Re: [ILUG] re:Cheapest Linux-friendly components by mail-order

[Gavin McCullagh]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Dave Neary wrote:

> There's also another part, that it should be merchantable, and capable
> of normal use. For example, if you buy a hair-dryer and it doesn't dry
> your hair, and you take it back and the guy says "That's how it's
> supposed to work - this one's only for short hair", then even though the
> product is not faulty per se, you're still entitled to a refund because
> it's not capable of normal use.

I couldn't agree more, but on that basis winmodems builders would have to
start (at least) writing drivers for linux.  I think a linux
installed computer should be considered just as normal as a windows one,
however, every time you ask ISPs, GW2K, websites who don't check if there
sites work with linux browsers and most hardware manufacturers to name
but a few they say no they don't support or even recognize linux.

Perhaps on that basis one could propose a sort of table to be placed on
the packaging of all PC Software/Hardware saying exactly what it is an
isn't compatible with on the box.  Like the nutritional information on
corn flakes boxes.  This modem is intended for use on Mac OS 9.0 & Win32
and is not supported for linux, solaris, Digital Unix.  

If hardware manufacturers had to advertise on the box that they didn't
support linux, perhaps they'd be more likely to start considering writing
drivers.  At least if a digital camera worked with gphoto the company
could say that.

> One could argue that in buiying a digital camera or a modem, that normal
> use is for it to work with a computer. If it's not capable of that under
> certain conditions, then you have an argument (albeit a poor one),
> regardless of whether it says it on the box or not.

A poor one, I think.  Shame.  I'd really like to get onto Dell about that
s#&*e winmodem they gave me, not to mention the DVD drive and decoder and 
that crappy Aureal Vortex sound card.

Gavin