Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Eliot Blennerhassett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: we at audioscience I will certainly put my eyes on audioscience now. Having a company working so close with the community is really great. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esben-stien.name irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact [sip|iax]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Mark Knecht hat gesagt: // Mark Knecht wrote: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:09:17 +0100, Frank Barknecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) This is so patently untrue I cannot imagine how you got here. GPL == GP License Nothing under GPL is 'owned' by me. It is 'licensed'. I didn't create it so I don't have any rights other than those granted me. If you own something you can do anything you want with it simply because you own it. If it is licensed you must follow the terms of the license specifcally because the real owner only grants you the rights in the license. Well, that's what I wrote: As long as you follow the license, you can do everything you want with it. The free software licenses are designed in a way, that you can do everything, that does not try to take away the right to do everything with the software from other users. Even the original owner, the autor of the software, cannot take away these rights once he released a piece of code under a libre license. In this way he is as much an owner as you are. (He is more owner in the case that he wants to double license his code under a non-free licens, but then this piece of code is not free software anymore. He still cannot take back the code he already had set free.) I am not strictly talking law here. But e.g. the FSF is working on freeing software from owners (Why Software Should Not Have Owners, [1]) by giving authors the same rights as users (and thus making them owners, too, in a way) [1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) The best bet would be to find a adat/smux card manufacturer which is able to release specs and keep the rest as far away from your pc as possible. :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 22:36, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. I don't think so. Currently there are new fw products coming out, in a few months time the audio market will be literally *flooded* with fw audio stuff. There's even mackie onyx analog mixer for which they offer an optional fw card for. Most of them *will* deliver 2-3ms latency i bet. And this under conditions which can't be guaranteed for many reasons(mostly rock-solid hw configuration which is guesswork to build most of the time, and *very* well tuned copy of windows that's installed). Heck i get crackles with a 256 setting with my fireface on an amd 2.2 system with amd761 northbridge and a g400(compared to what they claim, i.e. 1ms latency), don't ask what it does on a i815 chipset(which is crap chipset for critical applications such as audio but just to demonstrate). Of course i can't blame the hw manufacturers for that, it's simply impossible to guarantee that, it's just that it's achievable under some specific conditions. But nevertheless they *have* to deliver such performance because of the market. Now everybody does hiding it's own research from each other and the result is that there will be only these subtle differences in terms of performance. Who does suffer? Linux users. This just shows how healthy and benefitial the collaborative open source model is. Instead of working out an audio-over-ieee1394 standard they will just hide the stuff because everybody is just stealing. (their way of thinking) :/ So i think that no matter whether rme or other audio card manufacturer, in this case it's just not valid at all. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:35, R Parker wrote: --- Marek Peteraj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:21, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee and Jan, i talk to you as an owner of fireface. :) I really like the philosophy of not letting any closed source drivers into the kernel. In the end i only saw people upset because their XY nvidia or ATI driver wasn't working. Besides they'd need to provide it themselves, which means a lot more money than just handing out documentation or perhaps one free unit. My point of view - either open source alsa driver, or i'll just sell that unit. And now that they have accused me of causing damage to RME specifically because of this thread, i can only say, i'll stay away from any of their products. Speaking of damage, i'd like to see a slashdot story about this so that 30.000 people can judge for themselves. :) I really hope you don't do that. My intention wasn't to post that on /. at least not now. I was thinking out loud. Of course, in case we did a market survey it would definitely be needed. RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. They got a lot of units sold in return and built a very good reputation based on that fact and this went beyond the linux audio world i believe. I hope you consider how much work has gone into Linux Audio But that's what i'm talking about. So much effort, oustanding technologies(although i know the authors won't admit ;) and they(hw manufacturers) don't care! and how difficult it is to develop that type of business relationship. There is no relationship. The only real manufacturer from the POV of linux audio is audioscience(.com), which unfortunately does only broadcast hw. They do ALSA drivers, provide support and invest their time and money in doing so. They deserve highest respect for that considering the current situation. That's how it should be. And this is what we should fight for. Whether you are in the right or wrong, is it inconcievable for you to act for the interests of many people by selling the unit and getting something else? Not sure i understand. I'm about to sell my fireface copy as i declared previously. Of course if there's any way i could help out other people here in keeping the unit, i'm prepared to do so. