eric raymond, and binary drivers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/eric_raymond_linux_compromise/ I just have a feeling that he is right, on this. I've had the same experience, of trying to get my kid to switch to linux. He was open to it, but ... when we struggled, first, to get a nic driver for his dell machine, and then getting his ipod to work was dicey and a huge compromise, and then I -Tunes was not really working well under wine .... Now, he is going mac -- (also at my suggestion, after he shied away from linux -- anything to get away from the mess that is mS). I had a feeling of foreboding when I heard Novell announce that no proprietary software would be shipped. It seems as though it is a lack of focus on the customer ... and perception is the rule. Instead, should we not be making licensing agreements, and being sure that linux stays can stay competitive in the media player/codec (and yes, DRM ... yuck) markets? Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world. Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche? Peter
I had a feeling of foreboding when I heard Novell announce that no proprietary software would be shipped. It seems as though it is a lack of focus on the customer ... and perception is the rule. The Novell position actually makes sense, and is the right thing to do by
On Saturday 19 August 2006 21:29, Peter Van Lone wrote: the customer--- as a gpl distribution. Many of us like the idea that we can depend on the distribution to have gpl consistency. We don't want Novell or anyone else to reinvent M$.
Instead, should we not be making licensing agreements, and being sure that linux stays can stay competitive in the media player/codec (and yes, DRM ... yuck) markets? Nope. Stick with gpl... in the distribution... the customer is then free to install (or not) proprietary code to their heart's desire... but leave the distro gpl.
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world. Not in the base distribution... gpl is a good thing.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche? Its ok that linux stays free... as in open and accessable... gpl is the way to do this.
-- Kind regards, Mark H. Harris <>< harrismh777@earthlink.net
On Sunday 20 August 2006 04:50, Mark H. Harris wrote:
The Novell position actually makes sense, and is the right thing to do by the customer--- as a gpl distribution. Many of us like the idea that we can depend on the distribution to have gpl consistency. We don't want Novell or anyone else to reinvent M$.
i don't generally take part in flame wars, but here we go: "Many of us like the idea that we can depend on the distribution to have GPL consistency." Then that "many" of us can go to Debian, which is a hard-core Stallman distribution. Suse is a CONSUMER distribution, and CONSUMERS don't give a flying flip about licensing - they want it to RUN OUT OF THE BOX. Why do you think Windows is so successful? Because people can just sit in front of it and *use* it [however limited that usage may be]. i've been using Suse since 6.x, and i use it BECAUSE it runs OUT OF THE BOX (minus mp3 and DVD support, but i've been willing to grudingly overlook those because it's "relatively little" effort to get them running after pouring through Google for a while).
Nope. Stick with gpl... in the distribution... the customer is then free to install (or not) proprietary code to their heart's desire... but leave the distro gpl.
Again: Debian. That's what Debian is for. i want a WORKING, COMPLETE distro, and Suse has always done that for me. If it won't continue to do that, i won't continue to use it. In fact, at this very moment i'm downloading a Kubuntu DVD because i'm so fed up with the Suse's updater tool (which just hosed my laptop).
Not in the base distribution... gpl is a good thing.
The GPL is a virus. It was a necessary evil and is now almost obsolete, except for its use in some core OS components (the kernel being one of them). http://s11n.net/license.php explains why i believe so.
Its ok that linux stays free... as in open and accessable... gpl is the way to do this.
Aaarrrgggg. Blind Fanaticism. Freedom is a conscious choice. The GPL shoehorns us into its ruleset, leaving us with NO CHOICE but to follow its idea of Free. The contradiction is, by joining the GPL you give up all freedom. As Princess Amidali said so well, [something like] "So this is how democracy dies... to thunderous applause." -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
[stephan beal]
Its ok that linux stays free... as in open and accessable... gpl is the way to do this.
Aaarrrgggg. Blind Fanaticism. Freedom is a conscious choice. The GPL shoehorns us into its ruleset, leaving us with NO CHOICE but to follow its idea of Free. The contradiction is, by joining the GPL you give up all freedom. As Princess Amidali said so well, [something like] "So this is how democracy dies... to thunderous applause."
