Philips webcam

[Dotan Cohen]

On 07/01/2008, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > Linus is right. He has a very good, valid reason for keeping these
> > drivers out of the kernel. The Linux kernel would be a mess if
> > everything got it. However, the users are right too. They (we) want
> > things to work.
>
> Yes - but then they have to buy hardware that's certified to work.  In your
> case, I realize you did - but the manufacturer essentially lied.

No, Philips did not lie so much as I know. I don't see a penguin
anywhere on the package. I did a quick google before the purchase, saw
that it is _possible_ to get the cam working. I then made a bad
decision as I did not realize the effort involved, and the lack of
picture quality once it does work.

> Windows users don't buy hardware that won't run their OS.  Apple users
> don't.  Why are Linux users always expecting uncertified hardware to work?

Well, _nothing_ is certified for Linux currently. In fact, I'm not
aware of any certification body. However, I assume that you are aware
of the Open Driver Initiative. Furthermore, I had been informed that a
certain dev had contacted Philips regarding driver development, and
Philips told him "no, thank you".

> I realize that it's only a week since I argued that Linux is at fault in the
> issue of the hard drive head-retraction problem, and not the manufacturer,
> but in this case the problem really is the manufacturer - the compression
> software has to come out of the kernel driver into user space, because you
> just can't do that in a kernel.

My opinion on the matter I will make public shortly, as I had just
received a response to the letter that I wrote to Philips and I need
to read it first. Stay tuned.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?