<p>In many cases they used to. They would also include disks with programs to check memory and various controllers. Of late those sorts of things only come with prefabs. </p>
<p>--<br>
Sent from my HTC Vision (G2), running Gingerbread.<br>
That is, a phone-like mobile device. :)</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 22, 2011 10:25 AM, "Jim Lynch" <<a href="mailto:ale_nospam@fayettedigital.com" target="_blank">ale_nospam@fayettedigital.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> On 01/21/2011 10:59 PM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:<br>
>> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 22:17 -0500, Scott Castaline wrote:<br>>>> Sorry for using bandwidth on this, but I again asked Gigabyte if I<br>>>> could<br>>>> just RMA the board and here is their response:<br>
>>><br>>>> "Since Linux is open source we are unable to verify it, we suggest<br>>>> testing with Windows based OS. It does not need to be Windows 7"<br>>>><br>>>> I've already informed them that I don't have Windows and really can't<br>
>>> afford to buy it just to prove or disprove that this board is bad.<br>>>><br>>>> Any comments?<br>>> Right, because it is ever so much easier to "verify" an opaque binary<br>
>> blob.<br>>><br>>> I seriously question the knowledge of the people behind some of these<br>>> companies. They are making hardware, which is by definition neutral of<br>>> an operating system in particular. Being that they are creating<br>
>> hardware (or at least, creating boards that use hardware that they<br>>> supposedly have the specs for), it should be relatively easy for them to<br>>> create a driver for any operating system; particularly one that is "open<br>
>> source" because there are so many people who are able to work on the<br>>> bloody thing *and* the whole API is actually available in (somewhat<br>>> readable) source code form.<br>>><br>>> For fuck's sake, it would not be *all* that hard to build a minimalistic<br>
>> framework built around the Linux kernel (or for that matter, any member<br>>> of the BSD family, if they're worried about being forced to commit<br>>> indecent exposure) and provide a disk that boots up the kernel and loads<br>
>> a minimalistic program that can validate that all the hardware is up and<br>>> running correctly and operating within specified parameters. They used<br>>> to do similar things with DOS-based boot floppies and CDs, and that was<br>
>> a much more difficult task.<br>>><br>>> Is there such a thing as a hardware manufacturer that knows what<br>>> supporting their product *actually* means? I mean, seriously. You'd<br>>> think that motherboard manufacturers were in the business of selling<br>
>> illicit drugs, not selling and supporting their own hardware.<br>>><br>>> --- Mike<br>> Just an observation, I don't think MB manufacturers write drivers. I <br>> think the drivers come from the people who furnish the chip sets. I'd <br>
> be willing to bet if you talked to the sis or via or Intel or whatever <br>> chipset folks wrote that software, they'd tell you the truth.<br>> <br>> Jim.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ale mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org" target="_blank">Ale@ale.org</a><br>> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
> <a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br></div>