Hi, people. Despite I did not closely read this thread, forgive me commenting a bit here, as this is loosing ground with good horse sense. The above reply reminds me of a French proverb, which I roughly translate as: "They want both the butter and the money of the butter". When you say "leaving us with NO CHOICE but ...", you loose perspective that you _do_ have the choice. If GPL software does not fit for you, just avoid using it. Nothing in the world forces you otherwise. Microsoft makes you pay at every turn, and is immensely more restrictive than the GPL. If you feel like paying, you are free to do so, and are then bound by their licenses. You might not always feel like scrutinizing their licenses, and dream they do not exist. The truth is that Microsoft, not you, decides for what it creates; and it became rich. If you do not like this, just don't use Microsoft software. GPL software has a price as well: refusal to mix with non-free software (free as in software freedom, described in many licenses), instead of money. You are still bound by their license, and are _not_ absolutely free to do anything with it. You might want the license to be written differently, or not at all. The truth is that software authors, not you, decide which licence they use, and while the GPL may irritate some people, it has well proven its productivity after all, so many follow it nevertheless! If you do not like this, just don't use free software. -- François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca
On Sunday 20 August 2006 15:49, François Pinard wrote:
[stephan beal]
Aaarrrgggg. Blind Fanaticism. Freedom is a conscious choice. The GPL shoehorns us into its ruleset, leaving us with NO CHOICE but to follow its idea of Free. The contradiction is, by joining the GPL you give up all freedom. As Princess Amidali said so well, [something like] "So this is how democracy dies... to thunderous applause."
The above reply reminds me of a French proverb, which I roughly translate as: "They want both the butter and the money of the butter". When you say "leaving us with NO CHOICE but ...", you loose perspective that you _do_ have the choice. If GPL software does not fit for you, just avoid using it. Nothing in the world forces you otherwise.
That's more or less what i was getting at. The original poster was implying that the GPL *provides* choice. i am saying that it IS a choice and that by taking that choice you choose to limit, not enhance, your freedoms. Thus i am anti-GPL because i cherish my freedom.
Microsoft makes you pay at every turn, and is immensely more restrictive than the GPL.
Linux is not the GPL. Suse is not the GPL. Mozilla, OpenOffice, XEmacs, vi, ssh, etc., are not the GPL. All software i release is under other Open Source licenses. But it's Open and Free *without* the GPL. Some users would like us to think that anything non-GPL is non-free and non-open. This simply isn't true, though.
If you feel like paying, you are free to do so, and are then bound by their licenses.
Don't forget: people pay for Suse, too. i bought every single release from 6.x to 10.0, then stopped buying it when OpenSuse 10.1 came around.
instead of money. You are still bound by their license, and are _not_ absolutely free to do anything with it.
Amen.
software authors, not you, decide which licence they use, and while the GPL may irritate some people, it has well proven its productivity after all, so many follow it nevertheless! If you do not like this, just don't use free software.
Again, the GPL does not equate to free software. That is, we cannot say "it is free software only if it is GPL," though Stallman[ites] would like us to believe that. The GPL is ONE license in the Free/Open Software movement. And, i might add, one of the most restrictive (but also the most commonly used license for Linux-based projects). It simply baffles me that people can say that choosing the GPL ensures freedom, when in fact it demonstrably does just the opposite: it forces the licensee to follow a very strict set of rules, the most obvious of which is that the user is forced to share. There is nothing wrong with sharing (all of my code is Open Source), but there is no Freedom in Forcing people to share. It is a restriction, not a freedom. i'm going to stop here - no more flaming for me for a while. This list has enough noise as it is, without me contributing more to it. This stuff belongs in blogs and forums, not on a Suse-specific mailing list. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Sunday 20 August 2006 15:01, stephan beal wrote:
Thus i am anti-GPL because i cherish my freedom.
As you are on this list I assume you use the product to which it refers? If so, then you are using a product which is predomininently GPL'd, which is a license you idealogically disagree with. I suggest you look up "hypocrisy". This is not a flame, just pointing out the contradiction. -- Steve Boddy
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:29, Stephen Boddy wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 15:01, stephan beal wrote:
Thus i am anti-GPL because i cherish my freedom.
