Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/16/07, Jonathan Ryshpan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've given up reading all the followups to this, which has (as you surely expected) ended in a religious discussion about GPL vs. BSD licenses. Yeah, it's really too bad that it's impossible to keep this discussion on a technical level without someone throwing out a religious argument. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Yeah, it's really too bad that it's impossible to keep this discussion on a technical level without someone throwing out a religious argument. The whole discussion started as such one from the initial post on. So what do you expect? If the post which kicked it off would have been written in a 'technical' manner the discussion would have been a technical discussion. But since it startet otherwise it went on otherwise. Yours sincerely, Dennis Schulmeister -- Dennis Schulmeister - Schliffkopfweg 12 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany Tel: 0721/5978883 - Fax: 0721/5705992 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
I've given up reading all the followups to this, which has (as you surely expected) ended in a religious discussion about GPL vs. BSD licenses. But if, as I suspect, you hold the original copyright to whatever you've GPLed, and have not given the rights over to the FSF, as some people do, there's no reason to rewrite anything, except for technical reasons. All you have to do is to re-release whatever you want to under a BSD style license. Of course, IANAL, so proceed at your own risk. All the best - jon On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:01 +, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: ... To that end, I'm pulling everything I've written under the GPL or a GPL-compatible licence. If there are copies out there, great, feel free. Anything I'm interested in will be rewritten from the ground up under a BSD-style licence, which to be honest I've always preferred.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 15:46 +, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: Hm. In something like six years of using nVidia cards and their binary drivers, I have never had a problem that could be traced to the driver. Problems and lockups caused by the fan falling to bits are a different matter ;-) let me also be the first to announce on this mailing list that jack low latency is not working on my linux and therefore i'm qutting the scene! that's right folks, it's over, i'm through with the monkey business! oh wait, it works. nevermind, then. -- Leonard Ritter -- Freelance Art Logic -- http://www.leonard-ritter.com
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Ross Vandegrift wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:57:06PM +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: The interface does not change that fast. But the argument that 'kernel developers need the freedom to change the driver interface when they want to' has been used as one of the reasons for not having a fixed BDI. Currently the interface _could_ change at any time and you can't plan for it. Same for 'if your driver is open source then it will be maintained by some volunteers.' Maybe it will, maybe not. It's understandable that some people don't want to base a business on that. This isn't an issue if you release a driver as free software and preen it for mainline inclusion. Once a driver in using APIs in the mainline tree, it's easy to track when API changes break it. When a developer changes an API that breaks your driver, it is typically up to the developer to update your code for the API, not you! So very specifically, it's *not* a planning or budgetary problem, if you (with your vendor hat on), follow the standard procedures that operate within Linux kernel development. There is one thing that I found particularly frustrating about the lack of fixed API's: These fluctuations make it difficult to learn driver programming due to the lack of up-to-date documentation. Or the abundance of not-up-to-date documents. I don't know which one is the most problematic. There is the LDD book, which is very good btw, but it's outdated almost as soon as it is published. Google then helps you find a lot of emails in mailing lists but you still have to figure out whether they apply or not. And the 'just ask, somebody will answer' has it's limitations too. If I were a commercial HW developer needing to develop a driver for the first time, this would certainly be an issue. Greets, Pieter
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
I wonder what are the alternatives, if there are any I would jump instantly. Windows Vista in which nothing works and wastes CPU cycles to spy and torture you? OSX which comes with a hefty price, limits your choice (and money) and where cycles are wasted for blinky eyecandy? Is there any opensource OS which works better than Linux with multimedia hardware? What is the situation with the BSDs or OpenSolaris? Cheers, Malte -- Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 13:12 +0100, Malte Steiner wrote: I wonder what are the alternatives, if there are any I would jump instantly. Windows Vista in which nothing works and wastes CPU cycles to spy and torture you? OSX which comes with a hefty price, limits your choice (and money) and where cycles are wasted for blinky eyecandy? Is there any opensource OS which works better than Linux with multimedia hardware? What is the situation with the BSDs or OpenSolaris? for the vast majority of users, OSX works *massively* better than Linux for multimedia.