linux provides more included driver support than Windows
- Linux normally works fine after install, for Windows you need to hunt for
  drivers.
- When for Windows you need a driver not included, you are likely to find it.
- When a driver is not included in Linux, you are in trouble.  A driver
  you download separately is unlikely to work and even less likely to
  remain working over the device lifetime.

That still holds after all those remarks about how driver developers are
to check the kernel mailing list every morning at breakfast and how buyers
of hardware are responsible of making sure those developers actually do
that now and in the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9411

In article <mq8da2$gir$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> You need pay a bit more than rock bottom and buy from someone who is
> likely to develop new drivers for new versions of the OS, of whatever
> flavour, and just as importantly produce security updates for the life
> of the device.

Logitech, you would think, fall into this category but I have keyboards
with unusable extra multi-meeja buttons and no longer have webcams which
have become driverless and have been thrown out. 

Logitech has become over-priced crap with built-in obsolescence and are
off my shopping list.

-- 
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9413

On 10/08/15 11:05, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article <mq8da2$gir$1@dont-email.me>, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>> You need pay a bit more than rock bottom and buy from someone who is
>> likely to develop new drivers for new versions of the OS, of whatever
>> flavour, and just as importantly produce security updates for the life
>> of the device.
>
> Logitech, you would think, fall into this category but I have keyboards
> with unusable extra multi-meeja buttons and no longer have webcams which
> have become driverless and have been thrown out.
>

Those (webcams) will mostly work with linux.

Multimedia buttons cane be easily remapped as well.


> Logitech has become over-priced crap with built-in obsolescence and are
> off my shopping list.
>
Biggest problem with my logitech web cam is that its fine with Linux, 
but the BIOS spends two minutes on boot deciding it doesn't understand it.


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9415

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:05:20 +0100, Tim Hill wrote:

> Logitech, you would think, fall into this category but I have keyboards
> with unusable extra multi-meeja buttons and no longer have webcams which
> have become driverless and have been thrown out.
>
If you know what characters each key generates, you can usually do 
something useful with them.

If you have the 'codes' utility, that shows hex for each keystroke. 
Otherwise run this in the bash shell:

  read x; echo $x | od -tx1

It will wait for input, so hit the key you're interested in followed by 
RETURN and you'll see what the key generated followed by 0a (LF). Here's 
the result of hitting F1 followed by newline on this laptop:

$ read x; echo $x | od -tx1
^[OP
0000000 1b 4f 50 0a
0000004
$ 

> Logitech has become over-priced crap with built-in obsolescence and are
> off my shopping list.
>
I don't mind their prices but they did piss me off when they first bought 
and then killed off the Squeezebox range of audio products. Fortunately 
my Touch is well made, has support (though not from Logitech) and shows 
no signs of turning its toes up.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9417

In article <mqam2s$s47$1@dont-email.me>, Martin Gregorie
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:05:20 +0100, Tim Hill wrote:

> > Logitech, you would think, fall into this category but I have
> > keyboards with unusable extra multi-meeja buttons and no longer have
> > webcams which have become driverless and have been thrown out.
> >
> If you know what characters each key generates, you can usually do
> something useful with them.

[Snip]

Forgive my lack of tolerance but I would expect a keyboard which is said
to be compatible (Windows 7-64 in this case) should work in its entirety
and not be told "sorry, mate, you'll have to buy a new one if you want to
use those extra keys" by support @ logitech who can f*** right off for
ever! It's companies like this who make Windows look bad.

I am sure that in all sorts of OSes I can use all sorts of utilities to
make use of the extra keys but (a) there are not enough hours in the day
and (b) 'compatible' and plug'n'play mean what?

> > Logitech has become over-priced crap with built-in obsolescence and
> > are off my shopping list.
> >
> I don't mind their prices 

You can be paying five times as much as for a same-spec non-branded
webcam in a supermarket. Oh, and that DOES still work with win7-64 unlike
the Logitech which simply does not.

Another one of those times when more ££ does not mean better.

-- 
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9419

On 11/08/15 12:40, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article <mqam2s$s47$1@dont-email.me>, Martin Gregorie
> <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:05:20 +0100, Tim Hill wrote:

> ever! It's companies like this who make Windows look bad.
> 
Windows does a fine job of that all on its own...

> You can be paying five times as much as for a same-spec non-branded
> webcam in a supermarket. Oh, and that DOES still work with win7-64 unlike
> the Logitech which simply does not.
> 

You may choose the price you want to pay for the product you choose to
buy, for the application you want to put it to. It's called the free
market. Long may it survive!

> Another one of those times when more ££ does not mean better.
> 
For some values of better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9420

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:40:49 +0100, Tim Hill wrote:

> Forgive my lack of tolerance but I would expect a keyboard which is said
> to be compatible (Windows 7-64 in this case) should work in its entirety
>
Why? Windows have had a tendancy to support extra non-standard keys 
(starting with more than the original set of four Function keys 
popularised by DEC on their terminals). I don't see why any other OS 
should be expected to either support them or ape what Windows does if 
they are pressed.

OTOH, as I showed, its not hard to see what character sequence the key 
generates and then use xmodmap to map the key to do something useful.

> I am sure that in all sorts of OSes I can use all sorts of utilities to
> make use of the extra keys but (a) there are not enough hours in the day
> and (b) 'compatible' and plug'n'play mean what?
>
Some things are useful: I've remapped CapsLK so it only works in shift 
mode because, on this keyboard, I find I'm fat-fingering CapsLk too 
often. Researching and carrying out this remapping was time well spent 
for me, but ymmv.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9426

In article <mqcrkb$cjq$1@dont-email.me>, Martin Gregorie
<martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:40:49 +0100, Tim Hill wrote:

> > Forgive my lack of tolerance but I would expect a keyboard which is
> > said to be compatible (Windows 7-64 in this case) should work in its
> > entirety
> >
> Why? Windows have had a tendancy to support extra non-standard keys
> (starting with more than the original set of four Function keys
> popularised by DEC on their terminals). I don't see why any other OS
> should be expected to either support them or ape what Windows does if
> they are pressed.

I expect a statement by the vendor to the effect that a device is
compatible with X, that the device will work with X in its entirety.
There were no caveats, so I don't expect any diminished functionality.

[Snip]

-- 
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web