Re: Honest does not pay here ...

[Matthias Andree]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

> Matthias Andree <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers 
> >> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it 
> >> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
> 
> >> I for one think thats a real shame
> 
> >Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
> >support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
> >for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
> >try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
> 
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-35/0559.html
> 
> Dated 5. September 2001.

Close, but I hadn't meant signing in mind, but something like "we write
we support Linux" when they only have 2.0 binary-only modules. I want
the term "Linux compatible" to be certified, not soft- or hardware per
se. Signing drivers is difficult, because of the said problems, and
because a faithful and trustworthy vendor then has to have his stuff
re-certified over and over.

I you happened to read the German c't magazine 1/2003 about RAID
hardware and Linux, or the 2/2003 edition about TV cards, then look at
the pertinent sections to know what I mean.

The other thing (Linus labs) is already there: module tainting...