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Just for the record... Windows Vista has been ban by the U.S. NIST... (National Institute of Science and Technology)... So things like that need to be considered... heh have a good day and a better tomorrow! vince On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Malte Steiner wrote: I wonder what are the alternatives, if there are any I would jump instantly. Windows Vista in which nothing works and wastes CPU cycles to spy and torture you? OSX which comes with a hefty price, limits your choice (and money) and where cycles are wasted for blinky eyecandy? Is there any opensource OS which works better than Linux with multimedia hardware? What is the situation with the BSDs or OpenSolaris? Cheers, Malte -- Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: On 3/14/07, Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 08:56 -0400, Paul Coccoli wrote: Besides, what you want is probably impossible. You can't have pre-comiled, binary-only drivers *and* a custom kernel. in theory, you certainly can. but the kernel development team, and linus in particular, are not interested in an engineering effort/long term approach that makes this feasible. if you define a stable driver binary interface, you can change the kernel out around it and drivers keep working. linus has made it clear that he sees no reason to do this, and is perhaps even opposed to it for some possibly sound engineering arguments (though that is open to debate). Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? I think the engineering argument also goes in the direction that creating a stable binary interface would preclude big changes in the way the kernel works internally once it is in place, (ie: keeping backwards compatibility with it would hinder progress). -- Fernando
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to be associated with this nonsense any more. It's not what Free Software is about. Ideal people in an ideal world do not need any licences and open/closed sourcing. We are not there. Maybe you are. Good luck. May The Music be with you.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After a few days of careful consideration, I've decided that I no longer want to be involved in developing software for Linux. It's been a difficult decision to make, having used Linux as my main desktop OS for around 10 years now, but I feel that the community as a whole is going in a direction that is not compatible with my moral compass. To that end, I'm pulling everything I've written under the GPL or a GPL-compatible licence. If there are copies out there, great, feel free. Anything I'm interested in will be rewritten from the ground up under a BSD-style licence, which to be honest I've always preferred. Part of the reason for this is the increasing difficulty of using binary drivers with Linux. I know a lot of people don't like them, but I like to have things like accelerated video *and* custom kernels without all the buggering about involved in getting it working. In particular the Debian-based distributions seem to be intentionally hamstrung when comes to supporting binary-only drivers, which makes running the custom kernel required for low-latency work *and* the binary nVidia driver almost impossible. I don't want to be associated with this nonsense any more. It's not what Free Software is about. What do binary-only drivers have to do with Free Software? Besides, what you want is probably impossible. You can't have pre-comiled, binary-only drivers *and* a custom kernel. I hear Mac OS X is nice; maybe it would suit your needs better.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:56:31AM -0400, Paul Coccoli wrote: What do binary-only drivers have to do with Free Software? Indeed. Besides, what you want is probably impossible. You can't have pre-comiled, binary-only drivers *and* a custom kernel. Huh? Of course you can. If with custom kernel you mean just a kernel.org one built with customized options, I do that all the time. It's easy with Gentoo. With patches, there _might_ be conflicts. -- Thorsten Wilms Thorwil's Creature Illustrations: http://www.printfection.com/thorwil
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 06:01, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: In particular the Debian-based distributions seem to be intentionally hamstrung when comes to supporting binary-only drivers, which makes running the custom kernel required for low-latency work *and* the binary nVidia driver almost impossible. Well, given the long-standing ideological bent of that distro, that's hardly surprising. However, it's neither accurate nor fair to take the policies of one particular integrator and set them up as being representative of linux as a whole. Other distros (not to mention Linus himself) have more lenient policies --e.g. OpenSuSE. That's precisely why multiple distros exist -- different things are important to different people. Cheers! |-| | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer | | | Paravel Systems | |-| | As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it | | wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging had | | to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I realized | | that a large part of my life from then on was going to be spent in | | finding mistakes in my own programs.| |-- Maurice Wilkes discovers debugging, 1949 | |-|
