Re: Debian hardware certification

[Philip Hands]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:17:09 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli  wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:48:17PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > > That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
> > > > list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
> > > > like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.
> > > 
> > > In that case, are you sure that bugs.debian.org isn't what you are
> > > looking for?
> > 
> > That seems like a good idea -- how about if we encouraged willing hardware
> > manufacturers to maintain a pseudo package type thing, perhaps per
> > device, although it would be good to have some sort of wild-card so that
> > one could report a bug against hw-supermicro-mb-X8STi-F, and they could
> > resign it to hw-supermicro-nic-e1000 or some such, without us needing
> > to do more than let them tell us the contact email for their BTS or the
> > person in charge of fixing that device, say.
> 
> It seems to be a bit unrealistic to assume that we're going to convince
> most hardware manufacturers out there to have maintainers of their own
> pseudo package in the Debian BTS. I'd say that it's a nice possibility
> to offer, but we should not base hardware support verifications only to
> that. At best, we should have both a community driven process like those
> mentioned earlier on in this thread and the possibility for hardware
> people to jump in and provide direct support. But I don't expect the
> latter part to be any significant share of the whole thingie.

Certainly, I wasn't expecting a significant percentage of the world's
manufacturers to do this, but when someone comes to the lists saying
that they have a contact with a particular manufacturer that wants to
know how they can mention that they support Debian properly, this
approach would allow us to tell them the thing that they have to do to
make that so, and it would then provide our users with a channel to
communicate problems to the manufacturer.

On the other hand, if we're talking about exactly one manufacturer ever
taking advantage of this, then it's bound to end up just being more
clutter, and the forwarded email will probably be bouncing in six
months, in which case they should be pointed at one or more of the other
sites already mentioned, as you say.

If it were possible to do the catch-all dummy package thing for the
general case of manufacturers who don't know we exist, just to track the
problems people have with their hardware, then that might allow a useful
resource to be assembled by our users -- but I don't think it's worth it
if it would take significant effort to achieve (unless we get to use the
catch-all feature for other things as well -- and of course only if
someone fancies implementing it).

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND


pgpeIYRDw3h9s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:48:17PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
> > > list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
> > > like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.
> > 
> > In that case, are you sure that bugs.debian.org isn't what you are
> > looking for?
> 
> That seems like a good idea -- how about if we encouraged willing hardware
> manufacturers to maintain a pseudo package type thing, perhaps per
> device, although it would be good to have some sort of wild-card so that
> one could report a bug against hw-supermicro-mb-X8STi-F, and they could
> resign it to hw-supermicro-nic-e1000 or some such, without us needing
> to do more than let them tell us the contact email for their BTS or the
> person in charge of fixing that device, say.

It seems to be a bit unrealistic to assume that we're going to convince
most hardware manufacturers out there to have maintainers of their own
pseudo package in the Debian BTS. I'd say that it's a nice possibility
to offer, but we should not base hardware support verifications only to
that. At best, we should have both a community driven process like those
mentioned earlier on in this thread and the possibility for hardware
people to jump in and provide direct support. But I don't expect the
latter part to be any significant share of the whole thingie.

Just my 0.02 EUR,
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Paul Wise]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Philip Hands wrote:

> That seems like a good idea -- how about if we encouraged willing hardware
> manufacturers to maintain a pseudo package type thing, perhaps per
> device, although it would be good to have some sort of wild-card so that
> one could report a bug against hw-supermicro-mb-X8STi-F, and they could
> resign it to hw-supermicro-nic-e1000 or some such, without us needing
> to do more than let them tell us the contact email for their BTS or the
> person in charge of fixing that device, say.

I was thinking just file it against existing packages, like
linux/udev/firmware-nonfree/xorg-*. Usertags could be used to
categorise and group hardware related bugs across different packages

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caktje6evk23xogbpcawl-fqpwyjhzze_u5qrorwyom+e1wy...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Philip Hands]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:23:56 +0800, Paul Wise  wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Goirand  wrote:
> 
> > That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
> > list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
> > like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.
> 
> In that case, are you sure that bugs.debian.org isn't what you are
> looking for?

