Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Nov 2008 15:47 UTC, submitted by umccullough
It seems that Haiku hacker Francois Revol (mmu_man) posted a few messages to a thread in MSI's forums asking to provide hardware with open specifications and/or (non-GPL) FOSS drivers such that alternative operating systems like Haiku and others could benefit and be supported as well. His messages were seemingly squelched by a forum moderator as "rubbish" while other, pro-Linux, postings seem to have remain untouched. Francois decided to respond with a public blog rant of his own opinions regarding the state of open source driver support and vendors' responsibility to their customers.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-12
The world is not only Windows and Linux. Open specs for all hardware should be a goal so we are not locked into specific OS'es.
However, I can see the problem of providing specs for hardware that is very cheap and has a short life cycle. It's very hard to go against the stream in hardware world: cheap products that are replaced every year by supposedly better performing products.
RE: This is badly needed
by Moulinneuf on Wed 5th Nov 2008 20:03 UTC
in reply to "This is badly needed"
Member since:2005-07-06
"The world is not only Windows and Linux. "
Your right there is Apple too (BSD).
"Open specs for all hardware"
Contrary to popular belief the majority of hardware as Open Specs. What you don't get is "apparently" free manufacturer driver support for all OS'es. By "apparently" it is implied that GNU/Linux , Windows and Apple pay for the hardware support by there sale order's in magnitude that *register* with the hardware vendors.
Beside it's because they are *Open* that most fringe and niche OS are not covered , if the spec had been Free , then anyone would be able to work on it.
Edited 2008-11-05 20:06 UTC
RE[2]: This is badly needed
by sakeniwefu on Wed 5th Nov 2008 21:16 UTC
in reply to "RE: This is badly needed"
Member since:2008-02-26
Hypocrites appears:
PUFFY, you must obey my new laws!
Whatever open spec there is in the world isn't thanks to Linux and its NDAs and binary blobs. If all specs were open, no OS would be left behind. Now Linux has joined the club of supported OSes by renouncing to its users' freedom to do whatever they want with the hardware they purchased. There is absolutely no reason not to release a pdf with your internal interface specs. Nobody is asking them to write MikeOS drivers. Nobody can build a competitor to nVidia by knowing how to control the card. Basically because they don't even have the required technology. Everything the vendors say is utter bullshit.
RE[3]: This is badly needed
by Moulinneuf on Wed 5th Nov 2008 23:28 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: This is badly needed"
RE[4]: This is badly needed
by 0brad0 on Thu 6th Nov 2008 00:11 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: This is badly needed"
Member since:2007-05-05
RE[4]: This is badly needed
by UglyKidBill on Thu 6th Nov 2008 00:29 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: This is badly needed"
Member since:2005-07-27
RE[4]: This is badly needed
by Soulbender on Thu 6th Nov 2008 15:04 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: This is badly needed"
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
2006-12-30
Why not use BSD's ...
by Moulinneuf on Wed 5th Nov 2008 20:22 UTC
in reply to "Why use GLP for drivers?"
RE: Why not use BSD's ...
by hamster on Wed 5th Nov 2008 21:07 UTC
in reply to "Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2006-10-06
No the use of "BSD's" block FREE operating systems. Apple is BSD based yet none of it's driver are useable by BSD/MIT. Microsoft is Full of BSD code , yet none of it's code and driver is usable.
Apple do deliever both code and money to the freebsd foundation.
The GNU/Linux BSD code is shared back and provided to the BSD/MIT daily.
How much code has gone back up the openssh project from the diffent linux distro's?
The GPL is compatible with BSD/MIT ( most of the approved OSI and FSF one that is ) , the BSD/MIT liar and thieve like to spread lie about it , but legally the too are compatible.
It's only compatible because the BSD licensed code turns gpl when combined with gpl licensed code. Something that would happen if gpl licensed code went back to the bsd's aswell.
The false theory and fear mongering that BSD will disappear because of the GPL is just that *False* , *theory* and *fear mongering*. If you look at reality they have no trouble using both GPL drivers and GPL software on a daily basis.
What gpl drivers are you talking about? And what gpl licensed code... Are you talking about the gcc which by the way is more or less on it's way out in both openbsd and netbsd.
