Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 17:55:07 -0700 From: Darryl Okahata <darrylo@hpnmhjw.sr.hp.com> To: "Francisco Reyes" <reyes01@ibm.net> Cc: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua>, "FreeBSD doc Mailing list" <doc@freebsd.org>, "John Fieber" <jfieber@indiana.edu> Subject: Re: Hardware compatibility list. Second round. Message-ID: <199606020055.AA262786907@hpnmhjw.sr.hp.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Jun 1996 20:04:25 EDT." <199606020009.AAA25556@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'd say that most people reading the hardware list will be doing so
> >to see if their *existing* hardware will work, with the people building
> >a new PC being next.
>
> I think you touched in three things with that comment. I believe that people
> will find it
> usefull to have hardware that works, hardware that doesnt' work, and what con
> figurations
> are used for what. For exising users not finding their hardware in the troubl
> e list is not
> guarantee that it work. If they find in the list of compatible hardware then
> they may
> at least give it a try.
You misunderstand me. I am *NOT* saying that we should *NOT* have
a list of compatible hardware. We need something that contains a list
of compatible hardware *AND* problem hardware configurations. We need
both. We need a list of compatible hardware, and we also need a list of
problem hardware (which is stamped by date and OS rev).
It's nice to know what hardware works, but it's a GODSEND to know
what hardware configurations have problems or do not work. You can
prevent lots of people from wasting lots of time by doing that (and, as
a nice side-effect, you might also lower the traffic in
FreeBSD-questions ;-).
> >It's not very useful as an "accomplishments list"
> >("See? BinkyCo's new 1000 Gigaflurb system runs FreeBSD and supports a
> >million users!"); such a list, while useful, is best put elsewhere.
>
> As to what a configuration is used for and the number of users it will certai
> nly be usefull.
> Some people that may try FreeBSD it do it solely because they have heard some
> frriend
> became and ISP and is supporting X number of users with FreeBSD. Another case
> is
> that someone wants to know if their current hardware will be enough to suppor
> t 100
No, this belongs in an "accomplishments" or (dare I say it ;-) an
"advocacy" list, because:
* If you really want to promote FreeBSD, such a list needs constant
updating (to keep track of the latest and greatest hardware and
accomplishments).
* It needs more hype. It would be real BORING if you buried it inside
an hardware compatibility list (which could still have an hyperlink to
such an advocacy list).
* It provides fodder for the "My OS is bigger than your OS" groupies.
It's too political. The hardware compatibility list should be
practical.
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: darrylo@sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606020055.AA262786907>