Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Max at EZLink » Fri, 31 Mar 1995 04:00:00






>   >They don't support the FEP routines in the Linux driver because those
>   >details are considered proprietary, which means that it performs very
>   >badly under Linux.
>   This is not strictly true, since the onboard BIOS of the Digiboard
>   does this handling ... so it's quite possible to enhance the
>   driver as time goes on.
>Digi was who said that they can't support the FEP interface fully
>under Linux...  "performs very badly" are my words, of course.

This is a very odd statement. The driver source clearly states that
the driver was not developed by Digiboard, and is *not* supported by
Digiboard. This is also stated clearly at ftp.digibd.com where the
driver has been made available.

Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades. Last I heard, Cyclades driver
author Randy Bentson has not received money from Cyclades for writing the
driver. He and other volunteers support it in their spare time.

This is true for the other drivers distributed freely under Linux. Gosh, if
they don't get paid for it, by what unreasonable expectation should
manufacturers be responsible for support?

The FEP interface will be supported under Linux when somebody who
understands it writes code for it.

Your attitude is strange. It's obvious you have some sort of personal
attitude problem towards Digiboard. Do you have a commercial relationship
with other board manufacturers, but not Digiboard? Have certain board
manufacturers bought advertising space in your magazine, but not Digiboard?

Was Digiboard approached about advertising in your magazine? Are they
advertising in it? Is Cyclades advertising in it?

The Linux Journal's performing a valuable service by being published. But
don't ruin your credibility by acting like so many second rate computer
rags which link the way they treat products editorially to the amount spent in
the advertising department.

Quote:>   That's a great ad for the mag, but in the fastmoving Linux world, the
>   info will be out of date by the time it comes out due to long dead tree
>   publishing lead times. We need to know what the benchmarks reveal now.
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Actually, when we thought that there was a serious problem with the
>driver, based on the timings, they told us that we shouldn't expect
>timings better than what we got.  So the dead tree publishing times
>probably won't be a factor for them.

You make this sound as though Digiboard is responsible for the driver. They
have clearly stated that they are not! Just who is "they"? Shouldn't it be
the writer of the driver and the other informal Linux developers? What about
them? Why are you insulting the volunteers working on the driver?

Quote:> However, just as the article
>went to production, we heard of some slight changes to the Cyclades
>driver that might have improved performance slightly; there might be a
>slight change there.

You keep plugging Cyclades; they *have* bought advertising in your magazine,
haven't they?

Here's the upshot folks: to be treated more than fairly in the Linux
Journal, purchase advertising. It'll at least keep your product from being
maligned.

The Linux community deserves better than this.

(And no, I do not work for Digiboard or have any relationship with them. I
do have both Digiboard and Cyclades products running under Linux and other
Unices, and our company even sells Cyclades, but not Digi, so I think that
my opinion as expressed is evenhanded.)


 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Matt Wel » Fri, 31 Mar 1995 04:00:00







>>   >They don't support the FEP routines in the Linux driver because those
>>   >details are considered proprietary, which means that it performs very
>>   >badly under Linux.

>>   This is not strictly true, since the onboard BIOS of the Digiboard
>>   does this handling ... so it's quite possible to enhance the
>>   driver as time goes on.

>>Digi was who said that they can't support the FEP interface fully
>>under Linux...  "performs very badly" are my words, of course.

>Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
>hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades. Last I heard, Cyclades driver
>author Randy Bentson has not received money from Cyclades for writing the
>driver. He and other volunteers support it in their spare time.

>[...]

>The FEP interface will be supported under Linux when somebody who
>understands it writes code for it.

I think that you are missing the point. Michael said that Digiboard said
that the FEP details are "considered proprietary". Therefore,
unless someone with "special knowledge" comes forward to write a driver
which supports those routines, it is quite doubtful that the Linux driver
will ever support them. Unless, of course, Digiboard changes its
policy on the matter.