That seems like a good idea -- how about if we encouraged willing hardware
manufacturers to maintain a pseudo package type thing, perhaps per
device, although it would be good to have some sort of wild-card so that
one could report a bug against hw-supermicro-mb-X8STi-F, and they could
resign it to hw-supermicro-nic-e1000 or some such, without us needing
to do more than let them tell us the contact email for their BTS or the
person in charge of fixing that device, say.

We'd just need to reserve the 'hw-' (or whatever) bit of the namespace,
and then allow people to apply for names under that, probably based on
whether they own the matching domain, but I've no idea how we might
handle disputes if a company splits, say).  Then there would need to be
a way of updating the maintainer address(es) -- probably best if a DD/DM
takes responsibility for being our contact with that company, and
handles that in the normal manner.  We could always set up a
manufacturer-liason team for that, if appropriate.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND


pgpmk7n6LBTSD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian Hardware Compatibility List (Debian hardware certification)

[Paul Wise]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> To advance on this, we need someone leading the initiative and, as step
> 0, add all the missing wrapping (live cd, submission interface, etc.).
> Collaborative test suite and the like can be added later, once the
> submission interface is ready.
>
> I cannot volunteer to do that myself, but I'll be glad to support the
> communication around the initiative, because I believe it'd be very
> valuable.

Another way would be to enhance the distro-neutral smolt project:

http://smolts.org/
https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/

Then the only thing that needs adding is the user feedback stuff.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6EZCWZG5K5zqNBYnocXuaHU4AiWrw9PTNyUsL9Jeb=g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian Hardware Compatibility List (Debian hardware certification)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:12:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:33:17AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > > We talked about the possibility to have their hardware being
> > > > certified as compatible with Debian, and have them advertize about
> > > > it on their website product pages.
> 
> It may have been mentiond here or elsewhere ...
> 
> K. Muto's 
>  "Debian GNU/Linux device driver check & report"
> is one interesting activity to gather compatible hardware database.
> 
>   http://kmuto.jp/debian/hcl/
> 
> This provides extensive list of actual hardware devece supported by
> Debian GNU/Linux.  It relys on "lspci -n" and recent Debian kernel
> 2.6.39-1-686-pae.

I was not personally aware of this, thanks for the pointer.  It looks
like a valuable service, but unless we advertise it a bit more I doubt
it'll be able to reach out to (potential) Debian users.

> I guess, if we have simple POSIX shell script wrapper on 
>  * lspci -n (To get hardware list)
>  * uname -r (To get running kernel version)
> with simple dialog based rating for asking hardware functionality, we
> may be able to get fairly good data.

Agreed.

To advance on this, we need someone leading the initiative and, as step
0, add all the missing wrapping (live cd, submission interface, etc.).
Collaborative test suite and the like can be added later, once the
submission interface is ready.

I cannot volunteer to do that myself, but I'll be glad to support the
communication around the initiative, because I believe it'd be very
valuable.

Any taker?
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Debian Hardware Compatibility List (Debian hardware certification)

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:33:17AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > We talked about the possibility to have their hardware being
> > > certified as compatible with Debian, and have them advertize about
> > > it on their website product pages.

It may have been mentiond here or elsewhere ...

K. Muto's 
 "Debian GNU/Linux device driver check & report"
is one interesting activity to gather compatible hardware database.

  http://kmuto.jp/debian/hcl/

This provides extensive list of actual hardware devece supported by
Debian GNU/Linux.  It relys on "lspci -n" and recent Debian kernel
2.6.39-1-686-pae.

Muto-san is DD too and his code for the system is in public.

