A while back during our second Linux wireless summit we thought about
the possibility of letting vendors choose a sticker depending upon the
type of support they had for Linux:
http://wireless.kernel.org/CertificationIdeas
I propose we consolidate to just stick to one logo/sticker: You
properly support Linux.
What this means is your driver is in the kernel and if you have
firmware this would mean you also provide a friendly redistributable
license for the firmware. We could even put the name of the driver on
the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
Luis
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Nick Kossifidis <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2008/7/30 Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>:
>> A while back during our second Linux wireless summit we thought about
>> the possibility of letting vendors choose a sticker depending upon the
>> type of support they had for Linux:
>>
>> http://wireless.kernel.org/CertificationIdeas
>>
>> I propose we consolidate to just stick to one logo/sticker: You
>> properly support Linux.
>>
>> What this means is your driver is in the kernel and if you have
>> firmware this would mean you also provide a friendly redistributable
>> license for the firmware. We could even put the name of the driver on
>> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
>>
>> Luis
>
> We need a way to let users know what cards are supported in the linux
> kernel so -as John said in his presentation- that they can "vote with
> their money". I think we should start a wiki page ourselves assigning
> vendors and chipsets on the mentioned categories (best choice/ home
> user/ geek user).
That's the thing I'm saying forget about all the other categories and
just promote proper support. Otherwise your support is simply
handicapped for Linux.
Luis
2008/7/30 Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>:
> A while back during our second Linux wireless summit we thought about
> the possibility of letting vendors choose a sticker depending upon the
> type of support they had for Linux:
>
> http://wireless.kernel.org/CertificationIdeas
>
> I propose we consolidate to just stick to one logo/sticker: You
> properly support Linux.
>
> What this means is your driver is in the kernel and if you have
> firmware this would mean you also provide a friendly redistributable
> license for the firmware. We could even put the name of the driver on
> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
>
> Luis
We need a way to let users know what cards are supported in the linux
kernel so -as John said in his presentation- that they can "vote with
their money". I think we should start a wiki page ourselves assigning
vendors and chipsets on the mentioned categories (best choice/ home
user/ geek user). Not all vendors are interested in putting a sticker
on their boxes and some vendors may even use these stickers to mislead
users. That's why the whole process must include some kind of
certification from our side. I guess a centralized wiki page should
work, or if vendors want a more formal certification, we can have
developers of the corresponding driver, sign of a text declaring that
this card is "linux best choice" or something like that.
--
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
Hi.
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> I would rather do s/driver name/kernel version/ ... its easier for
>> users that way.
> True, do you mean since a specific kernel version?
Well, it would make sense that way. Unless it's a common practice for
Linux vendors to backport new drivers to earlier kernel versions for their
distributions - this might confuse users.
Bye, Mike
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:58 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> We could even put the name of the driver on
> >> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
> >
> > I would rather do s/driver name/kernel version/ ... its easier for
> > users that way.
>
> True, do you mean since a specific kernel version?
Down that road lies madness. Distros backport, you (in compat) backport,
kernel versions sound old very quickly and in a year, when linux is
called 2.9.06 you may not even want to sell a card that says "2.6.25" on
it because it sounds ancient.
Just leave it out, make it depend on the driver being merged into
Linus's tree, leave it up to the distros to actually ship the code.
I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
for, say, the next five years.
johannes
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:05 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
> > for, say, the next five years.
>
> Not sure if we should call it a contract unless its understood its an
> informal contract with the community.
There has to be some form of contract. The logo is copyrighted,
obviously, so there has to be a contract for you to be allowed to print
it on a box.
> Also I don't think we should be
> specific about a time frame for support -- its difficult enough to get
> the driver upstream, not that its not possible I just think it we
> should strive to at least get vendors to properly support Linux by
> submitting their drivers for upstream into Linus' tree. Support tends
> to come naturally after that :)
Because sometimes there are users who care. I think though that the
vendor should participate in future development by testing and fixing
their driver, for at least a period of time. Five years may be too much,
given the current chip livetime maybe one or two would make sense,
kernel releases are only roughly every three months.
Mind you, I wasn't talking about user support, but rather development
support, kinda like a SUPPORTED tag in the MAINTAINERS file.
johannes
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> A while back during our second Linux wireless summit we thought about
> the possibility of letting vendors choose a sticker depending upon the
> type of support they had for Linux:
>
> http://wireless.kernel.org/CertificationIdeas
>
> I propose we consolidate to just stick to one logo/sticker: You
> properly support Linux.
>
> What this means is your driver is in the kernel and if you have
> firmware this would mean you also provide a friendly redistributable
> license for the firmware. We could even put the name of the driver on
> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
I would rather do s/driver name/kernel version/ ... its easier for
users that way.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Johannes Berg
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:58 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> We could even put the name of the driver on
>> >> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > I would rather do s/driver name/kernel version/ ... its easier for
>> > users that way.