As you are on this list I assume you use the product to which it refers? If so, then you are using a product which is predomininently GPL'd, which is a license you idealogically disagree with. I suggest you look up "hypocrisy". This is not a flame, just pointing out the contradiction.
To clarify: i am anti-GPL in the sense that i refuse to release my own source code under the GPL unless i am forced to (i.e., building off of a GPL'd source base). -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Saturday 19 August 2006 18:29, Peter Van Lone wrote:
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Yes, there will always be hardware+software mixes, and more of them every year. Its not going away any time soon, and its silly to suggest that this marriage of device and code is the problem. The problem is providing for ONLY one platform. That practice will end the day the federal government either drags the first video board or electronic gadget maker into court for illegal restraint of trade, or announces (ad did Taiwan) that failure to deliver drivers for all platforms will mean loss of government sales. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
That practice will end the day the federal government either drags the first video board or electronic gadget maker into court for illegal restraint of trade, or announces (ad did Taiwan) that failure to deliver drivers for all platforms will mean loss of government sales.
All platforms is a bit overstretched. Taken as said it will be all hardware platforms multiplied with all software platforms. Take a time and browse http://dmoz.org/Computers/ http://dmoz.org/Computers/Hardware/Systems/ http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/ and see the numbers yourself. Even if you meant just Linux and one other than it will be many distributions multiplied with many hardware platforms, and it is still problem for the most of manufacturers. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
Peter Van Lone wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/eric_raymond_linux_compromise/
I just have a feeling that he is right, on this.
I've had the same experience, of trying to get my kid to switch to linux. He was open to it, but ... when we struggled, first, to get a nic driver for his dell machine, and then getting his ipod to work was dicey and a huge compromise, and then I -Tunes was not really working well under wine ....
Now, he is going mac -- (also at my suggestion, after he shied away from linux -- anything to get away from the mess that is mS).
I had a feeling of foreboding when I heard Novell announce that no proprietary software would be shipped. It seems as though it is a lack of focus on the customer ... and perception is the rule. Instead, should we not be making licensing agreements, and being sure that linux stays can stay competitive in the media player/codec (and yes, DRM ... yuck) markets?
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche?
Have you installed Windows on a computer? If you start from the retail package, you'll often find you'll have to locate and install drivers that are not included with the package. I don't have a problem with Linux doing the same, provided the system can be usable without them. On my system, I had to install Nvidia drivers and thinking that they were included, according to SAX, I was left without a desktop. The proper method would have been for SAX to set up a default, but usable desktop, rather than no usable desktop. However, this is an area that has to be treaded carefully, so that we don't lock out Linux. A note to hardware manufacturers. If you provide for proprietary drivers, don't charge for them. We've already paid for your hardware, why should we have to pay again, when Windows users don't?
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 21:29 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/eric_raymond_linux_compromise/
I just have a feeling that he is right, on this.
I've had the same experience, of trying to get my kid to switch to linux. He was open to it, but ... when we struggled, first, to get a nic driver for his dell machine, and then getting his ipod to work was dicey and a huge compromise, and then I -Tunes was not really working well under wine ....
Now, he is going mac -- (also at my suggestion, after he shied away from linux -- anything to get away from the mess that is mS).
I had a feeling of foreboding when I heard Novell announce that no proprietary software would be shipped. It seems as though it is a lack of focus on the customer ... and perception is the rule. Instead, should we not be making licensing agreements, and being sure that linux stays can stay competitive in the media player/codec (and yes, DRM ... yuck) markets?
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche?
Having the article up in another window, I agree with esr. We don't have to kill Linux for a new generation of users by being overly dogmatic. This is about choice, and even with proprietary drivers, it will be about choice. We can choose to FUD it up for the next generation, or we can act in our own best interests, and theirs as well.
Peter Van Lone wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/eric_raymond_linux_compromise/
I just have a feeling that he is right, on this.