> > > The plan would be to test the hardware (probably with a live CD
> > > using a KVM over IP). If it doesn't work, see what driver isn't
> > > present, and if the backported kernel has the fix. If it does,
> > > in some cases, we could add a patch in a Debian point release, if
> > > it's not too intrusive.
> 
> I've been pointed today to some related work which might be interesting
> for you, done in the Ubuntu camp: the Ubuntu Friendly validation program
> . I've only skimmed through it,
> but the idea seems to be:
> 
> - have a collaboratively developed test suite

Muto-san's activity lacks this part.

> - have community members collect test suite results in a shared place

Muto-san's activity at least gets list of recognized devices.

I guess, if we have simple POSIX shell script wrapper on 
 * lspci -n (To get hardware list)
 * uname -r (To get running kernel version)
with simple dialog based rating for asking hardware functionality, we
may be able to get fairly good data.

> It seems something that would be very compatible with the way we do
> things in Debian. If, on top of that, some sort of official "labeling"
> is needed, we can think about that as well (but it would be pointless to
> do that before the community part is in place).
> 
> If you are still interested in this topic, it might be worth to pursue
> this approach. It might even be possible to share test suite code with
> the Ubuntu folks, depending on how much the tests are tied to the deltas
> between Debian and Ubuntu (something I haven't investigated).

These require a bit more than booting and checking... but it may be
interesing too.

Osamu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110610131235.ga26...@debian.org

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > We talked about the possibility to have their hardware being
> > certified as compatible with Debian, and have them advertize about
> > it on their website product pages.
> >
> > The plan would be to test the hardware (probably with a live CD
> > using a KVM over IP). If it doesn't work, see what driver isn't
> > present, and if the backported kernel has the fix. If it does,
> > in some cases, we could add a patch in a Debian point release, if
> > it's not too intrusive.

I've been pointed today to some related work which might be interesting
for you, done in the Ubuntu camp: the Ubuntu Friendly validation program
. I've only skimmed through it,
but the idea seems to be:

- have a collaboratively developed test suite
- have community members collect test suite results in a shared place

It seems something that would be very compatible with the way we do
things in Debian. If, on top of that, some sort of official "labeling"
is needed, we can think about that as well (but it would be pointless to
do that before the community part is in place).

If you are still interested in this topic, it might be worth to pursue
this approach. It might even be possible to share test suite code with
the Ubuntu folks, depending on how much the tests are tied to the deltas
between Debian and Ubuntu (something I haven't investigated).

JFYI,
Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

Hi Ben!

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Debian main uses the same standard as h-node.
> 
> Yes.  Debian users don't.

Indeed.  At least not in the datacenter, where > 90% of the GOOD servers
(i.e. the ones whose firmware is actually tested to interoperate with Linux,
firmware updates can be done within Linux without downtime, BIOS has ACPI
3.0 support and x2apic support, <170 ms SMI latencies, full IOMMU support,
and other stuff Windows server doesn't even pay attention to) require
non-free firmware.

In fact, 100% of the servers we bought at work in the last three years
require non-free firmware of some sort at runtime.  These are all HP, Dell
and IBM boxes.

NIC regular and iSCSI firmware are the two main issues.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110604123921.ga12...@khazad-dum.debian.net

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:42:11AM -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
> Squeeze on. 

Thanks for the pointer, John.

We have here the usual tension among people using Debian proper and
people using Debian + non-free firmware to fully exploit their machines.
No surprise here at the "social" level.

Nonetheless---and replying to an argument raised further down in the
thread---Debian is constitutionally bound to be fully Free. So if we are
ever going to have *the* debian hardware certification website, that
website should list by default hardware compatible with Debian
(i.e. main). That is also the only way to be coherent with what we are
offering in our official installation images.  Pushing that coherency
further, having an hardware compatibility list for Debian proper does
not preclude having other hardware compatibility lists (possibly hosted
on the same website, as long as they are not the default) that apply to
"Debian + non-free firmware".

Regarding h-node.com, though, it's undeniable that in its present form
it cannot be used as the Debian hardware compatibility list, not even
for Debian proper. It would indeed be ridiculous for the Debian Project
image to point to a website that, by its own declaration, exclude the
Debian distribution from its scope. We might consider it only if that
"detail" changes.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, |  .  |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Paul Wise]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Goirand  wrote:

> That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
> list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
> like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.