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:03, tim hall wrote: Last Saturday 27 November 2004 21:36, Lee Revell was like: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves - they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of business. In the case of the Swizz Army Tuner, the original designers were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them _even if they won_ so could not take action. I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the hardware business is. Yeah, If I was the MD of RME, after reading some of the responses on this thread I'd be thinking of flippin' the bird at all these ungrateful linux users. I think it's about defending the position of open source and its nature. And the work that people do here no matter whether for fun or not. From now on every company that doesn't do it like audioscience does, is a plain loser to me, no matter whether they provide specs or not. It's because other people do the actual work + support providing. If MacOSX can have them, so can we, we have a greater marketshare. Why the heck should we *always* understand them? Why can't they understand *us*? We're a minority group and I think the onus is on us to convince RME to produce a driver for their firewire hardware, politely and if necessary, via the florists ;-). OK, so closed-source drivers are far from ideal, but better than a hole in the head. http://www.audioscience.com If they can, who can't? I can't see the difference, can anyone explain? It means that the drivers can't be bundled with distros and we won't be able to provide users developers with technical support, which is a great shame. However, I suspect a certain amount of well-reasoned persistence will pay off here. Sure, our numbers on this list aren't great, but they are significant. There are many audio hw customers outside of this list (see CK's post for example, or judging form experience - somewhere on #gnome talking about rme ;) plus tons of talks on #lad - Q: hi, what's the best card for audio under linux? A: rme or if you don't have that much money, maudio) OK, _very_ few people are using firewire technology for music, up till now I'd considered it the preserve of mac/motu users. I think a majority of pc based audio hw will be fw based in the near future. Every manufacturer will have at least one product. Scary. I think we should continue to support RME where licenses allow and look forward to the day that they release their firewire drivers :-). That is going to be the day their hw becomes redundant on the market? Or even discontinued? That's the problem i'm seeing. I think we should keep up the pressure on manufacturers like MOTU too. They'll see sense eventually. ;-] I doubt it. They have their own sw products, like the DP. In their case i can pretty much understand why they don't do that if they see linux audio as a competition. Mine is an equally naive viewpoint, but with the knowledge that a little bit of positive thinking can go a long way, especially when backed up with a well-researched wish-list and plenty of patience. 2 years korg and now this. Trust me it's not possible to cope with that for a long time :) Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
[Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Cheers, Tim
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Jan Depner hat gesagt: // Jan Depner wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote: IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Closed source drivers are *the* evil force threatening open source and free software. Closed source drivers means no open source drivers, that's a simple fact. Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only drivers, NVidia rulez. If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. But think about this: There are no alternatives in the graphics card market anymore. Think about, why this situation is so? In this regard, providing closed source drivers and not providing docs is even worse than not providing specifications only. It's a trojan horse, and a big part of the Linux community bites it. Just working may be enough for most users, but it is not enough for me. And that's not because I would be an RMS zealot (at least, RMS is smart enough, to not let the Trojan horse in). It's simply, what decades of open source history have told those, who know about it: It's not Linux, that's the threat to the Big Bosses, it's the idea of Free Software. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Why? Because with the availability of closed drivers the (market) demand for open source drivers suddenly becomes as small as the handful of Libre Software supporters like I am one. The just make my hardware work type of Linux users is not interested in Open Source drivers anymore, so why should someone still write this kind of drivers? NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only Gone are the beautiful days, closed already (their 650, 750 and parhelia series - binary only) Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html If RME doesn't want to support Linux for their FW card, that's fine with me. There are still enough alternatives. We're risking a case where the alternatives would soon be redundant technically or discontinued. And firewire is der letzte schrei, almost every manufacturer has got or prepares his own firewire product. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Marek Peteraj wrote: Oh BTW, just in case :) http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/petition.html Free as in Nelson Mandela :) ~ Simon
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:53, Jan Depner wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:15, Marek Peteraj wrote: On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 14:50, Tim Goetze wrote: [Marek Peteraj] RME has provided Pro grade audio hardware when Linux Audio needed it in order to become a legitimate alternative to proprietary solutions. Not really. It was Paul, Thomas, and one other guy(don't remember the name) who did. Remember it was almost no investment from RME's side. A not uncommon belief has it that the investment called 'trust' is worth more than any monetary investment. Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 18:12 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: And who the heck cares, that you cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source drivers, by any manufacturer? Sure you can. The VIA unichrome cards have open 3D drivers. But, of course, it's not the best 3D hardware on the market. From the vendor's perspective if getting your device supported under linux means you _need_ to release an open source driver, you will find that the best hardware is disproportionately unsupported. Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. Lee