I've had the same experience, of trying to get my kid to switch to linux. He was open to it, but ... when we struggled, first, to get a nic driver for his dell machine, and then getting his ipod to work was dicey and a huge compromise, and then I -Tunes was not really working well under wine ....
Now, he is going mac -- (also at my suggestion, after he shied away from linux -- anything to get away from the mess that is mS).
I had a feeling of foreboding when I heard Novell announce that no proprietary software would be shipped. It seems as though it is a lack of focus on the customer ... and perception is the rule. Instead, should we not be making licensing agreements, and being sure that linux stays can stay competitive in the media player/codec (and yes, DRM ... yuck) markets?
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche?
Peter
Eric has right that Linux has to find solution for more multimedia for normal users, but not many refuse proprietary elements out of open source purity. I have no time to read all licenses and in recent years I have seen more and more restrictions that crossed border line of even very stretched meaning of fair play. Some licenses forbid software usage in order to compare it with competing products?! If you ask where you can find one example check your Linux system for proprietary licenses. Whole hype is artificially bloated, and it is always skipped one of major issues and that is technical problem and not GPL. Binary device driver in the kernel can crash the system if it is bad written. User space device driver can't. That is how windows deals with drivers since XP. The problem is that if kernel device driver doesn't work than kernel developers have to find time to fix it, with user space device driver it is all vendors problem. This is part that is always skipped, in almost all discussions I was reading. The license issues just add to the pile, as kernel developers are willing to maintain device drivers that originally were written by vendors, but don't want to pay legal team to cope with proprietary licensing problems, they want simplicity of one license and their choice is GPL. Some vendors that already have kernel drivers that are kicked out, refuse to write the same in the user space with excuse that they have no resources for that. Well if they don't, why they expect that somebody else should find time to rewrite their driver, that will bust their sales, and do all that for free. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 09:58:42 AM -0500, Rajko M (rmatov101@charter.net) wrote:
Some vendors that already have kernel drivers that are kicked out, refuse to write the same in the user space with excuse that they have no resources for that.
This is probably a stupid question, but then why didn't they wrote those drivers in user space the first time? I imagine performance is one reason. If I'm right, how much of a difference would it be? And are there other reasons?
Well if they don't, why they expect that somebody else should find time to rewrite their driver, that will bust their sales
Cost development time and money yes, but how could offering more drivers _hurt_ their sales? Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans (John Lennon)
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 09:58:42 AM -0500, Rajko M (rmatov101@charter.net) wrote:
Some vendors that already have kernel drivers that are kicked out, refuse to write the same in the user space with excuse that they have no resources for that.
This is probably a stupid question, but then why didn't they wrote those drivers in user space the first time?
I guess that user space driver model is new. They can write it now, not before.
I imagine performance is one reason. If I'm right, how much of a difference would it be? And are there other reasons?
It will be slower for sure, but how slower that would be, I didn't researched. User space is offered as a model for companies that can't or don't want to put their device drivers source code under GPL. The one that made whole a lot of dust is modem driver. CPU was able to simulate modem logic long time ago, when it was 10 times slower than today. You can imagine that performance can not be the reason to refuse conversion of modem driver.
Well if they don't, why they expect that somebody else should find time to rewrite their driver, that will bust their sales
Cost development time and money yes, but how could offering more drivers _hurt_ their sales?
It should be boost, not bust :-) Thanks for remark. -- Regards, Rajko. Visit http://en.opensuse.org/MiniSUSE
Peter Van Lone wrote:
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche?
