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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 3/14/07, Cornell III, Howard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, anecdotes is already plural.
Dammit!
/me hangs head in shame
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,
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
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
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
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
52 matches
Mail list logo