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 08:56 -0400, Paul Coccoli wrote: Besides, what you want is probably impossible. You can't have pre-comiled, binary-only drivers *and* a custom kernel. in theory, you certainly can. but the kernel development team, and linus in particular, are not interested in an engineering effort/long term approach that makes this feasible. if you define a stable driver binary interface, you can change the kernel out around it and drivers keep working. linus has made it clear that he sees no reason to do this, and is perhaps even opposed to it for some possibly sound engineering arguments (though that is open to debate). whether a patch that is as intrusive as ingo's would manage to not break such a DBI is a question that is hard to answer, since the DBI doesn't exist. --p
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Gordon JC Pearce wrote: ... the Debian-based distributions seem to be intentionally hamstrung when comes to supporting binary-only drivers, which makes running the custom kernel required for low-latency work *and* the binary nVidia driver almost impossible. Unless I misunderstand you, I don't have the same problem with 64Studio, a Debian-based distro with optimized kernel, along with the proprietary nVidia driver for my graphics card. Best, dp
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 09:59 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote: Unless I misunderstand you, I don't have the same problem with 64Studio, a Debian-based distro with optimized kernel, along with the proprietary nVidia driver for my graphics card. Debian itself has a package that automatically builds and installs an nVidia driver for a custom kernel. The only time I've had any problem with that was when I built a driver for a patched 2.6.20-rc-something and config.h, which the nVidia source included, had been removed from the kernel headers. This was easily fixed by removing one line in the driver code. --ll signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 14:16 schrieb Paul Davis: in theory, you certainly can. but the kernel development team, and linus in particular, are not interested in an engineering effort/long term approach that makes this feasible. if you define a stable driver binary interface, you can change the kernel out around it and drivers keep working. linus has made it clear that he sees no reason to do this, and is perhaps even opposed to it for some possibly sound engineering arguments (though that is open to debate). And what are these arguments? CU Christian
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 08:56 -0400, Paul Coccoli wrote: Besides, what you want is probably impossible. You can't have pre-comiled, binary-only drivers *and* a custom kernel. in theory, you certainly can. but the kernel development team, and linus in particular, are not interested in an engineering effort/long term approach that makes this feasible. if you define a stable driver binary interface, you can change the kernel out around it and drivers keep working. linus has made it clear that he sees no reason to do this, and is perhaps even opposed to it for some possibly sound engineering arguments (though that is open to debate). Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
By continually breaking the drivers, it forces someone to look over them when updating and maybe fix other problems. Taybin -Original Message- From: Christian Schoenebeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mar 14, 2007 10:17 AM To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 14:16 schrieb Paul Davis: in theory, you certainly can. but the kernel development team, and linus in particular, are not interested in an engineering effort/long term approach that makes this feasible. if you define a stable driver binary interface, you can change the kernel out around it and drivers keep working. linus has made it clear that he sees no reason to do this, and is perhaps even opposed to it for some possibly sound engineering arguments (though that is open to debate). And what are these arguments? CU Christian
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? This is exactly what I'm talking about. I *DON'T FUCKING CARE* what the manufacturers do or don't do with their hardware interfaces. What I *do* care about is having X break every couple of days because some kernel update. I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and work round other people's hangups. I flattened my Linux PC, and along with it all the source and svn repository. I only really need Thunderbird, Firefox, Bluefish and gvim to get my real work done, and they work just fine in FreeBSD (and indeed NetBSD, my OS of choice). Anyway, rant over. It's gone now. I'm going back to concentrating on hardware synths and analogue recording. Thanks folks, Gordonjcp
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? This is exactly what I'm talking about. I *DON'T FUCKING CARE* what the manufacturers do or don't do with their hardware interfaces. What I *do* care about is having X break every couple of days because some kernel update. I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and work round other people's hangups. I think you misread my technical statement as a political one. I don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway, rant over. It's gone now. I'm going back to concentrating on hardware synths and analogue recording. Good move, btw :) Dmitry.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. CU Christian