Like so many things in life, it's important to strike a balance. I will be straightforward and say that multimedia support from Linux distros has been abominable. So many of them won't even play mp3s out of the box, nevermind video codecs like xvid. At a certain point, you want your machine to work. Many people place functionality over the ideals of the FSF. At the same time, I understand peoples' strong feelings toward wanting software to be free. So I make this humble proposal: Make a nice big easy package that will install all the multimedia goodness, just don't include it on the CD. Instead, have it downloaded. One of the nifty things I've seen Ubuntu do is create meta-packages. That is, an empty package with a whole bunch of dependencies. i.e. The "multimedia pack" rpm will list xvid, xine, mp3, w32code, etc as dependencies, but won't really install anything itself. (maybe something in /usr/share/doc/packages explaining itself) At the end of the install, in the release notes, say "If you want multimedia, install the multimedia pack". I believe SuSE flirted with this in the past, but it wasn't as clear, and didn't seem to have as many packages as it really ought to. Right now, Ubuntu doesn't do that with multimedia, but instead does it for Gnome, KDE, etc desktops. Ubuntu, too, is struggling with this multimedia albatross that has been plaguing Linux for years.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 11:12:11 AM -0400, suse@rio.vg (suse@rio.vg) wrote:
I will be straightforward and say that multimedia support from Linux distros has been abominable. So many of them won't even play mp3s out of the box, nevermind video codecs like xvid.
It's passed some time since when I last looked in detail into this, but IIRC, at least for _some_ distributions, they "won't even play XYZ out of the box" because they legally CANNOT integrate/redistribute the necessary sw, isn't it?
So I make this humble proposal: Make a nice big easy package that will install all the multimedia goodness, just don't include it on the CD. Instead, have it downloaded.
And how would this be legally/ethically *different* from including it in the CDs? If you can't one way (see above) you can't the other, the media doesn't make difference. Unless you meant that a THIRD, independent party should do it, but that's not what it looks like from what you write. So, to who are you proposing to host that "big easy package"? Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library. Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 11:12:11 AM -0400, suse@rio.vg (suse@rio.vg) wrote:
I will be straightforward and say that multimedia support from Linux distros has been abominable. So many of them won't even play mp3s out of the box, nevermind video codecs like xvid.
It's passed some time since when I last looked in detail into this, but IIRC, at least for _some_ distributions, they "won't even play XYZ out of the box" because they legally CANNOT integrate/redistribute the necessary sw, isn't it?
I've heard that, and I have no idea if it's true. That said, I rarely see xvid installed by default, for instance (which is GPL'd, and can decode DivX). The main distro's seem to consider media playback beneath them.
So I make this humble proposal: Make a nice big easy package that will install all the multimedia goodness, just don't include it on the CD. Instead, have it downloaded.
And how would this be legally/ethically *different* from including it in the CDs? If you can't one way (see above) you can't the other, the media doesn't make difference.
Well, it seems to satisfy the GNU devotees. They can run their systems pure without the taint of tainted software tainting their machines.
Unless you meant that a THIRD, independent party should do it, but that's not what it looks like from what you write. So, to who are you proposing to host that "big easy package"?
That's actually what seems to be happening now. I use packman for SuSE, but I stumbled upon it after much searching about long ago. Ubuntu has its "Easybuntu" to get those codecs. The methods are all there, the problem is that they're fragmented and a new user has no idea they exist or how to get at them. In the end, I believe it boils down to a simple question: Do you want your system to work, or do you want it to be free? It's an awful question, and we all want both, but for certain things, it's currently not possible, which brings us back to the initial question. The GNU devotees will tell you, with religious conviction, that only by denying yourself a working system can you convince the hardware makers to make free drivers, as if it were some kind of electronic hunger protest. I don't find this argument terribly convincing. I don't have too much of a problem with Nvidia having a closed source driver, for instance. The driver is good, and it is solely of use to their hardware, so I really don't see the harm.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 15:59:18 PM -0400, suse@rio.vg (suse@rio.vg) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 11:12:11 AM -0400, suse@rio.vg (suse@rio.vg) wrote:
So I make this humble proposal: Make a nice big easy package that will install all the multimedia goodness, just don't include it on the CD. Instead, have it downloaded.
And how would this be legally/ethically *different* from including it in the CDs? If you can't one way (see above) you can't the other, the media doesn't make difference. >
Well, it seems to satisfy the GNU devotees. They can run their systems pure without the taint of tainted software tainting their machines.
