Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Corey Osgood corey.osgood@gmail.com [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