1. There is no provision in GNU/Linux to block any other OS on anything.
Besides the licens ofcause.
2. The BSD/MIT OS and it's user enjoy GPL and Linux paid for software daily.
Such as?
3. BSD/MIT are there own killer by there own hubris and lack of everything.
The lack of everything havent stoped the linux distroes from getting their hands dirty in bsd licensed code.
4. BSD/MIT can start supporting there OS by reaching out to hardware maker instead of calling them names.
Who's doing the name calling?
5. Paying for support goes a long way. Creating your own seperate hardware channels and showing sales help too.
And who's paying for the hardware support in linux?
RE[2]: Why not use BSD's ...
by Moulinneuf on Wed 5th Nov 2008 22:23 UTC
in reply to "RE: Why not use BSD's ..."
RE[3]: Why not use BSD's ...
by 0brad0 on Wed 5th Nov 2008 22:47 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2007-05-05
RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ...
by vermaden on Thu 6th Nov 2008 11:32 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2006-11-18
RE[5]: Why not use BSD's ...
by hamster on Thu 6th Nov 2008 17:56 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2006-10-06
RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ...
by helf on Mon 10th Nov 2008 00:15 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[3]: Why not use BSD's ...
by hamster on Thu 6th Nov 2008 16:59 UTC
in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2006-10-06
About money :
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/
Show your lying as usual ...
About code :
OS X vs FreeBSD ...
Show your lying as usual ...
About hardware :
Apple is a hardware company too ...
Show your lying as usual ...
About BSD'S :
BSD is not just FreeBSD'S ...
Show your lying as usual ...
Apple is not a Mom an Pop shop here ...
SL: Yeah, Apple's given stuff back. Audit support and a lot of other security-oriented work has gone on in collaboration, both in terms of Apple funding developers and also in sharing work. There are other examples -- I'm not real familiar with the situation, but I know that it's not a one-way street. Obviously we'd enjoy a better relationship with Apple, and would like them to be more involved with our code, but it's pretty hard to work with an open source project when you're shipping a product. If you're trying to ship a product, you have a timeline, you have deliverables... how are you going to depend on someone to deliver something on time if they don't report to you? I've been through this before. So melding the open source development work with a real product is a non-trivial challenge. I'd still like to see Apple be more forthcoming, though.
Source: http://www.thejemreport.com/content/view/304/
You mean back down , they fund , man and deliver code.
The inclusion problem is at the BSD ends ...
Howso? because they dont' believe in the churce of gnu?
1. There is no BSD licensed code. BSD is a protection clause.
Up to your usual bs i see... And as usual without anything to backup your bs.
It's funny that fsf did aprove the bsd licens if there is no such thing don't you think?
2. The BSD protection clause as no provision against license switching. The BSD protection clause as no provision for code being contributed back either.
there's no need for it to be a licens.
Somehow it grow an invisible requisite for it when people like you discuss it.
Me and everyone else outside your basement.
3. Most of the drivers created by GNU/linux company are dual created under hte GPL licensed and BSD protection clause.
Do provide backup. Just for once.
The one BSD use's everyday.
Why would they use a gpl licensed driver when they appently are dual licensed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce
Etc ...
And you don't find bsd licensed code in any linux distroes? In more omportant areas then the wm..?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(window_manager)
No , but that one is gonna be really funny , your gonna claim code ownership and all the GCC owner wil jump on your illegal stealing.
I doubt even you know what your talking about.
That's your point isn't it , too bad it not backed by reality. BSD's and other liar and coward like you *hamster* might make money from the laws that punished Microsoft from barring others that still exist in reality ...
So when the team behind openssh includes code from a gpl licensed ssh from ex. redhat they don't have to think about the gpl?
See above , I named a few.
translation you cant name a single thing you have helped to pay for that goes into another project.
1. There is no BSD license it's a protection clause and the inteligent BSD are all starting switching away from it.
What BSD projects would that be?
2. There is no BSD code that exist today that as not received GPL code , direct funding from GPL company , direct GPL developer contribution and involvements , direct hardware loan from GPL company.