I was talking of the distro maintainers and packagers. They (or equally public 3rd party packagers and distributors) are the only ones who matter as far as this discussion is concerned. What a "GNU devotee" or anybody else does at home with his computers, or is already doing maybe compiling everything from scratch) is a completely different issue, both technically and legally. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Human beings act intelligently only after they have exhausted the alternatives -- Abba Eban
I've read the article. I am a GNU/Linux user. I am over 30 :) I have a computer since highschool. I've seen the multimedia wars. I fought as a support guy with helping users installing Media player of Real Player, Microsft and Quicktime. I also supportted users with antivirus solution dur the downloaded fake multimedia files which were viruses and tojen horses etc. Endless hours of reinstalls and virus and trojan scans I''ve spent Many may think it was a distant past but war is not over. None has won the war. Mediaplayer is defoult due it is part of the system. real player and quictime have developed different bussiness models so they survived. Now, GNU/Linux is spreading far and wide. But onething is missing with us all: Many old users, can live along with their systems and support other formats, like me: No MP3, No WMA or WMV files. I prefer OGG and OGGChimera, and Xvid encoded AVI files. But these are not developed by any commercial enterprise. The were developed by communtiy. So the easy way of getting things work, is the support of such files via vendors. It may sound utopic but it is possible. Due to the develpement model of free software, the formats I've mentioned above can be supported. But on the contrary vendors refusing the kernel development team to access the code in order to remove bugs and produce high qualtiy software. Such actions may result in slow progress and buggy software. This will not help the vendors to sell hardware or services. It will be wise to supprot and promote free formats and ask for support. I think this is possible unless users prefer MP3, WMA,WMV formats as defacto formats. You may argue that those formats are highy availlabe and populer but I ARGUE THAT YOUR FREEDOM MATTERS. Goksin Akdeniz
On Saturday 19 August 2006 10:29 pm, Peter Van Lone wrote: [snip]
Isn't the reality that there are probably always going to be proprietary software/hardware solutions? It seems to me linux has to be able to play in the world as it is, while also trying to change that world.
Or ... is it ok that linux stays niche?
No, it isn't. No in my opinion anyway. ALL "niche" OSs that I can think of, except for QNX and it's a commercial product, have died or almost died off. I don't think Linux would survive if it were to only be a niche OS. Proprietary hardware makers have us by the "short hairs," and MickySoft knows it. Is there a connection there? Maybe. Fred -- Paid purchaser of ALL SuSE Linux releases since 5.x
I think that binary drivers are a necessary evil in a short term. As Linux gains market share, Linux users and Linux vendors will gain more leverage against proprietary driver vendors. Linux is about choice. Binary drivers should be easily available and installable but not included in the distributions. Example: the Internet connection should be set up first so that, if the installer detects a proprietary a Nvidia hardware chip in the installer's machine, the setup program will use the Internet connection to download and install the video driver, after warning the user of the installation of a proprietary driver. If the installer refuses to allow the download and install of a proprietary driver, an open-source will be installed instead. Rich
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:46 -0400, rich wrote:
I think that binary drivers are a necessary evil in a short term. As Linux gains market share, Linux users and Linux vendors will gain more leverage against proprietary driver vendors. Linux is about choice. Binary drivers should be easily available and installable but not included in the distributions. Example: the Internet connection should be set up first so that, if the installer detects a proprietary a Nvidia hardware chip in the installer's machine, the setup program will use the Internet connection to download and install the video driver, after warning the user of the installation of a proprietary driver. If the installer refuses to allow the download and install of a proprietary driver, an open-source will be installed instead.
Rich
What if the proprietary driver is for the network/DSL/Wifi adapter? E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 04:46, rich wrote:
I think that binary drivers are a necessary evil in a short term.
