Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2006 14:21 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: > Hi, > > as an independent kernel developer, I couldn't resist answering. > > Kenneth Schneider schrieb: > > <rant> > > I just can't understand the stance of the kernel developers shutting out > > companies that are trying to provide drivers for their product. This is > > certainly more FUD fuel being provided to MS. Who are the kernel > > developers to tell a company to stop exactly what we need more of, > > -drivers- for their products. I think it may be time for the kernel > > developers to stop sticking their collective, holier than thou noses in > > the air and stop dictating what a distribution can and cannot include in > > their distribution, namely third party drivers. This is certainly going > > to drive a -LOT- of people back to MS. It is hard enough to get people > > to linux with the slow development of drivers, now it will be even > > worse. > > </rant> > > And how exactly is a closed source Linux better than Windows?
Because it is Linux, it is more flexible and suits the way I work better. I don't care whether it is open source or not, if it does the job well I'll use it, being open source is just another plus point, that if I feel uneasy I can go and check the code, and I can recompile it if I want to... As it is, I have installed SUSE on my machines on trust since 8.0, I've never looked at the source code, because it has worked "out of the box". > If anyone disagrees with the Linux kernel developers about licensing, > he or she is free to rewrite the kernel from scratch or switch to any > of the *BSD variants. The kernel is not a special piece of software, > linking closed source code against it is as forbidden as with any other > GPL project. I personally welcome any obstacle thrown in the direction > of binary only drivers because this is a clear way to communicate that > vendors of said binary-only drivers are not tolerated. And it will make > it easier to sue these vendors in the long run. I agree in part with the decision, the problem is the timing. This has been announced mid-way through the Beta process for 10.1 and Novel/openSUSE have said they will react immediately and remove all closed source Kernel-drivers from the distribution, with no communication of what that means for users. For the average user this has come as a shock, and the biggest problem with the communication of this change is that they haven't said "we will work towards removing binary drivers before the next release (i.e. 10.2)," or "we will ensure our customers are unaffected as we comply with these changes," or "we are enacting the following processes to ensure there is as little disruption for the user as possible." No, instead we just have a vague statement talking about KPM modules and banning non-GPL code from the Kernel forthwith. To the end user, this sounds like a big f*** you to their loyal users who are used to putting the CD in and getting a working system out the end. If a timeframe had been made public for this change to take place (i.e. it is announced now and suppliers of binary drivers have 6 months or whatever to open their drivers or replace them with user level binaries). As it is, what has been publicised sounds like bombing Linux back to the stoneage for principles. I appreciate that having the binary drivers makes development, testing and support more problematic, and that it breaks the GPL ethos of the Kernel, but at the end of the day, the users often don't care, as long as their system boots up. Upgrading a multi-thousand pound server to a new version of Linux, only to find Linux has made a multi-thousand pound doorstop out of the hardware isn't going to do anybody any good. I think a little more care should have gone into the wording of the release, and a little thought about the consequences. The decision is very idealistic and very sound, in theory. In practice it is suicidal to just switch off these "features" without warning and without having replacements. From what I understand from reading the lists, companies like ATi and nVidia are working on complying with these changes, whilst others like AVM are getting bolshy about it. But so far we only have 3 names, what is with the rest of the industry? Who are taking on the challenge and making compliant drivers (either OSS or user level) and who are acting like spoilt brats and refusing to comply? I really think the biggest problem with this at the moment is that the PR has been handled disasterously by the Kernel developers and companies like Novell/SUSE. What has been announced sounds like pandering to ego's whilst doing nothing to reassure existing customers/users that the next upgrade isn't going to leave them with a useless pile of junk... I'm sure that isn't the intention, but with the information so far that is unfortunately how it sounds. > As a side note, binary only drivers are an interesting target for reverse > engineering. I already did that once and the new GPL driver was faster, > more stable and (most important) free. This is great, and throwing out the binary drivers when they can be replaced by an OSS equivalent is a laudible goal, but throwing the binary drivers out wholesale when they can't currently be replaced isn't going to help anyone. -- "I got to go figure," the tenant said. "We all got to figure. There's some way to stop this. It's not like lightning or earthquakes. We've got a bad thing made by men, and by God that's something we can change." - The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