In that case, are you sure that bugs.debian.org isn't what you are
looking for? Same procedure as always; people (such as yourself, Nick
Adams or Supermicro people) who care about the hardware, test running
Debian (stable, testing/unstable) on the hardware (including the
KVM-over-IP parts) and report any issues (preferably with patches)
found. Ideally they would do this with mainline pre-release kernels
too to avoid problems appearing in Debian in the first place.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=z3420ydzc_lxyfrjuk+3pbtu...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Thomas Goirand]

On 06/04/2011 06:28 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 11:42 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
>> Thomas Goirand  writes:
>>
>>> The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
>>> system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
>>> and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
>>> with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
>>> and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
>>> point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
>>>
>>> Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
>>>
>>
>> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
>> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
>> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
>> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
>> Squeeze on.

It is *NOT* a good fit for Debian. I think you didn't read correctly the
website. It says:

"You are allowed to add only devices tested with GNU/Linux distributions
that are considered fully free, according to the Free Software
Foundation definition of free software"

Then you go on the link where it says "fully free", and you see a list
of distribution. Debian isn't there (as it's not considered "fully free
 according to the FSF", because we have the non-free repository). So
even if we would like to, we aren't allowed to write things in there.

Also, this hardware list tells about everything *but* the motherboard. I
don't really care about notebooks, wifi cards, video cards, printers, 3g
cards, sound cards, webcam, bluetooth, acquisition cards, or fingerprint
readers here... A Supermicro hardware wont have any of the above (well,
it may have a video board, but most of the time a very old model which
is known to work and isn't the issue, and same for the sound board).

> Almost every peripheral device today runs some software (firmware) on an
> embedded processor or microcontroller, which is generally non-free (see
> http://mjg59.livejournal.com/91123.html for examples).

I agree. And the goal that I'm trying to reach isn't to advocate for
free firmware, but to know if we can run Debian on a hardware or not.

On 06/04/2011 07:16 AM, Hector Oron wrote:
>>> The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
>>> system supports Debian".
>
> They can do that if they like.

You are missing the point as well. Here, I have Nick Adams, which has
contacts at Supermicro, that is kindly volunteering to help us to test
their hardware with Debian (this was the discussion we had in Beijing),
and help the kernel team to test eventual backports of drivers. Saying
"hardware makers can do it themselves" isn't helping the process of
testing hardware, and let them know if Debian works with it or not...

> One database which it is more Debian centric:
>   * http://kmuto.jp/debian/hcl/

Yes, that db is cool, but it doesn't help much either to say "pickup
this motherboard, it's fine with Debian x.y".

I wrote the following:

http://wiki.debian.org/SupportedHardware

That's the kind of very simple list that I was hoping to build. But the
list isn't the final goal. The goal is to *fix* issues when we see them,
like it happened for the X8STi-F in Debian 5.04.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de9af21.1020...@debian.org

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Ben Hutchings]

On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 23:36 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
> Ben Hutchings  writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 11:42 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
> >> Thomas Goirand  writes:
> >> 
> >> > The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
> >> > system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
> >> > and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
> >> > with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
> >> > and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
> >> > point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
> >> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
> >> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
> >> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
> >> Squeeze on. 
> >
> > Almost every peripheral device today runs some software (firmware) on an
> > embedded processor or microcontroller, which is generally non-free (see
> > http://mjg59.livejournal.com/91123.html for examples).
> >
> > A few people consider that devices are more 'free' if they don't require
> > the host to help them load this firmware.  And h-node may be useful for
> > those people, but not for the large majority who realise that
> > downloading non-free firmware won't taint their precious bodily fluids.
> >
> 
> Debian main uses the same standard as h-node.