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? although i broadly agree with lee on most things, i think that this way of approaching this issue is unnecessarily confrontational. just flip it around ... why should vendors expose their hardware interfaces just to keep linux' reputation for stability up? i don't have a non-confrontational alternative, though :)
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Christian Schoenebeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) With binary drivers kernel debugging requires the cooperation of the vendor in the best case, and lots of guesswork and reverse engineering in the worst case. The main technical argument in favor of open source is that anyone can fix a bug. With binary drivers, you're at the mercy of the vendor. At that point you might as well run Windows. Another technical argument for open source drivers is that vendors will put all kinds of garbage like AC3 encoding in the kernel if they're allowed to keep the code secret. Have you ever disassembled/decompiled a Windows driver? It's shocking what you find... and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. Who says it's about reputation? I am talking about real world stability. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
although i broadly agree with lee on most things, i think that this way of approaching this issue is unnecessarily confrontational. just flip it around ... why should vendors expose their hardware interfaces just to keep linux' reputation for stability up? To whom does the hardware belong? Me, personally, I'm sick of buying hardware that I don't have any control over, save to be enslaved by the whims of the hardware manufacturer. This vast gap between what I'm allowed to do with hardware and what I can do with hardware is a potentially crippling factor in the continued expansion of computing systems in the modern world; how much trash is generated yearly by people who decide they can't do what they need to do with the hardware in front of them because they don't know enough about how it works, so they 'upgrade' and get 'newer' stuff instead? Its a huge issue, and a highly charged conversation in nearly all aspects, but one fact should never be overlooked in this debate: you have a choice. Use binary-only drivers, or use source-only drivers. In the Linux world, that sphere of choice is a lot larger than in the non-Linux realm .. I can't name a single Windows driver, for anything, that ships with source .. That said, this subject: should be changed 'getting out of the software politics game', because thats what its really all about. Software politics is not the same as software run-time, yo .. -- ; Jay Vaughan
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:16:46AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: With binary drivers kernel debugging requires the cooperation of the vendor in the best case, and lots of guesswork and reverse engineering in the worst case. I'd say _driver_ debugging requires the cooperation of the vendor. You can always run and debug the kernel without a particular driver loaded. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Paul Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:21 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? although i broadly agree with lee on most things, i think that this way of approaching this issue is unnecessarily confrontational. just flip it around ... why should vendors expose their hardware interfaces just to keep linux' reputation for stability up? i don't have a non-confrontational alternative, though :) I guess my response would be that the main reasons for the success of Linux are stability and performance which are direct results of the kernel source being open. Take that away and it's just a lame proprietary Unix that only the vendor can support. Whereas, secret interfaces are really tangential to the the quality of the hardware. My other response would be to point to all the successful vendors who *do* provide open Linux drivers. Creative released a GPL emu10k1 driver and went on to sell gazillions of those devices to Linux users, and the competition never cloned their hardware, because they patented their hardware innovations. Finally, hardware vendors are of course free to require a binary blob to use their gear, as long as it runs in userspace, like the newer Intel wireless and video stuff. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:34 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: I think you misread my technical statement as a political one. I don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. Hm. In something like six years of using nVidia cards and their binary drivers, I have never had a problem that could be traced to the driver. Problems and lockups caused by the fan falling to bits are a different matter ;-) Gordon
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:34 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: I think you misread my technical statement as a political one. I don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. Hm. In something like six years of using nVidia cards and their binary drivers, I have never had a problem that could be traced to the driver. Problems and lockups caused by the fan falling to bits are a different matter ;-) The plural of anecdotes is not data. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
In some cases the binaries will cause the system to become unstable. I learned that quickly from using a binary for Lucent some time back... It became quite problematic and since then I refuse to deal with a tainted kernel for any reason... Just my opinion... that and a couple of bucks might buy a cup of coffee... :-) Have a good day and a better tomorrow! vince On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Am Mittwoch, 14. M?rz 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. CU Christian