Quote:>Your attitude is strange. It's obvious you have some sort of personal
>attitude problem towards Digiboard. Do you have a commercial relationship
>with other board manufacturers, but not Digiboard? Have certain board
>manufacturers bought advertising space in your magazine, but not Digiboard?

You're reading the wrong things into Michael's statements. All that
Michael is saying is that Digiboard can't release information necessary
to make the "best" driver for Linux. This is a simple fact to verify
and doesn't reflect anything in Michael's or Linux Journal's "attitudes"
towards Digiboard. I don't understand why you engaged in this rant about
a perceived advertising bias in LJ based on his statement.

Quote:>Here's the upshot folks: to be treated more than fairly in the Linux
>Journal, purchase advertising. It'll at least keep your product from being
>maligned.

Who's "maligning" Digiboard? Nobody. Michael's stating simple fact that
the Linux Digiboard driver will probably suffer performance-wise because
of the inavailability of material on the FEP routines. Perhaps Michael
has personal experience with these drivers to say that it "performs
very badly" in comparison to the Cyclades. Does he really need to tack a
disclaimer to the end of his postings that his opinions shouldn't be
considered representative of LJ?

mdw

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Max at EZLink » Sun, 02 Apr 1995 04:00:00




>>Was Digiboard approached about advertising in your magazine? Are they
>>advertising in it? Is Cyclades advertising in it?
>Your implication here is the Mike is slamming Digiboard for not
>advertising in LJ. You've used Digiboard kit (and Cyclades for that
>matter) - surely it's obvious that he's telling it like it is...?!

We've had problems with Cyclades during the teething stage of driver
development. Problems still crop up as the driver undergoes further
development, just like anything else. I can give a bad benchmark by using
the driver of my choice, if I wanted to. It's not obvious he's telling it
"like it is" at all.

We're getting good results with Digiboard PC/8e boards using the 1.3 driver.
The Cyclades 8Y is ok, too, but sometimes you need full modem control and
so the Digiboard works for those installations. There are lots of Digiboards
out there already, that were just waiting for Linux support!

Quote:>>The Linux Journal's performing a valuable service by being published. But
>>don't ruin your credibility by acting like so many second rate computer
>>rags which link the way they treat products editorially to the amount spent in
>>the advertising department.
>Hey, just stop and think about it! People into Linux are into it
>because it interests them, not because of advertising royalty!

Nonsense. The Linux Journal is a commercial publication and they depend upon
advertising and sales for their livelihood. I'm sure some of them are also
interested in what they do for a living. That's great.

Quote:>>You make this sound as though Digiboard is responsible for the driver.
>Lack of supported driver - certainly.

This is really, really wrong.

The person who wrote the driver is a Digiboard employee. That is more direct
support than Cyclades offered. Troy (the author) has solicited assistance
from the Linux developer community in order to improve it and to give
feedback so he can fix any problems. So far he's put out 3 revisions.
Another Digi employee, Bob Lipes, has worked on it and offered patches.

Quote:>>You keep plugging Cyclades; they *have* bought advertising in your magazine,
>>haven't they?
>They have - although they may not have paid to have the driver
>developed, they do send developers excessive amounts of technical
>information FREE OF CHARGE!

They are glad to distribute and advertise the driver in order to sell their
boards, as long as Randy volunteers his time and efforts for free. But they
won't support it with their own employees. They are not responsible for it,
and all fixes are up to Randy. If he or some other volunteer doesn't do it
for free, it won't be done and they won't support it.

Take a look at the Cyclades Cyclom 8Y. There are two Cirrus serial chips on
it. There is some glue logic, and a couple of PALs. No custom BIOS or
downloadable RAM. 12 byte FIFO. The design is right out of the Cirrus
technical manual. Nice product, using high performance VLSI off the shelf
chips. But a minimal amount of development in-house. The "excessive amount"
of technical information is available to anyone who requests the chip manual
from Cirrus. That from Cyclades is limited. I understand that Randy even
went to Cyclades and gave them seminars on the board and how to exploit its
features, greatly to his credit. The other drivers Cyclades pays to have
developed owe a lot to his free Linux efforts, I am given to understand.

