Re: >>>> Linux won't even load onto my machine. Any advice on using Red Hat?

From: Tim (tim_at_mail.localhost.invalid)
Date: 02/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:07:09 +1030

"Tim" <Tim@mail.localhost> post:
 
>> Well, yes. That's a bit like me saying, "My computer is broken, what's
>> wrong with it?" You'd have to go into specifics for anyone to offer any
>> real advice.

"Anonymous" <noemail@noisp.com> posted:
 
> I truly do not mean to be rude, but it is not the user's responsibility to
> be specific about the problem when the software won't tell him what the
> problem is.

If someone wants a detailed answer about their system, they will have to
give details about their system; it's just common sense.

It's also courtesy to provide adequate information when wanting detailed
responses. You can't really expect everyone else to go around finding out
what chipsets their motherboard uses, etc., to find out what the problem
is, for *free*.

Go back and look at what was asked, and what information they provided
(very little). They got the answer: Yes, it could be their motherboard
that it doesn't like.

If I wanted detailed answers about one of my motherboards, I'd be
mentioning the chipsets used for the graphics (or the cards, if I could
name them), the sound card, the LAN NIC, etc. Not just the name of the
motherboard.

And there's no-one else around, other than the user, to provide more
information, or get more information, if the system hasn't done it for
them.

> If Linux has been around for so long and claims to be in direct competition
> with Microsoft Windows, then why won't it load onto common hardware
> configurations and where are the device drivers?

Hardware manufacturers produce drivers for their equipment. They generally
only produce them for one operating system (it's less work for them, and
they're often bound by incredibly restrictive limitations by Microsoft;
read up on their many anti-competitive practices). Sometimes an operating
system installation will include drivers for some common current hardware,
but it's often limited (various Windows CD-ROMs that I've looked have only
have small collections of drivers).

After that, you're left with enthusiasts to produce drivers for other cards
that the manufacturers don't support. Often they don't have any solid
technical information about the devices their designing drivers for, and
just have to make guesses about what it's up to.

Then don't forget that it's not just the peripherals that use drivers, the
entire motherboard is a conglomeration of chips that needs supporting.
There's no standard to that, though there are some common chipsets that can
be easily supported with generic configurations.

But supporting hardware isn't the operating systems' domain, computing is.
All hardware is a peripheral, from a pedantic point of view, and if
manufacturers keep producing a plethora of different and incompatible
products, and don't publish the designs, you can't expect someone else to
build support for it.

> As much as I hate Windows, I never had any problems loading it. Once I get
> the OS loaded, I can work with it to make it operate correctly. But if the
> software refuses to load onto common market hardware and won't tell me
> why---then that is the fault of the software (and the programmer), and it is
> not the user's responsibility to figure out why the OS failed to install.

You've just been lucky. I've been given the task to get a fully-working
cards working again on Windows after an format and reinstallation. They
didn't have / couldn't find the drivers disk, the board isn't identified,
and there's no drivers on the net for it (once I'd managed to identify it).
They've had to replace those cards, tough luck if it's something built into
the motherboard.

I've been stuck with that situation for MODEMs, sound cards, video cards,
LAN NICs, etc. It's not unique to Linux, and unfortunately the OS has
little to do with supporting every bit of hardware on the market. Nobody's
really come up with a good way of identifying cards, and getting the
associated software for the card onto the PC (plug and play is only a
slight way there, with unique IDs for cards, and a little bit of details in
there). Though the Amiga came the closest to that, most cards came with
firmware that was read (damn quickly) as the machine booted up. It did, in
mere seconds, every time that it booted up, what the PC takes minutes doing
each time you add new hardware or reconfigure what you already have. 

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Network Cards for W2003
    ... I know that it is hard to get drivers for NIC for Windows Server 2003. ... second my company upgraded to new hardware and the old machines had to go, ... but some of the cards were not that old and it seems that ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • Re: HDTV Connection
    ... just hardware. ... >| Have fun writing drivers without documentation, ... different cards, DVB-S, DVB-C and DVB-T, all using the same interface. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Network Cards for W2003
    ... I know that it is hard to get drivers for NIC for Windows Server 2003. ... second my company upgraded to new hardware and the old machines had to ... that even cards with "XP" drivers have no support either from the makers ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • Re: Asking for Video Card recommendation
    ... supporting you! ... and generally have kernel modules and XFree drivers for most ... functionality since it is a bitch to reverse-engineer video cards. ... philosophical reasons since some of their drivers have been open-sourced. ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: SP2 and AMD 64 bit processors
    ... drivers for certain video cards based upon the Canopus Hollywood hardware. ... >> instead of a PCI Tuner, Mesh seem to be using an USB TV Tuner. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)