list advice

[Net Llama!]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Tony Alfrey wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Tony Alfrey wrote:
>>> I'm thinking about creating a webpage which would be a list of systems
>>> (hardware) and distros that together form a foolproof Linux system.  In
>>> other words, it would state, essentially,
>>>
>>> "My box consists of these parts.  I installed Distro X on this system
>>> and it works *out of the box* with no tweaking, additions or magic".
>>>
>>> Why would I do such a thing?  Because my premise is that if a Linux box
>>> were like a Mac, then more people would use them.  One component of a
>>> Mac is that they are absolutely free of hassle, and the other component
>>> is that the Mac GUI is gorgeous.  Linux apps still have a way to go, but
>>> there are clearly some combinations of hardware/distro that are
>>> bullet-proof.
>>
>> I don't buy that argument at all.  A Mac is a complete package, which
>> starts with brilliant marketing.  Even if everything just worked perfectly
>> out of the box, it wouldn't ever hope to compete with the marketing genius
>> of Apple.  Apple's strength really isn't the OS/firmware or the hardware
>> that they're choosing.
>
> Then, IMHO, it appears that you have not run a Mac recently.

Sorry if last week isn't recent enough for you.

>
>>  Its the marketing.  If it were just the hardware
>> then you could throw any OS on Apple HW and have the same great
>> experience.  We've already seen screenshots of a BSOD on an Intel Mac, and
>> a quick review of the Linux-PPC mailing list will quickly show you what a
>> complete nightmare it is to run Linux on a Mac.
>
> What are you talking about?  I'm not the slightest bit interested in
> Linux on a Mac.  I want to hear someone say
> "I installed Distro X, straight out of the box, on Intel PC hardware
> configuration Y, *without thinking*, and the end result was a flawless
> Linux installation in which everything worked."

That isn't going to happen based on soley on the effort that you 
described.

>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> So do any of you have thoughts about additional things I should add to
>>> said list of hardware components and comments on the structure and what
>>> might constitute "works out of the box"?  Should I include things like
>>> price and vendor?  How about the e-mail address of the contributor?
>>
>> This is a lofty goal, and ultimately, I don't think its going to pan out.
>> For starters, just because HW config #1 works great for Mr. Foo doesn't
>> really guaranetee that its going to work great for Mr. Bar.  Vastly
>> different usage patterns on the same HW can expose problems/bugs.
>
> Yes, this may be a problem, and that is why I need to give some thought
> about what "works out of the box" means.

With respect to Linux it is 100% meaningless unless there is vendor 
support.

>> The
>> unfortunate reality, from someone who's seen it first hand, is that unless
>> a company has the resources to actually fully QA a hardware platform, its
>> going to be a nightmare when set loose on consumers.  There are way too
>> many usage scenarios out there for anyone to guarentee anything based on
>> the feedback of one or even ten people.  And dont' even get me started on
>> how this would be pointless for Gentoo (or any other distro where all the
>> components can change all too easily)
>
> Then Gentoo does not meet my criteria for "works out of the box" for the
> average user.  Sounds like we need a definition for the "average user".
>  The average user might use a computer to
> 1) search the web and
>    a) download music and videos
>    b) visit a website
>    c) purchase goods and services
>    d) manage a bank account
> b) send e-mail
> c) use an Office suite
> d) play a video, DVD or CD
> e) produce/save simple audio or video content.
> f) play a video game
>
> It should be easy to determine if a distro/hardware configuration does
> these things.  For example, if you spend some time on the SuSE list, you
> can find out pretty quick which hardware *won't* play nicely with SuSE
> 10.2.  I want the opposite information.

No, it would not be easy to determine if a distro/HW config does these 
things, as these things cover an infinite number of configurations.  Some 
bugs are window manager specific.  SuSE ships something like 10 different 
window managers.  Fedora also provides the ability to install nearly that 
many via yum.  Other bugs only get triggered when playing a specific 
videogame, or a specific videogame with specific settings, or a specific 
videogame for a specific period of time.  Other bugs get triggered on 
speciifc websites.  Even your definition of the 'average user' is wide 
open to debate, as I'd say anything but the average user is 
producing/saving video content.

You really don't understand the magnitude & scope of this endeavor.  BTW, 
there already are several websites which catalogue hardware components 
which work in Linux.  I browsed this one and got a good laugh at how 
utterly useless the information is:
http://www.leenooks.com/

Different people are contradicting one-another on the same components. 
Its a complete circus.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman                        netllama at linux-sxs.org
LlamaLand				http://netllama.linux-sxs.org