Now, look at the Digiboard PX/8e. Intel CPU, EPROMS with custom
programs, static RAM for downloadable software FEP which is upgradable,
dual-ported RAM seen by both board and motherboard, allowing memory access
to large buffers, no interrupts necessary. Lots of custom inhouse software
development, upgrades available, driver can load latest FEP code right into
board. And Digi's made newer FEP's that they develop available, even in this
"unsupported" Linux driver. That's pretty direct support for an unsupported
product. They even make the code available on their own ftp.digibd.com.

Quote:>>Here's the upshot folks: to be treated more than fairly in the Linux
>>Journal, purchase advertising. It'll at least keep your product from being
>>maligned.

This is *so* common in the publishing world that it is an anomaly if it
doesn't happen. One has to have very strong and enforced policies in place
ahead of time for it not to happen. A number of years ago, BYTE even had to
run a whole article on why they could not do this even when everybody else
in the industry was doing it. The pressure on a struggling small publication
is almost overwhelming. Who doesn't want to give a boost to someone else in
a small company who's helping you survive when they "deserve" it?

This isn't just about a review. It's about the obvious ill-feeling and
disparaging remarks made about Digiboard that were expressed by the reviewer
here on the net, who was following up a post about Digiboard and instead of
discussing that had to keep talking about how wonderful Cyclades is and how
you should not use Digiboard. And we don't even get to see this review
because it's proprietary and details can't be released except commercially.
This is very unprofessional to say the least.

Quote:>Or alternatively, join the spirit of the human race (or at the very
>least the Linux community) and share!

It's always easy to tell others to "share" when your own livelihood's not at
stake.

I guess you think Digi should tell all its programmers that they are now
going to work without pay in the spirit of "sharing". Some of those
programmers have given generously of their own time to the Linux effort.

How about posting all the printed info in the Linux Journal online, and
maybe even revealing exactly how the magazine is published so everyone else
can "share" in the success by duplicating its efforts without having to go
through the difficulties you had to in launching a new venture? That would
not be fair to your families or employees.

It seems to me that it's not the place of the LSJ (if it really is saying
this - it seems quite a number of people are claiming to speak for them) to
accuse others of being selfish and lay guilt trips on when LSJ's own profits
are made indirectly possible by all that unpaid programming labor.

There are ump*-zillion serial board manufacturers out there. I can tell
you plenty of stories about the large majority who simply told us to get
lost when it came to providing any help at all on writing a Linux driver.
Not even info under a NDA was available from these folks. That's the
industry reality.

Now, we have enlightened board manufacturers that you can count on the
fingers of one hand offering help for free in an untried and unproven market
that's a tiny, tiny slice of the DOS/Windows monopoly. And one of them
happens to be Digiboard. Digiboard deserves praise, not insults.

Please. If you want better drivers for Digiboard, then test Troy's code,
offer suggestions for improvement, hack on it yourself. At least *two*
Digiboard engineers have publicly asked for assistance in supporting the
driver in this way.



 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Phil Hugh » Sun, 02 Apr 1995 04:00:00





: >>Was Digiboard approached about advertising in your magazine? Are they
: >>advertising in it? Is Cyclades advertising in it?

: >Your implication here is the Mike is slamming Digiboard for not
: >advertising in LJ. You've used Digiboard kit (and Cyclades for that
: >matter) - surely it's obvious that he's telling it like it is...?!

...

: >>The Linux Journal's performing a valuable service by being published. But
: >>don't ruin your credibility by acting like so many second rate computer
: >>rags which link the way they treat products editorially to the amount spent in
: >>the advertising department.