>>
>> True, do you mean since a specific kernel version?
>
> Down that road lies madness. Distros backport, you (in compat) backport,
> kernel versions sound old very quickly and in a year, when linux is
> called 2.9.06 you may not even want to sell a card that says "2.6.25" on
> it because it sounds ancient.
>
> Just leave it out, make it depend on the driver being merged into
> Linus's tree, leave it up to the distros to actually ship the code.
Make sense.
> I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
> for, say, the next five years.
Not sure if we should call it a contract unless its understood its an
informal contract with the community. Also I don't think we should be
specific about a time frame for support -- its difficult enough to get
the driver upstream, not that its not possible I just think it we
should strive to at least get vendors to properly support Linux by
submitting their drivers for upstream into Linus' tree. Support tends
to come naturally after that :)
http://linuxwireless.org/download/images/in-linux-green.png
Hm?
Luis
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Johannes Berg
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:05 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> > I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
>> > for, say, the next five years.
>>
>> Not sure if we should call it a contract unless its understood its an
>> informal contract with the community.
>
> There has to be some form of contract. The logo is copyrighted,
> obviously, so there has to be a contract for you to be allowed to print
> it on a box.
Heh, Whatever makes the copyright holders happy :) I suspect the
copyright holder are after the community's best interests anyway.
>> Also I don't think we should be
>> specific about a time frame for support -- its difficult enough to get
>> the driver upstream, not that its not possible I just think it we
>> should strive to at least get vendors to properly support Linux by
>> submitting their drivers for upstream into Linus' tree. Support tends
>> to come naturally after that :)
>
> Because sometimes there are users who care. I think though that the
> vendor should participate in future development by testing and fixing
> their driver, for at least a period of time. Five years may be too much,
> given the current chip livetime maybe one or two would make sense,
> kernel releases are only roughly every three months.
>
> Mind you, I wasn't talking about user support, but rather development
> support, kinda like a SUPPORTED tag in the MAINTAINERS file.
This seems reasonable.
Luis
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:57 PM, drago01 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A while back during our second Linux wireless summit we thought about
>> the possibility of letting vendors choose a sticker depending upon the
>> type of support they had for Linux:
>>
>> http://wireless.kernel.org/CertificationIdeas
>>
>> I propose we consolidate to just stick to one logo/sticker: You
>> properly support Linux.
>>
>> What this means is your driver is in the kernel and if you have
>> firmware this would mean you also provide a friendly redistributable
>> license for the firmware. We could even put the name of the driver on
>> the sticker/logo. Thoughts?
>
> I would rather do s/driver name/kernel version/ ... its easier for
> users that way.
True, do you mean since a specific kernel version?
Luis
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Pavel Roskin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:58 +0200, Michael Renzmann wrote:
>
>> How about a "Linux Wireless Foundation"? Some kind of official entity that
>> wireless vendors could talk to for Linux support, certification process
>> for getting the logo, and so on.
>
> My concern is that giving any certification would imply that we promise
> to keep the driver in the Linux sources. However, I don't think we can
> accept legal obligations on behalf of the developers.
>
> Linus can remove any driver at any time. We can hope that he will act
> rationally, but even then, the driver may be found to have fundamental
> problems after the certification. If Linus removes a driver for a
> certified device, will "Linux Wireless Foundation" fork the kernel?
I'm not really concerned about that, I think we're side tracking a bit
from the original intention behind this thing which is to help users
get stuff that works on Linux and is supported. For now it seems
reasonable to get the driver in Linus' tree and to have support for
it.
Luis
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:09:21 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:58 +0200, Michael Renzmann wrote:
>=20
>> How about a "Linux Wireless Foundation"? Some kind of official entit=
y
>> that wireless vendors could talk to for Linux support, certification
>> process for getting the logo, and so on.
>=20
> My concern is that giving any certification would imply that we promi=
se
> to keep the driver in the Linux sources. However, I don't think we c=
an
> accept legal obligations on behalf of the developers.
Pardon me for butting in, but any vendor reading this thread would like=
ly=20
read "support" to mean user support, rather than exclusively developer=20
support. An often overlooked-by-vendors advantage of fully GPLing a=20
driver is that they can legitimately disclaim any and all end-user=20
support in favor of the community. If they don't fully GPL, they still=20
bear a user-support burden, regardless of whether they meet that burden=
=2E
A formal WiFi Foundation specific to the Linux kernel would be quite=20
excessive. There already is The Linux Foundation, which could potential=
ly=20
take care of any formal vendor liaison with the informal=20
linuxwireless.org group.
