On 2013.08.05 15:53, Alan Stern wrote:
> The line is clear as can be. Problematic requests created by the
> user's program are the user's fault and can be fixed by the user (or
> the program author -- at any rate, they aren't libusb's fault).
> Problematic requests created autonomously by libusb _are_ libusb's
> fault.
Fair enough. And thanks for the examples, as they do help getting a
clearer picture (Dongles are a good examples, as manufacturers will of
course be quite paranoid about firmware updates).
> The reasoning is simple: Linux does its best to work with existing
> hardware, even when the hardware is not spec-compliant. Eventually
> there may come a point where a device is too unreasonable to deal with,
> but we try to push that as far off as possible. After all, if these
> devices work with Windows then they should work with Linux.
As a Windows developer, and seeing that Microsoft's history is paved
with both 180 degrees turns (except perhaps when it comes to maintaining
30 year old backwards compatibility) and oftentimes disdain for
following specs they can't exert control on, I can't help but feel
concerned about kernel developers pointing to Windows as something they
want to follow, be it only with regards to device support... ;)
> For USB, a good rule of thumb is: Any request not sent by Windows XP
> will crash some device, somewhere.
>
>> I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around why you wouldn't want to
>> just tell the device manufacturer "it's your problem - fix it", as I
>
> The people we deal with are users, not manufacturers. As a general
> rule, the manufacturers don't listen to us.
Yeah. And THAT needs to change.
Everybody is sick and tired of getting subpar FLOSS support from
manufacturers, and that includes Linus (cf. nVidia). So what are you
gonna do?
If trying to ask the worst offenders to play nice didn't work, maybe a
more aggressive approach needs to be devised...
> They may listen to
> customers who buy millions of units, and they may listen to Microsoft,
> but very few of them listen to Linux kernel developers.
With the advent of online purchases that feature prominent user reviews,
they may also listen to consumers who post bad reviews of their
products, be it only to point out that a device doesn't work on Linux.
A single bad review that is backed up by facts ("this device doesn't
work on Linux because it doesn't respects the USB specs") can have a lot
more impact that tens of good ones...
I also think that Linux is past the point where it can be dismissed as a
fringe OS; one than can be safely be ignored by manufacturers. Microsoft
appears on the decline, and Android seems to be on the rise. That oughta
count for something as far as Linux is concerned.
> That kind of attitude doesn't work out in the real world.
Not exactly.
The kind of attitude that goes against established rules certainly does
tend to face an uphill battle, and will often dismissed as unachievable
at first ("this is a pious dream, but it'll never work out in the real
world"), since it may require established traditions to be questioned:
"Why would anyone allow their code or software to be duplicated freely,
when they could make royalties from it instead?". "How on earth can my
business benefit, if I need to spend extra to satisfy 1% or less of my
potential users?"
Yet, it's by ensuring that the idea, and, in the light of it, the
shortcomings of the currently accepted alternative, get considered and
talked about by the largest number of people, that progress can
eventually be obtained in the real world.
When complacency is at play, you may have little other choice but to
ensure that people are confronted first hand with the shortcomings of
the incumbent, so that the greatest number will push for action at the
source.
> It only
> leads to people ignoring you. You can afford to do that sort of thing
> if you have Microsoft's clout, but not when your user base is less than
> 1% of the total.
Sorry, but it's not a matter of power. It's a matter of principle and
trying to change society, or in this case, the IT and hardware
manufacturing landscape, for the better.
If, in any situation, only the powerful get to be acknowledged, then by
all means, action needs to be taken to change that.
> We do it so that people can use the devices they already own. (It's
> not unusual for a quirk to be written by somebody who owns one of the
> devices it affects.)
Yet that only encourages maintaining status-quo (Microsoft or someone
else dictates, Linux follows).
You may accept this as the best achievable under the current conditions,
but I don't think I'll ever be ready for that. Call me idealist, but
that's not the kind of world I want to live in.
As long as no one asks for change, nothing will ever change.
Regards,
/Pete
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
libusbx-devel mailing list
libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