Yes.  Debian users don't.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian hardware certification

[John Sullivan]

Ben Hutchings  writes:

> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 11:42 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
>> Thomas Goirand  writes:
>> 
>> > The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
>> > system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
>> > and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
>> > with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
>> > and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
>> > point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
>> >
>> > Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
>> >
>> 
>> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
>> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
>> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
>> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
>> Squeeze on. 
>
> Almost every peripheral device today runs some software (firmware) on an
> embedded processor or microcontroller, which is generally non-free (see
> http://mjg59.livejournal.com/91123.html for examples).
>
> A few people consider that devices are more 'free' if they don't require
> the host to help them load this firmware.  And h-node may be useful for
> those people, but not for the large majority who realise that
> downloading non-free firmware won't taint their precious bodily fluids.
>

Debian main uses the same standard as h-node.

-john

-- 
-John Sullivan
-http://wjsullivan.net
-GPG Key: AE8600B6


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ipsm469w@myles.home.wjsullivan.net

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Hector Oron]

Hi,

2011/6/3 John Sullivan :
> Thomas Goirand  writes:

>> The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
>> system supports Debian".

They can do that if they like.

>> If they don't want to do the work, we could,
>> and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
>> with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
>> and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
>> point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
>>
>> Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
>>

> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
> Squeeze on.

One database which it is more Debian centric:
  * http://kmuto.jp/debian/hcl/

Cheers,
-- 
 Héctor Orón  -.. . -... .. .- -.   -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.

"Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar
System, which one day will disconnect us."

-- Day DVB-T stop working nicely
Video flare: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100510.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktin-el7xyhqpjc3pphkmsrnqy6m...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Ben Hutchings]

On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 11:42 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
> Thomas Goirand  writes:
> 
> > The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
> > system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
> > and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
> > with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
> > and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
> > point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
> >
> > Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
> >
> 
> Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
> also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
> h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
> proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
> Squeeze on. 

Almost every peripheral device today runs some software (firmware) on an
embedded processor or microcontroller, which is generally non-free (see
http://mjg59.livejournal.com/91123.html for examples).

A few people consider that devices are more 'free' if they don't require
the host to help them load this firmware.  And h-node may be useful for
those people, but not for the large majority who realise that
downloading non-free firmware won't taint their precious bodily fluids.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Debian hardware certification

[John Sullivan]

Thomas Goirand  writes:

> The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
> system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
> and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
> with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
> and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
> point on Debian's website so that this can happen.
>
> Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.
>

Such a database is being generated now at http://h-node.com. The FSF is
also consolidating its former compatible hardware database there. Since
h-node lists hardware that works without proprietary drivers or
proprietary firmware, it should be a good fit for Debian main from
Squeeze on. 


-john

-- 
-John Sullivan
-http://wjsullivan.net
-GPG Key: AE8600B6


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boyehqgc@myles.home.wjsullivan.net

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Thomas Goirand]

On 05/22/2011 10:00 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> And here's my follow-up with some of the answers:
>> On 05/21/2011 08:00 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> 
> You realize that you just leaked d-private without asking first?

Gosh, no I didn't. Sorry for that.

There wasn't anything personal or private in this thread, so I hope
nobody will mind... Never the less, it's very bad practice, I hope I
will remember.

>>> They can already declare Debian a supported system. They have to do the
>>> support for that and can work with Debian to get the work done.
>> That's what we were discussing. Who should they get in touch with? I am
>> not aware of any front desk for such hardware certification.
> 
> No, this is not. It is a difference if _they_ declare that Debian works
> on a given machine or if _we_ do it.

The point is to have a system so that manufacturers can write "this
system supports Debian". If they don't want to do the work, we could,
and help each other by having a list of hardware that is known to work
with Debian, and a list of hardware with issues. If they do, it's best,
and IMHO we should help. Finally, I believe we should have a central
point on Debian's website so that this can happen.

Maybe a wiki page might be a good start, until we setup something better.