If certification is done, the most manageable way to do it would be for=
=20
vendors not to be able to choose what they can say about compatibility,=
=20
but just plaster on a logo with whatever number of "Tux"es shaded the=20
linuxwireless.org assigns them. This, of course, has the disadvantage o=
f=20
requiring retailers to replace compatibility stickers on retail boxes i=
f=20
and when the compatibility status of a device changes, but that would, =
of=20
course, be at vendor discretion.
Come to think of it, the above could apply to *any* hardware=E2=80=A6
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 18:30 +0000, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Come to think of it, the above could apply to *any* hardware=85
That's a good point. There is nothing specifically wireless about it,
except the spectrum related restrictions. The discussion should be
happening elsewhere, I think.
--=20
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
Hi.
Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> users. That's why the whole process must include some kind of
> certification from our side. I guess a centralized wiki page should
> work, or if vendors want a more formal certification, we can have
> developers of the corresponding driver, sign of a text declaring that
> this card is "linux best choice" or something like that.
Which reminds me of a topic that has been some time ago:
How about a "Linux Wireless Foundation"? Some kind of official entity that
wireless vendors could talk to for Linux support, certification process
for getting the logo, and so on.
It could either be a simple contact for vendors (something they can talk
to in order to get in contact with the Linux Wireless folks), or could be
something like a round-table where the Linux wireless community and
interested vendors are represented to coordinate with each other.
A testbed run by this entity also comes to my mind. It could be used for
compatibility tests in terms of the certification process, and to support
driver developers by granting access to the testbed for development
purposes.
Bye, Mike
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 10:58 +0200, Michael Renzmann wrote:
> How about a "Linux Wireless Foundation"? Some kind of official entity that
> wireless vendors could talk to for Linux support, certification process
> for getting the logo, and so on.
My concern is that giving any certification would imply that we promise
to keep the driver in the Linux sources. However, I don't think we can
accept legal obligations on behalf of the developers.
Linus can remove any driver at any time. We can hope that he will act
rationally, but even then, the driver may be found to have fundamental
problems after the certification. If Linus removes a driver for a
certified device, will "Linux Wireless Foundation" fork the kernel?
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Johannes Berg
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:05 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
>>>> > for, say, the next five years.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if we should call it a contract unless its understood its an
>>>> informal contract with the community.
>>>
>>> There has to be some form of contract. The logo is copyrighted,
>>> obviously, so there has to be a contract for you to be allowed to print
>>> it on a box.
>>
>> Heh, Whatever makes the copyright holders happy :) I suspect the
>> copyright holder are after the community's best interests anyway.
>>
>>>> Also I don't think we should be
>>>> specific about a time frame for support -- its difficult enough to get
>>>> the driver upstream, not that its not possible I just think it we
>>>> should strive to at least get vendors to properly support Linux by
>>>> submitting their drivers for upstream into Linus' tree. Support tends
>>>> to come naturally after that :)
>>>
>>> Because sometimes there are users who care. I think though that the
>>> vendor should participate in future development by testing and fixing
>>> their driver, for at least a period of time. Five years may be too much,
>>> given the current chip livetime maybe one or two would make sense,
>>> kernel releases are only roughly every three months.
>>>
>>> Mind you, I wasn't talking about user support, but rather development
>>> support, kinda like a SUPPORTED tag in the MAINTAINERS file.
>>
>> This seems reasonable.
>
> If we can formalize on this it would be great.
Oh and the reason is we want to help users track devices supported by
us on the kernel (2.6.27, which was released today).
Luis
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Johannes Berg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 10:05 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> > I would also add to the contract a requirement to offer Linux support
>>> > for, say, the next five years.
>>>
>>> Not sure if we should call it a contract unless its understood its an
>>> informal contract with the community.
>>
>> There has to be some form of contract. The logo is copyrighted,
>> obviously, so there has to be a contract for you to be allowed to print
>> it on a box.
>
> Heh, Whatever makes the copyright holders happy :) I suspect the
> copyright holder are after the community's best interests anyway.
>
>>> Also I don't think we should be
>>> specific about a time frame for support -- its difficult enough to get
>>> the driver upstream, not that its not possible I just think it we
>>> should strive to at least get vendors to properly support Linux by
>>> submitting their drivers for upstream into Linus' tree. Support tends
>>> to come naturally after that :)
>>
>> Because sometimes there are users who care. I think though that the
>> vendor should participate in future development by testing and fixing
>> their driver, for at least a period of time. Five years may be too much,
>> given the current chip livetime maybe one or two would make sense,
>> kernel releases are only roughly every three months.
>>
>> Mind you, I wasn't talking about user support, but rather development
>> support, kinda like a SUPPORTED tag in the MAINTAINERS file.
>
> This seems reasonable.
If we can formalize on this it would be great.
Luis