Only if you won't compromise on hardware. For example Intel are now releasing up to date open-source drivers for graphics hardware *as it is released*, with 3D acceleration. If the 945(?) chipset graphics can do Xgl without bogging down, then it's likely to be plenty good enough for the majority of users needs (not all, I'm not including games players). As Linux grows, particularly in large scale commercial deployements where they'd typically use Intel graphics, then AMD (nee ATI) and NVIDIA will hopefully start to see that they need to be open to compete. When a company deploys 1000's of desktops, the last thing they will accept is the current song and dance that closed binaries entail whenever a kernel update is released. -- Steve Boddy
I wish I could resist engaging in these things, but here goes. We need to be more confident about our software and its license(s). How many of you think that, if Linux were the top dog and linking gpl'ed drivers to Windows were illegal, hardware makers would be falling over themselves to provide binary drivers? I will proceed on the assumption that the vast majority would not. Yes, binary drivers are useful if you are of the (imho erroneous) opinion that short-term profit and security-by-obscurity are superior to the alternatives. Yes, providing binaries is a problem if you are (or believe you could be) in violation of some licence. However, the success of Linux over the past 15 years (notwithstanding MASSIVE industry opposition to YET another Unix and/or FOSS software, especially from You-Know-Who) proves that GPL'ed code *works* and can *thrive* in the marketplace. Not only that, but to my knowledge, any and all software and hardware manufacturers which have been accused by the FSF of illegally incorporating GPL code in their products have backed down without a fight - without even an out of court settlement! - Despite the fact that several of them could probably have brought the FSF to its knees, IBM-vs-SCO-style, by drowning them in legal fees. Many people reckon that, insofar as they implement common functionality, the GPL drivers for ATI graphics cards are /superior/ to their closed-source counterparts. The success of FOSS has led many other, formerly exclusively proprietary, manufacturers to GPL or otherwise open-source some or all of their code. Yes, issues with package management and kernel tweaking exist, but (since the package management of FOSS code can essentially be left to the distribution maintainers), the existence of FOSS has all but wiped out the incompatibilities that existed in UNIX. Those incompatibilities, as we presumably all know, were a major factor in the failure of UNIX to capture the market when the gulf in credibility between Windows and UNIX systems was incomparably larger than it is between Windows and Linux today. Look at *BSD and how they have fared. No, they have not exactly "failed", but they aren't creating waves like Linux either. As much as I like them, none of the big three BSDs is anything like as easy to use as Linux (I don't know about {PC,Desktop}BSD, but my information suggests that, across BSD, hardware support by comparison with Linux is pitiful). A BSD can typically (in theory) support binary drivers and therefore has the potential to include support for much more hardware than Linux - from companies who refuse to release open-source drivers as well as those who do it happily. And yet, (a) as already stated, hardware in BSD is nowhere near as well-supported as Linux; (b) because of its emphasis on security, OpenBSD also refuses to include binary drivers, as, being closed source, their correctness and secureness cannot be verified. The reason why the GPL works and BSD licences are less popular (among clients, if not among vendors) is that the GPL vastly limits the effects of - even discourages - forking; even if you do make changes to such-and-such a package, unless you don't distribute them you are OBLIGATED to release the forked code and therefore anyone can incorporate changes to make their sw compatible. This is the reason why Linux has not degenerated into incompatible RedHatlix, Gentix, Debix camps, which they imnsho would definitely have done even if they had all used one of {rpm,deb,ebuild}s but could fork the code into incompatible binary versions. Even Windows, with its supposedly superior driver support, incorporates idiocies such as having to download a modem or ADSL driver just to get on the Internet; the number of packages one has to download/install from (separate!) CD's (on top of all the crud MS packs into its OS) just to get a level of functionality equivalent to *out of the box* support on a decent Linux distro is *phenomenal* and, for an OS that claims to be the One True Operating System, laughably abysmal. In conclusion: No, we should not include binary drivers. We should include clear instructions (accessible via an icon on the GNOME and KDE desktops - anyone not catered for by these presumably knows what (s)he is doing anyway) on (a) why they may be illegal and therefore we do not ship them; (b) what EASY STEPS can be taken to install them. Yours flameworthily, Jeff
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:24, Jeff Rollin wrote:
Even Windows, with its supposedly superior driver support, incorporates idiocies such as having to download a modem or ADSL driver just to get on the Internet; the number of packages one has to download/install from (separate!) CD's (on top of all the crud MS packs into its OS) just to get a level of functionality equivalent to *out of the box* support on a decent Linux distro is *phenomenal* and, for an OS that claims to be the One True Operating System, laughably abysmal.