This is the only message I have seen in the thread (probably due to a
newsfeed interruption) but I don't like what I read.  Let me try to add a
few facts to the discussion:
   * There will be a review of serial boards in the June issue of
     Linux Journal
   * I have not (yet) read the article as it just came in from our
     editor but if there is any bias it is not because of
     anything Linux Journal has done or suggested
   * We are (I am) extremely strict about making sure that Editorial
     and Advertising do not mix.  If you don't believe that, talk
     to our Advertising Manager.  I regularly stop her from doing
     something just because *it might appear* to be a conflict of
     interest
   * The original Cyclades Linux driver was developed by Randy Bentson
     in trade for a couple of boards--a deal that I created.  I
     talked to Cyclades a lot about Linux.  I tried to talk to
     other vendors as well but Cyclades listened more.  (This is
     not to say the believed me at first but they kept listening.)
     Once I convinced them that Linux was a decent potential market
     I hooked them up with Randy to do the driver.  He did it as
     a way of paying back the Linux community.
   * Yes, Cyclades advertises in Linux Journal.  So far they have
     been alone but I expect to see ads from at least two and possibly
     as many as four other comm board manufacturers in the next
     few issues

If you think there is some sort of "favor" being done because someone is
an advertiser, contact me.  I'm the publisher.  Everything is eventually

intention of letting anyone "buy" a good review of anything.

As for the upcoming review of comm boards, read it and if you think it is
unfair let us know.  We will publish your letter.  And we do listen.
--
Phil Hughes, Publisher, Linux Journal (206) 782-7733

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Gareth Bu » Sun, 02 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>Was Digiboard approached about advertising in your magazine? Are they
>advertising in it? Is Cyclades advertising in it?

Your implication here is the Mike is slamming Digiboard for not
advertising in LJ. You've used Digiboard kit (and Cyclades for that
matter) - surely it's obvious that he's telling it like it is...?!

Quote:>The Linux Journal's performing a valuable service by being published. But
>don't ruin your credibility by acting like so many second rate computer
>rags which link the way they treat products editorially to the amount spent in
>the advertising department.

Hey, just stop and think about it! People into Linux are into it
because it interests them, not because of advertising royalty!

Quote:>You make this sound as though Digiboard is responsible for the driver.

Lack of supported driver - certainly.

Quote:>They have clearly stated that they are not! Just who is "they"? Shouldn't it be
>the writer of the driver and the other informal Linux developers? What about
>them? Why are you insulting the volunteers working on the driver?

The writers of the driver do the best with what they've got... it's
Digiboard who hold the strings with regards technical information.

Quote:>You keep plugging Cyclades; they *have* bought advertising in your magazine,
>haven't they?

They have - although they may not have paid to have the driver
developed, they do send developers excessive amounts of technical
information FREE OF CHARGE!

Quote:>Here's the upshot folks: to be treated more than fairly in the Linux
>Journal, purchase advertising. It'll at least keep your product from being
>maligned.

Or alternatively, join the spirit of the human race (or at the very
least the Linux community) and share!

By the way - I use and sell both Digiboard and Cyclades products too..
(not an any huge quantity granted, but.. )

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Michael K. Johns » Tue, 04 Apr 1995 04:00:00


I did not see the original of this article, but I should answer some
of these questions, since my integrity is being questioned...




   >>Was Digiboard approached about advertising in your magazine? Are they
   >>advertising in it? Is Cyclades advertising in it?

Every reviewer sent their hardware to be reviewed and knows what issue
the review is coming out in, and has the opportunity to purchase
advertising or to choose not to.  The deadline for advertising hasn't
passed, as far as I know.  Other than assuming -- I don't know for
sure -- that Cyclades will continue to advertise, I have no idea who
will be advertising in that issue.  We keep editorial decisions very
seperate from advertising at Linux Journal...

   >Your implication here is the Mike is slamming Digiboard for not
   >advertising in LJ. You've used Digiboard kit (and Cyclades for that
   >matter) - surely it's obvious that he's telling it like it is...?!

Thanks, Gareth, for your support.

Max, I didn't mean to slam Digiboard in the least -- I was merely
saying that the figures indicate that the Digi's were not the best
choice to buy if you hadn't already purchased, and that this was at
least partly due -- according to digi -- to their decisions about what
was considered proprietary; which meant that they couldn't put code to
use certain functionality in their GPL'd driver for Linux.  While I
wasn't directly quoting them, I was essentially parroting them.  I
still have no idea if they are advertising or not.

