If Dell only sold components that worked with Linux...

I think we would find that if Dell and other OEM's decided to only include hardware that works properly in Linux (and Windows, of course) -- preferably with free (as in liberty) drivers -- it would not be long before ALL hardware included full support for Linux. AND, by preferring F/OSS drivers, it would not be long before proprietary protocols went the way of the dinosaurs.

No component Dell sells with its machines that have no Linux drivers available is a "small thing." Different users will have different preferences. But in order for Dell to be credible when they speak of wanting to allow us to use our Dell equipment as we choose, then they need to become a default Linux certifier of sorts. At bare minimum, they need to indicate in bold icons which pieces and parts do not work with Linux. That would be the minimum "truth in advertising" standard. And it would take Dell's power in the marketplace to get cheaper OEM designers and manufacturers to split away from Microsoft and proprietary standards and offer Linux drivers for everything they sell. As it is, a small third party designer can target the Windows platforms, offer Dell a bargain basement price, and still help perpetuate the Windows lockdown of the desktop. Such companies sometimes do not share the FOSS vision, and would like to become petite Bill Gates and keep drivers proprietary. And we deserve a little notice on the order menu to be able to buy equipment that will work even if we don't run a Microsoft OS. Even Dell does the same thing with proprietary bootloaders which are a minor obstacle to installing an "OS of choice" on their product. Once would hope that the bootloader issue will soon go away on new Dell products.

Message Edited by DarthMarley on 05-22-2007 12:38 PM

Dell is not the only offender here.

Intel is the BIG culprit here!!! Centrino technology, i.e. chipset, processor & wireless card isn't LINUX compatible. Its a kludge in LINUX and usually doesn't work.
Here with LINUX we have the following software; wpa_supplicant, ndiswrapper, ipw2200 firmware and ipw2200 driver and ieee80211 programs.

BUT it is elegant in Windows XP(Intel Pro/Set Wireless software package), easy setup for WPA2 AES+TKIP . No extra stuff neeeded. Besides Microsoft provides its own wireless connection software too.

Dell's choice of Centrino was its downfall in my LINUX eyes. The free Intel advertising money $ is the reason DELL went Centrino. There are working LINUX wireless cards besides the Intel hardware. They could have been used and no big deal as we have today.

I haven't gotten my 9200 to run Wireless yet. DMESG yields that modules aren't found. Card not recognized, etc. INTEL doesn't support its 2200BG card! Its left to SOURCEFORGE instead!
Frustrated and angry.

Hello montyw47.

I can't understand your points at all. Intel is currently the only leading hardware manyfacturer that has official (open) Linux-support for all their hardware.
Wireless is especially one of the areas where you want Intel hardware. Sure it's annoying that they don't publish hardware specifications to the public. And it's really annoying that they don't allow they (binary) firmware to be redistributed by anyone but their sourceforge site (which is the main issue for getting it working "out of the box"). But on the other hand, if you really want wireless hardware that "just works", Intel is a really good option.
Sure there are drivers for other hardware that are more open and permits redistribution of firmware, but on the other hand there are lots of reports of stability issues and problems with newer reviosions of the hardware. Often the developer only has a single old revision of the hardware and can't test all versions of the hardware, and even if he could he wouldn't have the time to do it.

If you have bad experience, then I'm sorry.... but this doesn't mean that Intel hardware is a bad choice. Many others would definitely have been a much worse choice. Look at Marvell wireless hardware for example. No docs, no drivers, nothing. Atheros - No docs, a closed source effort and legal threats to anyone even thinking about implementing a free replacement. Broadcom - No docs, definitely not allowed to redistribute firmware (not even an official download place, you need to cut it out of the windows drivers yourself), a *fantastic* reverse-engineering effort, but the result is often still not good enough for the average end-user (which often has new revisions of the hardware, which hasn't been reverse engineered yet).

//fatal

I chose Intel components for my Dell laptop specifically because they ARE supported under Linux. I was not disappointed. Installing Kubuntu 7.04 resulted in a fully working system (although for inexplicable reasons, I had to manually install 915resolution to get support for my wide screen monitor, but that was a simple and well documented task.) My intel wireless worked right out of the box with NO tweaking at all... I connected to my WPA2 network easily. Yes. Dell is not the only offender. Lexmark, ATI, Broadcom... those would have been much better examples than the one you chose.

For those who come later to the Linux party, like me, or who want to dual boot, it isn't a matter of "pay and pray" but a matter of finding that components sold by what was previously thought to be a reputable company are not of particular ly high quality (meaning no Linux support). Yes, having Linux open source drivers is a measure of quality. I expect every component of every Dell computer to "just work" with Linux as well as Win. They don't, and so I have a negative perception of Dell as a consequence. Rather than the onus being put on the buyer to meticulously check a list of "Linux Compatible Hardware" I would think all enthusiasts would understand the ripple effect that Dell demanding such support would advance the Linux revolution.

In January, the Linux kernel developers offered hardware manufacturers a straightforward proposition: Free driver development. All a vendor has to do is supply specifications to its products, and the community will do the work. . The benefits for manufacturers are compelling. Not only do they not need to spend a dime on actual driver development, but any drivers produced will eventually be distributed with the stock Linux kernel and supported by the community. . A little hardware support under Linux goes a long way. Anyone who's impressed with Vista's "Aero Glass" user interface should check out the amazing eye candy that's possible with Beryl at youtube, a new UI layer under development (beta) for Linux. . And Beryl's hardware requirements don't even approach what Vista demands. Why wouldn't vendors want to support an OS that gives users the most bang for their hardware buck? . Gee I don't know, but I suspect that microsoft is somehow someway involved.