It was blogged about here (do read that link). A small start has been done. But there’s much more to do, more books to target and most importantly more folks required. Drop me a mail at sankarshan dot mukhopadhyay at gmail dot com if you are interested.

Firstly, the above thing does not really exist. At least, not to my knowledge. There are variants of the concept which are built around “certification” or “compatibility” testing – more in terms of providing a metrics driven output of interaction of the Operating System with the hardware. But that is not what I meant. One of the reasons for this post could be a small mail-thread. Another could be that given the fact that “non enterprise” Linux operating systems by the very virtue of their fast release cycles don’t have the luxury of having Hardware Certification sites, it would not be too insane to provide the tools (or a testing kit) to the users to figure out where they stand. A last reason could be this too.

In very simple terms the idea is to provide the user with a tool (and perhaps a few plugins/addons) that would allow the user to download the following details :

1. the details about the hardware they propose to test the OS against (eg a notebook/desktop one is going to buy)
2. the details about the extent of hardware support provided by the OS of choice

So, if for an use case I want to buy a Dell Latitude 630 and want to run Fedora 7 on it, using the tool I can take a shade-better-than-guesstimate as to how the hardware and the OS intersect. Having said that, what are some of the blockers in this ?

• getting the hardware information to be released in a format by the vendor that can be used by the tool across any Linux OS
• getting the Linux OS to create an “extent of hardware support” for that particular version

The second  item might not be all too difficult  given that an OS release does factor in to a large extent the  hardware that  it will end up  being installed on. Being based on a sizeable section of upstream code also allows that information to be captured. The trick is to collate the information and make it available in a form that allows a comparison however rudimentary. Which of course brings us to the first item – that of getting hardware vendors to  release the information in a form that can be useful. All models have technical specifications, it might a bit of extra effort to ensure that they are properly structured to allow comparison. The extra effort tradeoff would surely be an increased uptake in the desktop/notebook space by folks who are keen to have Linux on their old and new desktops/notebooks.

A typical UseCase would be something like – I want to buy a Wipro WIVNB7711 notebook and plan to run Fedora 7 on it. I have the tool downloaded on my existing/current box, added the database for Fedora 7 and then downloaded from Wipro’s specification site the specifications for the model. I run the specifications against the OS database and visually see what would be the result even before I buy-install-do_the_round_of_LUGs. Extend the same to printers, scanners and other peripherals and would get to see the impact of working on such a tool.

There is this small (or is it not too small) note on “Why Upstream” by Rahul. Worth a look and feedback

There is a nice mail (currently seems to be more of a tentative push) from Mike McGrath about “the brand that is Fedora“. The emphasis is mine.

For a long time now, Fedora folks have not really been talking about the changes in the infrastructure, look-n-feel, the user space focus, the investments into desktop and laptop improvements that has been taking place save the infrequent LWN article. Given that Moonshine has been a sort of the other side of the flex point release this is as good a time as any to get some brand love in place. This would at the end of the day also enable all to arrive at a set of guidelines into:

• Fedora values
• How to use the name Fedora
• The design elements that make up the Fedora Project and are reflected in the artwork, wiki, doc stylesheets etc
• User Interface guidelines
• Grammar guidelines
• Abbreviations
• Trademarks
• Typefaces
• Colors (color palette)

A brand style guide does go a long way in making a project messaging and context “sticky”

Aaron writes about “Desktop Linux” and calls it a rant :). It was worth the trouble I took to read it on the phone browser – the internet connection at home is down and Airtel won’t surely get a cookie from me.

The game of Linux on the OEM desktop is primarily driven in two ways: Preloaded or Drop-in-the-box. In most cases, the OEMs who decided not to be shipping preloaded Windows on a few select OEM models used FreeDOS instead. Over the years, some of them also provide a very functionally crippled version of Linux. However, there is a large percentage of them like Dell, HP, HCL, Wipro who either preload Linux or provide drop-in-the-box. The fun bit about doing desktop linux is that the hardware SKU is a small bit faster moving than the server platform. This page would provide an at a glance view of how the OEM market is going to be pertaining to Intel. An inevitable fallout of a fast moving hardware SKU is that slapping on a base Operating System that is a bit dated would be counterproductive. Add to that the inevitable cases of codecs, binary firmwire and it is a fine soup.

A way out for Linux distributions aiming to be preloaded on to desktop hardware is to diligently work with OEMs and ODMs at all levels to check, re-check and check again the functionality of the base OS with respect to the target hardware. While this was a well honed practise in server space, the desktop niche did start to receive base OS engineering love only with the predominant uptake of Linux on the desktop for more than SOHO usage. So, it is not really unusual to see more love being showered on the desktop space in terms of visions and achievable roadmaps like these. But in an ideal world it would take much more than distributions to be interested into desktop enhancement bits. It would really require an extensive formation of a community (oh such an abused word).
The hardest bit is to convince the IHV/OEM to invest heavily into engineering and code-push that makes the hardware of today and tomorrow not only JustWork (TM), but provide a sustaining engineering investment. The Red Hat Global Desktop is just one of the steps along these lines. The thing about a Linux desktop is that it is significantly user experience driven than driven by performance specifications. So, while performance focus would lead to specific FOSS projects polishing up the code base, an user experience focus would require an all out effort based on a good plan. The perception shift is driven by code contributions at all levels of the OS : the kernel, the desktop environment, the IM and IRC clients, the browser and mail clients, the artwork and the bling bits which get talked about. One of the best things that could have happened to a Linux desktop is that it stopped being compared to Windows – one hardly gets to read about “this desktop is so similar to my Windows desktop” and that’s a good thing when one shifts the focus from being relevant in the perspective of competition to being relevant in itself. In effect, the question could well be – what is the metaphor that we now for lack of a better word call a Desktop ?

Take a good look at this photograph of Eben Moglen. And now take a look at the picture accompanying his interview in this month’s Linux For You. This is the second time they have done it (earlier it was a picture of Rahul Sundaram taken by ramkrsna)

Exhibit A, B and C are the ones which are of interest (and somewhat awe). Since I started reading it from somewhere in the middle and kept switching between the two lists, I am not the right person to sum it up. However, on recurring point in one of the threads is the issue of “control” on Planet GNOME. With the disclaimer that this blog does not get syndicated on that planet (and I don’t think it meets the requirements to get syndicated) I do have a few things to say.

When we started off this planet, the quirkiness quotient was derived from Planet GNOME. In fact, I recall that the now-not-so-young-boy who popped the question pointed me to p.g.o saying “can’t we do something like that ?” We did and even though on and off we have heard the remark that “with only that tiny rag tag bunch of feeds you call it Planet FLOSS India” – we have sustained. The single thing that keeps it going is the trust that there’s no heavy handed censoring/editing/policy driven decisions for PFI. There have been decisions for including or removing feeds – but that has been driven by the degenerating nature of feed content even with the slack that is normally given.
The exhibit threads seem to suggest that such a thing exists for p.g.o. Not being an “insider” into the world of p.g.o, I don’t really know. What I do however know p.g.o has for a long period of time been my window into a desktop environment and developer cabal (I mean that in a nice sense). And I enjoy the occasional ramblings into spaces that are not really relevant to the whole “GNOME” thing.

What bothers me is not that there is a huge thread going along these lines – but the fact that a piece of web real estate which is considered the fun side of GNOME is now being dragged into bikeshedding.