>>> are you aware that all of the supermicro motherboards with built-in
>>> KVM-over-IP functionality provide that functionality with the support
>>> of an on-board processor which runs an embedded linux-based system?
> 
> Some informations about the management system as shipped with a H8QG8:
> - Linux 2.6._24_
> - Busybox 1.1.3
> - Dropbear 0.50
> - IPMI server as _kernel module_
> - Standard X509 cert with supp...@ami.com as e-mail and expired _five_
>   years ago
> 
> This system need some serious overhaul to even let it even near an open
> network and a proper update mechanism.

Right, it's quite scary. I got the exact same version for at least the
Linux kernel and busybox on my X8STi-F boards. Upgrading to the latest
firmware doesn't help, I've tried...

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dd92dbd.3040...@debian.org

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Bastian Blank]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 01:02:23PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> And here's my follow-up with some of the answers:
> On 05/21/2011 08:00 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:

You realize that you just leaked d-private without asking first?

> > They can already declare Debian a supported system. They have to do the
> > support for that and can work with Debian to get the work done.
> That's what we were discussing. Who should they get in touch with? I am
> not aware of any front desk for such hardware certification.

No, this is not. It is a difference if _they_ declare that Debian works
on a given machine or if _we_ do it.

[ Not longer an answer to my mail ]

> > are you aware that all of the supermicro motherboards with built-in
> > KVM-over-IP functionality provide that functionality with the support
> > of an on-board processor which runs an embedded linux-based system?

Some informations about the management system as shipped with a H8QG8:
- Linux 2.6._24_
- Busybox 1.1.3
- Dropbear 0.50
- IPMI server as _kernel module_
- Standard X509 cert with supp...@ami.com as e-mail and expired _five_
  years ago

This system need some serious overhaul to even let it even near an open
network and a proper update mechanism.

Bastian

-- 
Ahead warp factor one, Mr. Sulu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110522140016.ga7...@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Thomas Goirand]
> The plan would be to test the hardware (probably with a live CD
> using a KVM over IP). If it doesn't work, see what driver isn't
> present, and if the backported kernel has the fix. If it does, in
> some cases, we could add a patch in a Debian point release, if it's
> not too intrusive.

I once wrote this check list to test new machines (quickly translated
from Norwegian).  Perhaps it can be the start of a test framework?

Follow these steps to test a new computer model:

 1) Boot live DVD or install machine via PXE and boot the resulting
installation (we had PXE set up in the network where this was
done).

 2) If the KDE desktop show up, then the video card is working with
X.org.  If a small sound is played when KDE is started, the sound
card is working.

 3) Start a web browser, and visit a web site, for example
http://www.skolelinux.org/.  If this is working, the network card
is working.

 4) Choose "Science & Math->Stellarium" from the K menu, and see if
the program have quick response.  If this is OK, the accelerated
3D graphics support is working.

 5) Plug in a USB stick.  If a popup show up after a while, the USB
subsystem is working.

 6) Run nvram-wakeup as root to see if the motherboard and BIOS
version is supported.

The last point were included because we wanted the ability to shut
down machines in the evening and turn them automatically on in the
morning.

Checklist:

  [ ] machine boots
  [ ] X.org video driver working
  [ ] X.org 3D acceleration working
  [ ] sound card working
  [ ] network card working
  [ ] usb subsystem working
  [ ] nvram-wakeup supported

This cover the most vital parts of a computer.  It should probably be
extended for laptops and other kinds of hardware.

> Having a hardware certified program would increase adoption of
> Debian among server users. It will also help Debian fans to buy the
> correct hardware they need.

Certification have some risks regarding how people view the
certification and the project doing it, if problems show up after the
test is done (with new versions of the software, or changes to the
hardware), and one need to have a clear plan on who is responsible for
fixing any such problesm.