This is only a problem if you build your own machine (or have lost the Manufacturer's driver or recovery CD). Every Windows PC (and laptop) I've used in the last several years has come with a recovery DVD, or a driver DVD, or both. The recovery CD installs Windows and all the drivers in one go. If you choose to install plain Windows from an MS install CD, the driver DVD will install all the necessary drivers for your machine in one operation subsequently. If your hard disc is intact, there is often a recovery partition which will regenerate a clean system with all drivers present more rapidly than using the DVD (especially if it's been lost ;) I agree that any major Linux distribution (sUsE in particular) has better hardware support out of the box than pure MS Windows, but since Manufacturers package all the necessary drivers for a machine with that machine, this isn't generally a real-world problem in my experience. Coupled with the fact that most Windows machines come pre-installed, with drivers already present, I think this aspect of your argument is overstated.
William Gallafent wrote:
This is only a problem if you build your own machine (or have lost the Manufacturer's driver or recovery CD). Every Windows PC (and laptop) I've used in the last several years has come with a recovery DVD, or a driver DVD, or both. The recovery CD installs Windows and all the drivers in one go. If you choose to install plain Windows from an MS install CD, the driver DVD will install all the necessary drivers for your machine in one operation subsequently.
Have you ever tried to update Windows on an older box and then discovered there were no drivers available for the newer version of Windows? Have you ever installed Windows and found it refused to recognize some well known name brand hardware? I've had both experiences. Incidentally, I have an IBM web cam, that works with Linux, but Windows drivers end with Windows 2000, so that camera is useless in XP!
On 22/08/06, James Knott
William Gallafent wrote:
This is only a problem if you build your own machine (or have lost the Manufacturer's driver or recovery CD). Every Windows PC (and laptop) I've used in the last several years has come with a recovery DVD, or a driver DVD, or both. The recovery CD installs Windows and all the drivers in one go. If you choose to install plain Windows from an MS install CD, the driver DVD will install all the necessary drivers for your machine in one operation subsequently.
Have you ever tried to update Windows on an older box and then discovered there were no drivers available for the newer version of Windows? Have you ever installed Windows and found it refused to recognize some well known name brand hardware? I've had both experiences.
Incidentally, I have an IBM web cam, that works with Linux, but Windows drivers end with Windows 2000, so that camera is useless in XP!
William, The problem(s) James cites are the ones I was highlighting in the post you responded to. Besides, I DO build my own boxes, I *hate* recovery-only CD's with a passion (though the problem is mostly moot anyway since MS took away all the installation options in XP), and I know people who, despite lack of technical knowledge and *zero* interest in alternative OSes (even MacOS!) have had to reinstall Windows themselves at least once due to one of those lovely, Windows-only viruses or some such. So for those two groups of users, Windows installation *is* a royal pain in the arse. (Even although most people don't know it, since Windows makes reinstalling an OS that failed through no fault of the user or his/her hardware, de rigueur and almost a rite of passage, as opposed to a worthy target of Big Brother's Two Minutes' Hate, which it damned well should be.) Jeff.
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 05:33, Stephen Boddy wrote:
Only if you won't compromise on hardware. For example Intel are now releasing up to date open-source drivers for graphics hardware *as it is released*, with 3D acceleration.
Yes, I think this is great. If you want to hear more about what Intel is doing in the open source world, the Linux Link Tech Show guys did a great interview with Dirk Hohndel, who interestingly enough was SuSE's chief technology officer before coming to Intel. Go to this page and choose episode 128 from the download selector in the middle of the page: http://www.tllts.org/ **************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.4-3 KDE 3.5.2 KMail 1.9.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ****************************************
participants (18)
-
Bryan S. Tyson -
François Pinard -
Fred A. Miller -
Goksin Akdeniz -
Hans van der Merwe -
James Knott -
Jeff Rollin -
John Andersen -
M. Fioretti -
Mark H. Harris -
Mike McMullin -
Peter Van Lone -
Rajko M -
rich -
stephan beal -
Stephen Boddy -
suse＠rio.vg -
William Gallafent