Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070829 09:43]: > >> I think there should be some limits to what hardware we try to support. >> I don't think we should be trying to support socket 7 hardware (which >> iirc were all the chipsets you named), because for the most part those >> PCs have either outlived their usefulness, or have done their job for so >> many years now nobody wants to mess with it. >> > > If volunteers want to work on vintage hardware, lets not keep them from doing > so. > > I personally think we need to support more newer hardware in shorter > time to gain the momentum so LinuxBIOS can become the default firmware > on new mainboards that you buy. We can make this goal, and it has been > done in some cases. It's just a long way, as it was for Linux, too. > > Supporting old hardware of course has an academical value ;) >
I'd argue that the academic value is minimal without the hardware to actually test it on. It's not actually all that hard to write a port that compiles and looks valid. It's much harder to make one that actually works. >>> hardware itself but the linuxbios framework. i don't want to spend hours >>> of code surfing just to understand how and where certain code sniplets >>> are called or how certain config files need to be written. a >>> documentation to the code is close to non-existant. while this might not >>> be a problem to long-term developers it drives new ones away. >>> >> Agreed, I've been frustrated with this as well, even today. v3 should >> have better documentation, but we still need to bring up to par the >> documentation on some of the tools. >> > > Again,... Since you still remember _what_ you have been missing and how > it works now, please try to provide the missing pieces before you get > code blind. > > Stefan > I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean? -Corey -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
