[wellylug] Hardware opinions
Jonathan Harker
jharker at massey.ac.nz
Fri Aug 29 09:33:39 NZST 2003
Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 00:29, Jeremy Z Butler wrote:
>>Through fairly good observation of LUG mailing lists over the months/years, I
>>realise there are often issues with device compatibility and general ease of
>>installation and setup with Linux. So I thought I'd do a broadsweep to gauge LUG
>>opinion and accumulated wisedom. I would be grateful if anybody could give some
>>general starting points on what brands/specs to look for and what to avoid.
>>
>>Are all makers similar? (e.g. my Toshiba laptop has been pretty good. Are
>>Toshibas generally good or have I had good luck?)
>>
>>Any particular features/specs/manufacturers I should hold at barge pole length.
>
> Watch out when selecting a modem. Many of them now are "Winmodems"
> which means they are the shell of a modem without the brains. The CPU
> plus software provides some of the modem functionality. Unfortunately,
> the software provided usually only runs on Window$...
>
> The Lucent winmodem chipset is well supported generally (www.heby.de),
> but I've never gotten fax working with a Lucent winmodem, although it
> hasn't been top priority and I haven't given up yet.
The best and easiest bet is to get an external 56K modem (see if you can
winkle a second-hand one from someone who has just gone to ADSL or cable) that
plugs into the serial port. This is GUARANTEED to work without a hitch.
External modems have to be proper hardware modems in order to work, which is
why they make more reliable connections (especially where I live, out in the
sticks) and explains why they're a bit more expensive.
> Parallel port scanners are problematic. Some are supported, some are
> not (manufacturers won't release specs). Scanners in general can be an
> issue - a project is just catching up now with GNU/Linux drivers for my
> Canon LiDE 20 USB scanner. Prospects look good, though. My Memorex
> M48U USB scanner works well enough (for a cheap scanner).
For scanners and printers (and webcams, digital cameras etc. as well), avoid
Canon gear for use with Linux. Epson and HP gear is generally fine. Why?
Canon for some reason haven't yet seen the light. They refuse to release
hardware specs, and also refuse to write even closed-source support for Linux.
Epson (and HP more recently) however are being fully cooperative about
releasing their hardware specs to the open source community. Generally if it's
Epson or HP, support will be imminent if not already available on release.
> I've no personal experience but I've read ATI video card support can be
> a problem, but nVidia is good. You might investigate rather than rely
> on this hearsay, though.
This is no longer true. ATI in fact cooperate with the open source community
by releasing specs. nVidia refuse to, and continue to develop closed-source
drivers instead. So actually, ATI is a better choice for Linux, since the
drivers are potentially better written and supported, and also for ideological
reasons. This is why XFree86 comes with full 3D support for ATI Radeon but not
for nVidia cards.
<bait>
Besides, ATI Radeons are much cooler cards! :-)
</bait>
> Digital cameras may be an issue. My FujiFinepix 1300 is simply a USB
> hard drive device (it shows as a SCSI device). Not all use that
> approach, so check first.
Again, I'd avoid Canon until they start seeing what they're missing out on.
Generally, some useful sites for picking hardware are:
www.linuxhardware.org
www.linux1394.org
www.linux-usb.org
www.linuxjournal.com
More information about the wellylug
mailing list