On 30/06/07, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/06/07, Alberto Ruiz <aruiz at gnome.org> wrote: > > 2007/6/30, Shawn Walker <binarycrusader at gmail.com>: > > > On 29/06/07, Alberto Ruiz <aruiz at gnome.org> wrote: > > > > 2007/6/30, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at sun.com>: > > > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > > > > So, now that I've bored everyone to sleep, this leaves us with these > > > > > > possibilities for Indiana on SPARC: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Ship Xsun binaries & existing SPARC Xsun driver binaries (all > > closed > > > > > > source) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Ship Xorg & use Martux's SPARC graphics drivers (all open source) > > > > > > with existing SPARC kernel driver binaries (all closed source) > > > > > > > > > > There is also a third choice I forgot to mention, probably since it's > > > > > the least desirable of all: > > > > > > > > > > 3) Ship Xorg with only the drivers provided by SPARC graphics (of > > which > > > > > only XVR-2500 is likely to be done by your October proposed > > timeline), > > > > > and leave those with older SPARCs unable to run X in Indiana. > > > > > > > > > > Also, Garrett reminded me of another issue in a message to ogb-discuss > > [1] > > > > > - my prior description only covered 2D graphics, and ignored OpenGL. > > For > > > > > OpenGL, a similar choice will have to be made: > > > > > > > > > > 1) Ship existing SPARC OpenGL, with accelerated modules for existing > > > > > SPARC graphics cards (closed source - and I don't know if it's > > > > > redistributable) - with Xsun, this has acceleration for most of > > the > > > > > mid-to-high end SPARC graphics cards, with Xorg, only XVR-2500 is > > > > > known to have usable hardware acceleration - I don't know if the > > > > > others will easily work with Xorg or not once the framework is in > > > > place. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Ship open source Mesa OpenGL, as we do on x86 (and virtually all > > other > > > > > open source OS'es do), accepting that we'll have no hardware > > > > acceleration > > > > > and break compatibility with existing SPARC OpenGL applications > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that keeping the opensource flag on indiana is more important. > > > > However, (as pointed in a recent mail in other thread), we can focus on > > make > > > > the retrieving through internet of those binary bits rocking easy after > > live > > > > session or install. Does this idea make sense? > > > > > > More important than giving users fully working hardware out of the > > > box? That doesn't seem reasonable. Users don't care about "open > > > source," they care about supported, working hardware. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is more important that the work that we do, don't depend on closed > > source bits. If we deliver closed source bits, derivative distributions > > It is? Maybe to you, perhaps, or a few others. However, most of the > world runs Windows, etc. so obviously they don't care about "open > source" that much.
As a developer, and not just a user, obviously I care about having the source if possible. I should be clear that I fully support attempts to replace closed solutions with open ones for distributions. What I do not support is the choice of drivers, software, etc. solely based on perceived freedom or other people's beliefs instead of what everything with an OS should be about: giving the user the best OS/platform experience possible within a given set of goals. If that means shipping a binary blob driver until the open source alternative is *fully* equivalent in functionality, so be it, in my view. Obviously this isn't my choice to make, nor am I implying that it is, but I would severely disappointed if this project decided to value ideas over users. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth