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Hello Lee, On Wed, March 14, 2007 15:34, Lee Revell wrote: don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. what a pity that Andy Tanenbaum hadn't been able to convince Linus Torvalds that a microkernel was a better choice... :) Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 16:16 schrieb Lee Revell: With binary drivers kernel debugging requires the cooperation of the vendor in the best case, and lots of guesswork and reverse engineering in the worst case. The main technical argument in favor of open source is that anyone can fix a bug. With binary drivers, you're at the mercy of the vendor. At that point you might as well run Windows. Fons already gave you the appropriate argument on this one. And the very last sentence is once again a very exaggerated statement. :) Another technical argument for open source drivers is that vendors will put all kinds of garbage like AC3 encoding in the kernel if they're allowed to keep the code secret. Have you ever disassembled/decompiled a Windows driver? It's shocking what you find... I think most of the people on this list know these kind of issues. And I totally agree that this is an argument to avoid using binary drivers, but it's definitely NOT a sufficient argument to completely reject a BDI. Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. Who says it's about reputation? I am talking about real world stability. It's not the kernel, but the binary driver that might introduce the instability. So in that case the user would have the option to use, or not to use that potential buggy binary driver. But when you reject a BDI at all, you just want to protect the stability reputation of a software piece called Linux. And that was actually one of the reasons why I jumped on the OSS train, because I didn't like wise developers to tell me what's good for me or what's not. That should be up to the judgement of the respective user. We all know the bad sides of binary drivers, but at the end it's simply this: rejecting a BDI takes away some of the users' freedom. CU Christian
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Christian Schoenebeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not the kernel, but the binary driver that might introduce the instability. So in that case the user would have the option to use, or not to use that potential buggy binary driver. What if it's the driver for your SATA controller? Now you can't boot without it. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Christian Schoenebeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: called Linux. And that was actually one of the reasons why I jumped on the OSS train, because I didn't like wise developers to tell me what's good for me or what's not. That should be up to the judgement of the respective user. Then you will have wise HW vendors. You can't have an absolute freedom. Your freedom is always bounded by the freedom of another. If developers will not take a freedom of choosing binary drivers from user, then hardware vendors will take from users the freedom to use free drivers. Dmitry.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 14 Mar 2007, at 15:34, Lee Revell wrote: My other response would be to point to all the successful vendors who *do* provide open Linux drivers. Creative released a GPL emu10k1 driver and went on to sell gazillions of those devices to Linux users, and the competition never cloned their hardware, because they patented their hardware innovations. And because their hardware is weird and terrible, but that's another story. I agree, FWIW, I'm just not sure that's a compelling example. - Steve
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: I think most of the people on this list know these kind of issues. And I totally agree that this is an argument to avoid using binary drivers, but it's definitely NOT a sufficient argument to completely reject a BDI. I agree. A BDI would make sense from a purely software engineering POV as well, and would be an asset to *all* driver developers, including those writing open source drivers. You should consider the position of a HW manufacturer who wants to develop a new product that may require a Linux driver for it. The project is planned, and a budget is set aside for driver development. If the kernel to driver interface can change at any moment, then it becomes almost impossible to estimate the economic value of the Linux driver - it could be useless the day after it's finished. So there is little incentive for investing any money in it. The stability of interfaces *is* important. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Fons Adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should consider the position of a HW manufacturer who wants to develop a new product that may require a Linux driver for it. The project is planned, and a budget is set aside for driver development. If the kernel to driver interface can change at any moment, then it becomes almost impossible to estimate the economic value of the Linux driver - it could be useless the day after it's finished. I've been following kernel development closely for a few years now and I've never seen this happen. The interface does not change that fast. Even for vendors who work against ancient kernels and gratuitously ignore CodingStyle, it's usually trivial to get a driver in shape for inclusion. