What modems work with Ubuntu?

[Peter Garrett]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:00:32 +0200
"Billy Verreynne \(JW\)" <VerreyB at telkom.co.za> wrote:

<snip>
> > You're confusing 'being at fault' with being a problem. If a user
> cannot connect to the internet, you bet
> > that's a problem. 

I happen to see Chanchao's point here, and I agree with it.
> 
> I see that as the user's fault. Ignorance.

This is a prettty amazing leap you are making , Billy. The vast majority
of people in *many* countries are instaling Ubuntu on hardware they got
either as a gift, or second or third hand. See below.
> 
> Winmodem boxes and manuals -clearly- state operating systems that they
> support. And Linux is _*not*_ listed.

And, of course, the chipset and model is printed on the outside of the
ready-made box in big letters. And, of course, the ready-made machine comes
with a manual for the modem, with all specs included... Which world are you
living in? Most people couldn't even tell you how much RAM they have -
does this make them ignorant?

The idea, I thought, was to make a Linux that "just works" - that means
trying to make it work for people who, frankly, would not know what a
modem even *is*, let alone be informed enough to be able to check what
variety of half-baked brain-dead software modem their box contains.

We all know it would be nice if manufacturers of "winmodems" supplied
drivers, or at least specs that made it easier for the community to develop
drivers. That doesn't mean we should ignore people who have trouble with
their "modems" in Linux/Ubuntu, or dismiss them as ignorant consumers who
don't know how to make a purchase.

In case you haven't noticed, Ubuntu is important in many countries where
"consumerism" pretty much doesn't exist, or exists only for the privileged
few.
> 
> Users must take responsibility for -their- purchasing decisions. 

Even users who can't afford to walk into a shop and buy a computer? Even
people whose disposable income is too low to have the luxury of choice?
Please broaden your view a bit.

> After
> all, you cannot claim ignorance and car manufacturer being at fault
> when putting petrol in a diesel vehicle. 

Sorry, that's a really lousy analogy...

> So when running Linux, it is
> the users' responsibility to ensure that they purchase compatible
> hardware for their o/s at home.

See above, please...
> 
> If in doubt, ask the sales person. 

Which sales person would that be, when the machine is a hand-me-down that
someone was lucky enough to get when a computer would cost them a
significant proportion of their annual income?

> If that person cannot
> satisfactorily answer, try it at home and if it does not work, return
> it for a refund.

Again , see above. "Oh, thanks for giving me a computer, but please take
it back, and give me one that has all hardware supported by Linux".

I agree that the manufacturers are at fault for closing their code, or
refusing to release specs. I agree that in an ideal world, where everyone
was free to buy and choose what they needed, there might be some validity
in accusing them of ignorance.

"Winmodems" have been a problem for years. It isn't the fault of open
source developers that they are still a problem, but it sure as heck isn't
the users fault either.

Here endeth the annoyed reaction.

Peter