At Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:25:01 -0400, Daniel B. wrote: > > Roberto Sanchez wrote: > > > > alex wrote: > > ... > > > > > Is there something that prevents manufacturers from clearly > > > stating that a product is fully suitable for Linux? It's > > > done for MS Windows. Is this some kind of legal or > > > technical issue, or is it some kind of 'business > > > arrangement'? > > > > > Fear of losing their sweet pricing deals from M$. > > It probably isn't fair to leave out the fact that there are > more versions of Linux than of Windows. If something is > compatible with Linux, there is still the question of _which_ > versions (which kernel version, which distribution, which > version of a given distribution).
The only question should be the kernel version. The NDA-conscious manufacturer could always code for the latest stable versions of the kernel.org kernel (the plain, unpatched, official Linus Torvalds vanilla version of Linux). That would mean just coding for, say, kernel 2.2.25 or 2.4.22. It would be the distros' jobs to ensure that their kernels and userland tools are compatible with those releases. This is what a Linux-friendly (even if in binary form only) manufacturer like nVidia is doing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