   We've had problems with Cyclades during the teething stage of driver
   development. Problems still crop up as the driver undergoes further
   development, just like anything else. I can give a bad benchmark by using
   the driver of my choice, if I wanted to. It's not obvious he's telling it
   "like it is" at all.

We used the latest drivers.  I was not involved in the benchmarking --
the person writing the article and doing the benchmarking isn't even
an employee of LJ.  He cannot benefit in any way whatsoever from
cooking the benchmarks, and I stressed that I wanted the benchmarks to
be as truthful and clean as possible.

   We're getting good results with Digiboard PC/8e boards using the 1.3 driver.
   The Cyclades 8Y is ok, too, but sometimes you need full modem control and
   so the Digiboard works for those installations. There are lots of Digiboards
   out there already, that were just waiting for Linux support!

Right!!!  And they do work -- they just don't have as good performance
as the other boards.  All I said was that I don't recommend them for
new purchases.

   Now, look at the Digiboard PX/8e. Intel CPU, EPROMS with custom
   programs, static RAM for downloadable software FEP which is upgradable,
   dual-ported RAM seen by both board and motherboard, allowing memory access
   to large buffers, no interrupts necessary. Lots of custom inhouse software
   development, upgrades available, driver can load latest FEP code right into
   board. And Digi's made newer FEP's that they develop available, even in this
   "unsupported" Linux driver. That's pretty direct support for an unsupported
   product. They even make the code available on their own ftp.digibd.com.

Digi said that the driver didn't support the full FEP functionality.
I only echoed what they said.  I don't know anything about it myself
other than what Digi (Troy himself, if I recall correctly) said.

   >>Here's the upshot folks: to be treated more than fairly in the Linux
   >>Journal, purchase advertising. It'll at least keep your product from being
   >>maligned.

That's libel, Max.  I do everything in my power to be fair, and if you
don't like it when I pass on what Digi said, I can't change your
feelings.  But accusing of me of bias and fraud is libel, and I think
it is reasonable of me to at least point that out, if not to ask for a
retraction...

   This isn't just about a review. It's about the obvious ill-feeling and
   disparaging remarks made about Digiboard that were expressed by the reviewer
   here on the net, who was following up a post about Digiboard and instead of
   discussing that had to keep talking about how wonderful Cyclades is and how
   you should not use Digiboard. And we don't even get to see this review
   because it's proprietary and details can't be released except commercially.
   This is very unprofessional to say the least.

I bear no ill-feeling toward Digi.  I'm not the reviewer.  I did not
disparage them in any way, nor did I suggest that their keeping of
proprietary information is wrong.  I told the truth as I knew it,
including what Digi told me.  Your statement is slander, plain and
simple.

I did tell what conclusions I drew from the data since I thought it
would help fellow Linux users.  As far as the data itself; we haven't
even given that to any of the vendors; it will come out with the
review.  If you aren't happy with my conclusions, you can argue with
those conclusions, but please don't slander me while doing so.

   It seems to me that it's not the place of the LSJ (if it really is saying
   this - it seems quite a number of people are claiming to speak for them) to
   accuse others of being selfish and lay guilt trips on when LSJ's own profits
   are made indirectly possible by all that unpaid programming labor.

Linux Journal (I'm not sure what LSJ is; I'm assuming it is a typo for
LJ) has never suggested that, nor have I.  I am the Editor, and can
speak for Linux Journal.  Phil Hughes is the Publisher, and can do
likewise.  Who else have you seen speaking for Linux Journal, and who
has been so silly as to "accuse other of being selfish" or to "lay
guilt trips on"?

   Now, we have enlightened board manufacturers that you can count on the
   fingers of one hand offering help for free in an untried and unproven market
   that's a tiny, tiny slice of the DOS/Windows monopoly. And one of them
   happens to be Digiboard. Digiboard deserves praise, not insults.