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:26:35PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: The interface does not change that fast. Indeed it doesn't, and that is quite normal - after so many years it should be quite clear to both kernel and driver developers what constitutes a good interface. One more reason to define and freeze it ! But the argument that 'kernel developers need the freedom to change the driver interface when they want to' has been used as one of the reasons for not having a fixed BDI. Currently the interface _could_ change at any time and you can't plan for it. Same for 'if your driver is open source then it will be maintained by some volunteers.' Maybe it will, maybe not. It's understandable that some people don't want to base a business on that. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:57:06PM +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: The interface does not change that fast. But the argument that 'kernel developers need the freedom to change the driver interface when they want to' has been used as one of the reasons for not having a fixed BDI. Currently the interface _could_ change at any time and you can't plan for it. Same for 'if your driver is open source then it will be maintained by some volunteers.' Maybe it will, maybe not. It's understandable that some people don't want to base a business on that. This isn't an issue if you release a driver as free software and preen it for mainline inclusion. Once a driver in using APIs in the mainline tree, it's easy to track when API changes break it. When a developer changes an API that breaks your driver, it is typically up to the developer to update your code for the API, not you! So very specifically, it's *not* a planning or budgetary problem, if you (with your vendor hat on), follow the standard procedures that operate within Linux kernel development. -- Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
I think you misread my technical statement as a political one. I don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. I have an additional argument against binary drivers. Some years ago, we had a server with a Highpoint IDE RAID controller. We bought it because the Highpoint actually had an open source driver tgz for it on it on its webpage. It turned out though that this open source driver was a binary blob with some open source kernel glue code around it (just like the nvidia and ati drivers). Anyway, too late to go back, we used the controller with the binary driver, kernel 2.4. After a while had to to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel, but Highpoint only provided a 2.4 driver. This caused a lot of trouble. Needless to say, from that moment on, we have sticked with IDE controllers from manufacturers that truely support open source. And with software RAID. That said, I do use the nvidia binary drivers. NVidia follows kernel changes fast enough, and my experience is that you will not run into trouble if you using a (custom) kernel that is not totally cutting edge. I use Ubuntu, and using the NVidia drivers with it is pretty straightforward. So I really do not understand how this can make someone decide to stop developing software for Linux. maarten
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Maarten de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you misread my technical statement as a political one. I don't care about politics or the GPL, I just want Linux to be the most stable OS, and that can't happen if secret blobs of code are allowed to scribble all over kernel memory. I have an additional argument against binary drivers. Some years ago, we had a server with a Highpoint IDE RAID controller. We bought it because the Highpoint actually had an open source driver tgz for it on it on its webpage. It turned out though that this open source driver was a binary blob with some open source kernel glue code around it (just like the nvidia and ati drivers). Anyway, too late to go back, we used the controller with the binary driver, kernel 2.4. After a while had to to upgrade to a 2.6 kernel, but Highpoint only provided a 2.4 driver. This caused a lot of trouble. Heh, I forgot about that one - vendors who keep their source closed so they can lie about the capabilities of the hardware. I suspect they marketed a fakeraid (aka software RAID implemented at driver level) device as hardware RAID. This is common in sound drivers too - devices are advertised as supporting hardware AC3/DTS/whatever encoding while in fact the driver does it in software. Lee
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Lee Revell wrote: The plural of anecdotes is not data. Nice! Thats one for the sigmonster. Erik -- +---+ Erik de Castro Lopo +---+ Fundamentalists of all faiths are the fundamental evil of our time. -- Salman Rushdie