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Ah i don't know. I mean, you guys have put a lot of time into what your doing anyway. And in my case the trust in rme turned out to be a bummer just becasue i was thinking that they have trust in the open source developers. If they did have such trust, something like this would never happen. Once again, the simple answer is www.audioscience.com. Why don't the guys who do the driver development see if audioscience Thanks for the vote of confidence! Do you mean the ALSA developers? Audioscience does its drivers for ALSA, no volunteers needed. :) Not so fast... we at audioscience would love to have some help with our ALSA driver and our underlying HPI driver. We are a small company that supports various Micros~1 flavours as well as Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel variations. I am the single person who does all the linux stuff, and would still say I don't know enough to do it easily or properly. (Of course I have had help from our customers and other alsa developers, and kudos to Takashi Iwai for doing the work to incorporate our ALSA driver into the alsa tree) So step right up... would be interested in producing pro audio cards (not just broadcast) with driver help from the OS community. They seem like they have their act together. So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? Seems like a good idea to me. The 5044 cards offers 8 analog i/os of 24/192 and i wonder whether such card could not already be used for studio purposes. But in any case, they're very close. Marek regards Eliot Blennerhassett
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. As we have Behringer as a subject currently: Behringer is a problem for Mackie, but we here invite people into our house to become Behringers, and to become a Behringer is a good thing here. Ardour is trying to become a Behringer for Digidesign. Nobody can steal free software, because they already own it. (As long as they follow the rules as stated in the GPL etc.) IP however and free software don't match very well together. Free software is at least a decade older than the term Intellectual Property (read the Wired-CD text to learn more), which was only coined as a term to fight free property, to fight sharing, to fight Behringers, etc. Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ __footils.org__
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:27:46AM +1300, Eliot Blennerhassett wrote: So, what is the difference between our current offerings and what you'd like to see in a pro audio card? I don't see any gross difference except the input/output connectors. Bundle the 5042 or 5044 with adapters or breakout boxes, and price them roughly in the ballpark (allowing for feature and/or spec differences) with M-audio's Delta 1010LT and 1010, and you might have another market to tap into. Worth investigating anyway. That's a pretty low price target, though. The Delta 1010 can be had for $500 new; the 1010 LT for considerably less. Another point of comparison would be Echo Layla for ~ $700 US. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 22:09 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: Hallo, Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote: Nvidia has a lot more valuable IP at stake than VIA when they release an open source driver for their 3D gear. If you don't understand why, I can't help you. I do understand this very well. Because this is the central conflict: I will not deal with companies who hide their so called Intellectual Property in an area where many free software developers (Jarolav, Takashi, Paul, Miller, Linus, Guido, ...) release their so called Intellectual Property into a freedom so that it is not *their* property anymore but free to use for a whole community. I think you are confusing the distinction between software and hardware. I agree that software should be free. The issue here is what the software reveals about the hardware. This is the reason Linus allows binary Linux drivers, but not, say, a binary I/O scheduler. Lee
Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Maybe the reason no firewire hardware is supported is because Behringer and their ilk would instantly have all the info they need to copy the design and mass produce it. Doesn't matter how cheap the device is to design - it will _always_ be cheaper to rip someone off than design it yourself. They can even sell at a loss, due to huge cash reserves - they only need to sustain it long enough to put the competition out of business. In the case of the Swizz Army Tuner, the original designers were ripped off by Behringer, but a lawsuit would have bankrupted them _even if they won_ so could not take action. I think many people in this thread underestimate how cutthroat the hardware business is. Lee
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:36, Lee Revell wrote: On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 15:43 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: Did this happen? Maybe not to them but look at Mackie and Behringer. Just to save people some googling here is a thread that documents the long and colorful history of pro audio hardware manufacturers blatantly ripping each other off, often leaving the victims with no legal recourse: http://homerecording.com/bbs/archive/index.php/t-74439.html IMO the issue is not whether RME's concern is valid - clearly it is. Sorry, but arguing otherwise makes us look stupid and naive. The issue is how to address this concern. If that means a closed source Linux driver, fine. Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Jan
Re: Behringer [was Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more]
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 16:22 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: Man, I've been waiting all day for someone to say this. Personally, open source is not a religion for me so a closed source driver would be fine and dandy. Let the flames commence - now where did I put my asbestos underwear? Eh, it's a slow day, I'm bored. But I mean it 100%. Flame away... So, the next question is, what would it take to make a closed source driver happen? They should start the bidding on alsa-devel at one free FireFace... Lee