Happy hacking,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flr57rghxe@login2.uio.no

Re: Debian hardware certification

[Thomas Goirand]

Hi,

I started a thread on debian-private, because I didn't know where to
post. So there's already a (very short) discussion that started. Here's
my original message:

On 05/21/2011 07:11 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I didn't know where to post, so I'm posting here. Let me know where I
> should post, if I'm doing wrong.
>
> I was at the  (China Cloud Computing Conference) in Beijing the
> last 3 days. There, I had a chat with Nick, from chinaskycloud which
> works tighly with SuperCloud (a Supermicro subsidiary in China).
>
> We talked about the possibility to have their hardware being
> certified as compatible with Debian, and have them advertize about
> it on their website product pages.
>
> The plan would be to test the hardware (probably with a live CD
> using a KVM over IP). If it doesn't work, see what driver isn't
> present, and if the backported kernel has the fix. If it does,
> in some cases, we could add a patch in a Debian point release, if
> it's not too intrusive.
>
> Having a hardware certified program would increase adoption of Debian
> among server users. It will also help Debian fans to buy the correct
> hardware they need.
>
> So:
> 1/ Do we have already such hardware certification program?
> 2/ If we don't, can we start one?
> 3/ If we make one, can someone volunteer to make a logo?
> 4/ Is there any volunteer to test hardware, as only me doing
> it wouldn't be enough?
> 5/ Could we create a front desk for such a hardware certification?
>
> Your thoughts are welcome. I'll wait for suggestions until I reply
> to Nick.
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)

And here's my follow-up with some of the answers:

On 05/21/2011 08:00 PM, Bastian Blank wrote:
> They can already declare Debian a supported system. They have to do the
> support for that and can work with Debian to get the work done.

That's what we were discussing. Who should they get in touch with? I am
not aware of any front desk for such hardware certification.

> They are
> even allowed to use the Debian Open Use Logo to show this.

My point wasn't to use a "normal" Debian logo, but a new one
specifically for the purpose of saying that Debian runs on the hardware.

> are you aware that all of the supermicro motherboards with built-in
> KVM-over-IP functionality provide that functionality with the support
> of an on-board processor which runs an embedded linux-based system?
>
> supermicro attempts to comply with the GPL by publishing the tarballs
> provided by supermicro's upstream vendors:
>
> ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/GPL/
>
> but i would be hard pressed to tell you how to use those tarball dumps
> to produce the firmware images provided for actual usage on individual
> controllers here:
>
> http://www.supermicro.com/support/bios/firmware0.aspx
>
> more importantly, the tarball dumps and firmware images contain
> non-free blobs (in particularly, compiled java byte code).

I agree that is a big issue, and we should never vouch for that.
However, that's not the goal here.

> while i prefer supermicro products to those produced by their
> competitors, i would object to the use the use of the term "correct
> hardware" here or the use of the debian project's name to officially
> endorse a product containing non-free software.

The issue is that we wont ever find a server with a fully open BIOS, at
least not tomorrow. Intel didn't make the same kind of announcement as
AMD did with coreboot support, so it's going to get hard to get things
totally open. And the IPMI thing is tightly related to the BIOS (the
BIOS can change the IP of the KVM over IP).

I however agree. I think we can set different level of correctness. One
that would say Debian has been tested and it runs on the hardware
(boots, network is working, hard driver controller works), and another
one that certifies the product as open source compliant and we endorse
it. The later could come after the former.

On 05/21/2011 09:53 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Hardware certification does not just mean that the OS boots, but that
> if there are any driver-related bugs the entity who certified the
> software will fix them.

This is precisely the goal. The discussion I had with Nick was to let DD
have access to such hardware, and see if things can get fixed if there's
issues. I already did such a work testing a patch for the network driver
of X8STi-F (thanks to the help of some people on the kernel lists), and
the result was that the Intel e1000e 82574L network driver patch from
2.6.27 got backported in the Debian 2.6.26 kernel, and included in Lenny
5.0.4 point release (as it was a small, non-intrusive, patch). This was
done thanks to the help of my Californian hardware supplier that gave me
access to the hardware. What I'm thinking about is doing it on a bigger
scale.

I do believe that the kernel team does good enough work to fix issues by
the way. They did in the past...

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: Please keep Nick as Cc, as I don't believe he reads
debian-project@list