On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 23:47, Dave Robillard wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 23:23 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:56:03PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote: > > > > Alfons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > > > For the same reasons, there would be no need to upgrade your Linux > > > > > version, and you don't need driver updates. The current closed-source > > > > > driver will still work in 5 years. > > > > > > > > Now, you're twisting everything to fit a twisted view. Software is > > > > changed much more often than hardware. > > > > > > Yes. And you can't expect a manufacturer of a e.g. soundcard to update > > > all drivers each time you or any other customer decide to upgrade his > > > system. If *you* modify your system and thereby make an existing driver > > > useless, then it's up to *you* to find a solution, > > > > which in case of an opensource driver would be to change a code here and > > there to make it work... > > > > > maybe by providing a > > > compatibility interface in your new system. You can't expect others to > > > pay for the consequences of your decisions. A manufacturer will adapt > > > to a new system if that is in his interest, otherwise not. > > > > Paul, Jan, Fons, and others. I believe that you should switch your > > software to proprietary and make a living out of it. Because in that > > case your reasoning would be perfectly valid. > > > > Marek > > Marek! Come on.. I'm sure you're trying to prove some point, but > nothing good can possibly come from suggesting people switch their > projects over to a proprietary licensing scheme. > > I, for one, greatly appreciate the contributions of the above to the > world of free audio software - regardless of what opinions they may (or > may not) have about proprietary hardware drivers in Linux.
Me too. But it seems as if they wouldn't do themselves. That was my point. I think that at some point it has become disrespectful for companies to ignore linux. So i can't really understand people(oss users or even oss developers) who try to defend the position of companies that make their lives harder for no reason. I'm just trying to point out that they should be more proud of their work which if wasn't oss, could be: 1. a well marketed proprietary money-machine 2. valuable IP, treated as tradesecret and protected under the terms of business law and IP law. So it would be the same thing basically. And i really tried to clarify why there should be no fear in providing opensource drivers, providing a brief analysis and concrete examples. Seems that i completely failed in what i was trying to achieve. Better luck next time. ;) I'd give it one more chance and post a 'rme - take action' letter to lad and lau which would encourage people to go to the rme forum, tell them that their using their hw, what kind of hw they have purchased and that they would continue to do so in the future. But i fear that a lot of people would just ignore it, thinking to themselves 'my vote doesn't count, they will ignore it anyway, it's a waste of time, there's just 5 of us' or similar. I might be wrong. If somebody wants to encourage me in doing this i'd be glad to do it. I'd also encourage to write polite letters if that's what suits the majority here ;) If we'd achieve a fairly large number - say 100, the consequences would be either: - RME reconsidering their decision - raising interest of all the RME customers in linux audio, because virtually everyone there is able to try it out on a "professional level". Except the fireface users(minority still, since it's a new device). which if successful, would most likely bring RME to reconsider their postion anyway. Which seems that it should be in our interest to do so. It's not much effort anyway. If not, tell me, and i'll shut up. ;) Marek