You made that claim a lot of times and each time you failed at provideing anything to back it up. Let's try again.
3. Last I looked , BSD are the one found guilty of stealing other's code , that's why there not default on most hardware that GNU/Linux finally support ( BSD used to be the support total king in the 70's and 80's ) , why it's not legally insurable too , if you got proof and a case why don't you go in court and prove you point. But we both know you don't ;-)
What code should they have stolen? And how do you steal code? And what BSD's are you talking about in the 70's and 80's?
You do , calling you a coward , liar , thief , traitor and moron is a fact , not name calling , sorry. I don't find pleasure in identifying you as such , I would prefer you would be legal , honorable , contributing to BSD instead of harming it. Using your real name too , but we both know you won't.
But do point to the place where i resort to your usual business with namecalling... Cant be to hard for you since i do it a lot according to you.
* Everyone.
So if i pay for support why shouldn't i get to use it without being restricted by the gpl?
- GNU/Linux user's buy GNU/Linxu hardware.
Aha...
- GNU/Linux distribution and service and OEM retail vendors ask for it.
And who would that be?
- Witch make OEM sale and make offers and order of hardware we want.
What oems are you talking about? Dell who wont even tell how many units they ship?
- ODM Company making GNU/Linux hardware mandatory due to it being the #1 OS worldwide.
It might be the #1 OS in your basement but in the real world it's not.
- Hardware device and part maker respond to the demand
of the market.
If they listen to demand why cant people just go out and buy any pice of hardware and expect it to work in the linux machine?
I know reality and hamster world are two things :
http://store.psystar.com/
It's rather telling that a company who's first product is Apple based , still don't make any BSD's offers ...
But it as a GNU/Linux offer ...
So they bought the hype and who cares? I for one didnt buy into the hype after trying different linux distroes i went else were where you get what you can expect.
RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 6th Nov 2008 20:54 UTC
in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[5]: Why not use BSD's ...
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 6th Nov 2008 22:08 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[5]: Why not use BSD's ...
by hamster on Fri 7th Nov 2008 20:28 UTC
in reply to "RE[4]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2006-10-06
"I'm not real familiar with the situation,
signed by Hamster ... Nice quote of yourself there ;-)
So I guess we need to meet in court to settle your problem with reality , as always tell me when you remember your real life name and when your ready to meet ;-) "
I take it from your answer that you just wanna troll as usual. Kinda sad actually i do provide something to back up my arguments where you just resort to your usual trolling.
RE[6]: Why not use BSD's ...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 7th Nov 2008 23:23 UTC
in reply to "RE[5]: Why not use BSD's ..."
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-03-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
He makes some good points. I also remember the days when you could get full schematics and specs on the electronic products you bought. I still have my Heathkit digital tuner with the schematics and breakout boards. The manufacturers have managed to take all the fun out of owning computers.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Sure open specification are better than just some existing drivers, but the blob present in Linux are usually downloaded and run on the hardware not on the main CPU, so x86 shouldn't matter for this.
As for the licensing issue, when Haiku dev started the GPL software base was already the biggest and had also the biggest momentum, and now they complain that they can't use GPL drivers???
Well duh!
Member since:2006-01-26
As for the licensing issue, when Haiku dev started the GPL software base was already the biggest and had also the biggest momentum, and now they complain that they can't use GPL drivers???
Well duh!
Well duh!
The complaint isn't that they can't use the GPL drivers, the complaint is that they shouldn't have to.
See, several of Haiku's developers *want* to write clean, MIT/BSD-licensed, drivers - but that proves quite difficult when the hardware manufacturers aren't willing to throw them a bone.
Did you even read the article?
Member since:2007-05-05
See, several of Haiku's developers *want* to write clean, MIT/BSD-licensed, drivers - but that proves quite difficult when the hardware manufacturers aren't willing to throw them a bone.
Did you even read the article?
Exactly. source code != documentation. There is only so much info that can be gleaned from simply looking at the code of another OS and trying to re what it is doing and why it is doing something a certain way. Documentation is necessary and is an area that is very much hit or miss depending on the vendor. A lot of the vendors still have a long way to go.