Who has insulted them?  I think it is a very good thing that they have
released the drivers.  That doesn't change my considered opinion that
if you are buying a new multi-port serial board with the intention of
using it under Linux, Digi's aren't the best boards to buy.

michaelkjohnson

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Christian Weisgerb » Fri, 07 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
> hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades.


strongly suggest that Linux *is* supported by this company.

At CeBIT, I was told at the Stallion booth that official Linux support
for their products is imminent, too. "The Linux driver was writen by our
best programmer in his spare time. It is currently our most advanced
driver. We will update our SCO drivers from it."

--

           RNInet e.V. -- IP fr Rhein-Neckar und Vorderpfalz.

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Max Southa » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00




>> Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
>> hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades.

>strongly suggest that Linux *is* supported by this company.

Cyclades neither paid for nor anyone at their company wrote the driver. This
work was done on a volunteer basis by Randolph Bentson. I'd say the driver
supports Cyclades more than the other way around. If you have a problem with
the driver, Cyclades won't fix it. You'll have to get that support from
other users and the driver developer, not Cyclades.

Quote:>At CeBIT, I was told at the Stallion booth that official Linux support
>for their products is imminent, too. "The Linux driver was writen by our
>best programmer in his spare time. It is currently our most advanced
>driver. We will update our SCO drivers from it."

THe Digiboard driver was written by a Digiboard engineer in his spare time,
too. Note that is "spare time," not company-paid-for time. The individual
engineer offered support on his own. It sounds like Stallion didn't offer
any support either, but a programmer did there on his own. Now, they will
take this and incorporate it into their commercial products. This looks more
like Linux developers doing the support for Stallion and SCO!


 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Phil Hugh » Sun, 09 Apr 1995 04:00:00


: Cyclades neither paid for nor anyone at their company wrote the driver. This
: work was done on a volunteer basis by Randolph Bentson. I'd say the driver
: supports Cyclades more than the other way around. If you have a problem with
: the driver, Cyclades won't fix it. You'll have to get that support from
: other users and the driver developer, not Cyclades.

While this is "almost" true, Cyclades did trade some hardware for Randy's
work.  And Randy is currently doing other work for them.  While he hasn't
said this I am reasonably sure it isn't for free.  

--
Phil Hughes, Publisher, Linux Journal (206) 782-7733

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Richard Shetr » Sun, 09 Apr 1995 04:00:00





>> Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
>> hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades.


>strongly suggest that Linux *is* supported by this company.

>At CeBIT, I was told at the Stallion booth that official Linux support
>for their products is imminent, too. "The Linux driver was writen by our
>best programmer in his spare time. It is currently our most advanced
>driver. We will update our SCO drivers from it."

COMTROL called me today to inform me that they have written Linux
drivers for their rocketport multiport cards and wanted to see if we
(Wizvax Communications) was interested in being a dealer.  I was
impressed by the specs on their rocketboards when they were first
announced about a year or so ago so I plan on ordering a test board and
the drivers and giving them a try.  The rocket boards are supposed to
support a sustained per port data rate of 230Kb.  time permitting, I'll
have more information in the next few weeks.
 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Chris Elmqui » Mon, 10 Apr 1995 04:00:00






>>> Let's reiterate - none of the other Linux driver sources are supported by the
>>> hardware manufacturers - including Cyclades.


>>strongly suggest that Linux *is* supported by this company.

>Cyclades neither paid for nor anyone at their company wrote the driver. This
>work was done on a volunteer basis by Randolph Bentson. I'd say the driver
>supports Cyclades more than the other way around. If you have a problem with
>the driver, Cyclades won't fix it. You'll have to get that support from
>other users and the driver developer, not Cyclades.

>>At CeBIT, I was told at the Stallion booth that official Linux support
>>for their products is imminent, too. "The Linux driver was writen by our
>>best programmer in his spare time. It is currently our most advanced
>>driver. We will update our SCO drivers from it."