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Gordon JC Pearce wrote: After a few days of careful consideration, I've decided that I no longer want to be involved in developing software for Linux. It's been a difficult decision to make, having used Linux as my main desktop OS for around 10 years now, but I feel that the community as a whole is going in a direction that is not compatible with my moral compass. To that end, I'm pulling everything I've written under the GPL or a GPL-compatible licence. If there are copies out there, great, feel free. Anything I'm interested in will be rewritten from the ground up under a BSD-style licence, which to be honest I've always preferred. Part of the reason for this is the increasing difficulty of using binary drivers with Linux. I know a lot of people don't like them, but I like to have things like accelerated video *and* custom kernels without all the buggering about involved in getting it working. In particular the Debian-based distributions seem to be intentionally hamstrung when comes to supporting binary-only drivers, which makes running the custom kernel required for low-latency work *and* the binary nVidia driver almost impossible. I don't want to be associated with this nonsense any more. It's not what Free Software is about. Gordonjcp I guess you started this in order to start a flame war. But if not, I thought you should know that the 3d nvidia stuff has already been reverse engineered. It is called Nouveau, and there is even a video from lca2007 explaining it: http://lca2007.linux.org.au/talk/154 Nouveau's web site: http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ So, soon there will be open source GPL nvidia 3d graphics drivers for Linux, so you won't need those nvidia binary drivers any more. Thus, you problem will be solved. So, there is no need to even support any binary only drivers in Linux. Kind Regards James
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Lee Revell wrote: The plural of anecdotes is not data. Nice! Thats one for the sigmonster. Erik In fact it's anecdata. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anecdata ;-) c. -- http://www.cesaremarilungo.com
RE: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Actually, anecdotes is already plural. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cesare Marilungo Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:28 PM To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Lee Revell wrote: The plural of anecdotes is not data. Nice! Thats one for the sigmonster. Erik In fact it's anecdata. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anecdata ;-) c. -- http://www.cesaremarilungo.com
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On 3/14/07, Cornell III, Howard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, anecdotes is already plural. Dammit! /me hangs head in shame
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:00 +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. When kernel hackers aren't allowed to hack the kernel, quality of it obviously goes down. Not might - does. -DR-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Dave Robillard wrote: On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:00 +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) and if the kernel devs created such a DBI, vendors would stop releasing open source drivers and pretty soon Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Why should Linux sacrifice stability just so vendors can keep their hardware interfaces secret? Not Linux' stability might suffer, but what you fear is that its reputation could do. When kernel hackers aren't allowed to hack the kernel, quality of it obviously goes down. Oh no! They hacked it. When did it happen? :-) c. Not might - does. -DR- -- http://www.cesaremarilungo.com
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Lee Revell wrote: On 3/14/07, Christian Schoenebeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 15:21 schrieb Lee Revell: Binary drivers make the kernel impossible to debug, That's an exaggerated statement. I would accept harder though. ;) With binary drivers kernel debugging requires the cooperation of the vendor in the best case, and lots of guesswork and reverse engineering in the worst case. The main technical argument in favor of open source is that anyone can fix a bug. With binary drivers, you're at the mercy of the vendor. At that point you might as well run Windows. Custom-built kernels will never be fully compatible with binary drivers for the simple and naive reason that these drivers are compiled against a particular build of the kernel not necessarily the same with that of others. Come on, anyone who has compiled ALSA from the ground-up would know that it would work best together with the kernel with which it was compiled for. It is not guaranteed to work with other kernel builds. This is true for most drivers. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Carlo -- Carlo Florendo Softare Engineer/Network Co-Administrator Astra Philippines Inc. UP-Ayala Technopark, Diliman 1101, Quezon City Philippines http://www.astra.ph -- The Astra Group of Companies 5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City Tokyo 206-0011, Japan http://www.astra.co.jp
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Lee Revell wrote: On 3/14/07, Cornell III, Howard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, anecdotes is already plural. Dammit! /me hangs head in shame Nah, we're all entitled to one mistake, and that was yours :) -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If I am elected no one will ever have to do their laundry again!
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Getting out of the software game
Gordon JC Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not what Free Software is about. You can't expect people to give a flying about proprietary drivers when it conflicts with the fundamental philosophy of free software. Do you really expect people in the free software community to lay the ground works for using proprietary drivers?. -- Esben Stien is [EMAIL PROTECTED] s a http://www. s tn m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact sip:b0ef@ e e jid:b0ef@n n
