[osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was open source process)
On Jul 28, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Mike Kupfer wrote: What about things like wifi drivers? I'm not an expert in the area, but I'm told that these drivers often contain a binary-only component (even in Linux). It's apparently the result of US (FCC) regulatory requirements on the wifi hardware. Then they aren't in OpenSolaris. Not being in our products doesn't mean they can't be downloaded from somewhere else or obtained as part of a proprietary distribution. Roy ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was open source process)
On 7/28/05, Tao Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/28/05, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think that's a very practical view. There is a *lot* of hardware out there that cannot be used without some binary component. Not just wifi, but many others. Quite frankly, it should be more about the user and less about ivory tower academic principles. Taking the attitude of open source only or the highway sounds very noble, but it doesn't accomplish much. Many companies *will never* provide the necessary information to develop drivers for their hardware, whether because of legal obligations to others, *government restrictions*, or otherwise. I think many people are looking at the OpenSolaris project as one that is willing to support the user instead of taking the rather unhelpful attitude of no binary drivers that other operating system projects take. When it comes down to it, the user doesn't give a flying pig about whether a driver is binary only or not. They just want their hardware to work, and if binary only components is the only choice then it's a reasonable thing to accept to many of us. Those who don't like it can just not use that hardware, the rest of us would like our hardware to work out of the box :) I fail to see where you disgree with Roy's statement, unless your definition of OpenSolaris is different Roy's in this context. On 7/28/05, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then they aren't in OpenSolaris. Not being in our products doesn't mean they can't be downloaded from somewhere else or obtained as part of a proprietary distribution. Since any close source binary can be put into any OpenSolaris-based _distribution_ (up to the owner to decide), such as Solaris, what exactly is not practical? We simply can't claim the binary is _ours_ (the OpenSolaris community), i.e. belongs to the OpenSolaris (in its strict meaning), even if it's Sun's. That doesn't mean we cannot discuss it, test its integration with OpenSolaris, I suppose. The point is if a driver exists that can be integrated, but has a required binary only component due to legal or other restrictions and that is the only way that hardware will work, then to me and many others it is perfectly acceptable. This binary only component could be a rom that has to be loaded into flash memory, special software to initialize a device, or perhaps a TV-Out enabler. I don't expect 3rd party binary-only-in-every-single-way drivers to be integrated into the official OpenSolaris project since they're owned by a third party. However, I do expect drivers that are open except for one component or set of components needed to initialize the hardware or otherwise provide legally restricted functionality to be given the option of being included. Wi-Fi drivers are one of many very good examples. At the very least, it must be very easy for a user to install binary drivers, and not have to worry about recompiling their kernel or any of the other dreck that certain unnamed open source projects make their users go through. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was open source process)
Tao Chen wrote: ... I am not familiar with the Wi-Fi issue. How is it handled by Redhat/SuSe/Debian right now, assuming it's not part of the Linux kernel? ipw2200.sourceforge.net et al have what some people refer to as a HAL (hardware abstraction layer) for the FCC-mandated non-changeable stuff as a binary. This gets linked in when the driver is built iirc. regards, James C. McPherson -- Pacrim PTS Engineer828 Pacific Highway Gordon NSW Sun Microsystems Australia 2072 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: wifi (was open source process)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 06:12:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: The point is if a driver exists that can be integrated, but has a required binary only component due to legal or other restrictions and that is the only way that hardware will work, then to me and many others it is perfectly acceptable. This binary only component could be Obviously this is something people will disagree on. It's pretty easy to argue that the binary-only component isn't open in any meaningful sense; it can't be modified and it isn't a source of information. At the moment, some of them are needed to do useful and important things with OpenSolaris sources; perhaps that makes them part of OpenSolaris - which seems to be your position; perhaps it makes them second-class OpenSolaris adjuncts - which seems to be Roy's position (and in fact is mine as well). The difference seems solely semantic from where I stand, and whatever you call them, they need to be replaced as quickly as possible. a rom that has to be loaded into flash memory, special software to initialize a device, or perhaps a TV-Out enabler. I don't expect 3rd party binary-only-in-every-single-way drivers to be integrated into the official OpenSolaris project since they're owned by a third party. Yep. However, I do expect drivers that are open except for one component or set of components needed to initialize the hardware or otherwise provide legally restricted functionality to be given the option of being included. Wi-Fi drivers are one of many very good examples. And that's something we're talking about right now. For example, it seems to me that firmware is fair game for delivery in binary form; I don't likely have a compiler or assembler for it anyway and although I might like to change it there's no real argument that it's part of the operating system or even of the driver; it's equivalent to delivering code in a ROM, which is part of the device. Of course, if you wanted to claim that your hardware's implementation is open source, you'd need to deliver that in source form. Anyway, I'd be thrilled - ecstatic, really - if we could move all hardware vendors to this position. Far too many pretend that the address of the register you diddle to start DMA is some kind of valuable secret. At the very least, it must be very easy for a user to install binary drivers, and not have to worry about recompiling their kernel or any of the other dreck that certain unnamed open source projects make their users go through. And on that we all (I'd hope) agree - and this is one of the benefits of offering a stable DDI. Another, even more important one (to me personally, not necessarily to Sun) is that it makes maintaining open source drivers easier too! -- Keith M Wesolowski Sir, we're surrounded! Solaris Kernel Team Excellent; we can attack in any direction! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