>THe Digiboard driver was written by a Digiboard engineer in his spare time,
>too. Note that is "spare time," not company-paid-for time. The individual
>engineer offered support on his own. It sounds like Stallion didn't offer
>any support either, but a programmer did there on his own. Now, they will
>take this and incorporate it into their commercial products. This looks more
>like Linux developers doing the support for Stallion and SCO!

Just thought I'd toss my (or Comtrol's) $.02 in here.  We *paid* someone
to write our driver for the RocketPort... and that only because we
were so busy doing so many other drivers but didn't want to miss out
on what Linux has to offer. We 100% support this driver as company product.
You can call us about it and we'll help you. We fully believe in the spirit
and future of the Linux community.


Chris
--

--
Chris Elmquist, N0JCF


 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Max Southa » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00



>I certainly wrote the Linux driver for some of the Stallion boards in my
>spare time, but thats it. It is not Stallion's "most advanced driver", and
>Stallion is certainly not going to update its SCO driver based on it. The
>SCO driver does much more than the Linux driver does, including Mutliple
>Session support, in-depth stats and port monitoring, dynamic reconfiguration
>of panels, etc.
>As to Stallion officially supporting the driver, well, who knows...
>I'll certainly let everyone know if Stallion does decide to do that!
>I'd have to say that Stallion did offer me some support. At the very least I
>used their computers, their hard drives, and their boards (after hours that
>is). So in some sense they did help me to write the Linux drivers. They just
>didn't pay me to do it.

In that sense, both Cyclades and Digiboard offered the developers some
support, too. In Cyclades' case, they provided boards and programming
information, and adverti*ts for the magazine which ran an article by the
developer about the driver. Digiboard let some of its own programmers work
on the driver, provided them with computing resources and makes the driver
publicly available on its ftp server, ftp.digibd.com.

So at this time it appears that only Comtrol offers true commercial support
to the end-user, for its Rocketport boards!


 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Greg Unger » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00


[snip]
: [attibution lost]
: >At CeBIT, I was told at the Stallion booth that official Linux support
: >for their products is imminent, too. "The Linux driver was writen by our
: >best programmer in his spare time. It is currently our most advanced
: >driver. We will update our SCO drivers from it."

Hmmm. I have stubbled into this half way through, but I have to respond...

Thats very nice for my ego :-), but most of that statement is just not true.
I certainly wrote the Linux driver for some of the Stallion boards in my
spare time, but thats it. It is not Stallion's "most advanced driver", and
Stallion is certainly not going to update its SCO driver based on it. The
SCO driver does much more than the Linux driver does, including Mutliple
Session support, in-depth stats and port monitoring, dynamic reconfiguration
of panels, etc. From a raw performance point of view they are probably
close...

As to Stallion officially supporting the driver, well, who knows...
I'll certainly let everyone know if Stallion does decide to do that!

: THe Digiboard driver was written by a Digiboard engineer in his spare time,
: too. Note that is "spare time," not company-paid-for time. The individual
: engineer offered support on his own. It sounds like Stallion didn't offer
: any support either, but a programmer did there on his own. Now, they will
: take this and incorporate it into their commercial products. This looks more
: like Linux developers doing the support for Stallion and SCO!

I'd have to say that Stallion did offer me some support. At the very least I
used their computers, their hard drives, and their boards (after hours that
is). So in some sense they did help me to write the Linux drivers. They just
didn't pay me to do it.

Seeya
Gerg

-------------
#include <std.disclaimor.h>
I don't speak for Stallion, and they don't speak for me!

 
 
 

Cyclades, Digiboard, and Linux Journal integrity

Post by Russell Nels » Thu, 13 Apr 1995 04:00:00


   As to Stallion officially supporting the driver, well, who knows...
   I'll certainly let everyone know if Stallion does decide to do that!

Comtrol officially supports *their* driver, and supplies complete
source, too.  God, I love a free market!

--

Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)  | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | The enemy of BOTH socialism and capitalism is mercantilism