Submitted by 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.
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.
Your right there is Apple too (BSD).
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
Hypocrites appears:
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.
Moulinneuf is my real life name …
sakeniwefu , BSD’s like you and hamster and other’S are always here … your the real Hypocrites.
1. BSD’s is not just puffy the clown.
2. The laws aren’t new and where not made by the FSF or GPL.
Right because BSD’S demands are met by anyone …
Actually , that’s the problem the spec are for the majority OPEN or OPEN based , Open as the “closing derivative* option that the majority in BSD’s use’s ,
Real Open Source , Open Hardware and Open as no close option as it’s always OPEN it doesn’t have derivative.
Who’s fault is it that BSD’s is left behind ? BSD’s them self don’t cooperate and share …
1. GNU/Linux is *software*.
2. There is no club of supported OS , the OS support start at the user level. BSD’s and other don’t even have that.
3. Unlike BSD’s and others , Freedom are written on paper and guaranteed and protected.
That’s the problem , isn’t it , you want us to be like you and break the law , our words and our trade agreement , because you don’t want to pay.
The Specs you want us to steal for you are not ours to give.
No , you want us to be accomplice in your illegal crimes.
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=48&name=De…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_graphics_chips_and_car…
* Required developerss. BSD’S and others don’t have and GNU/Linux barely have some.
* Required fundings. BSD’S and others don’t have and GNU/Linux funders don’t specifically target that
* Required supports. BSD’S and others don’t have and GNU/Linux work hard to get inspite BSD’s own legacy of insulting them and associating with GNU/Linux.
* Required users. BSD’S and others don’t have and GNU/Linux as tons of.
That’s why BSD is an EPIC Failure , your not responsible of anything ,even less of yourselves , incompetent , arrogant full of your own hubris. And you insult the guys doing the work who owns the hardware and those who got better treatment who could help you …
Your the oldest’s OS with the less user’s and market share. Your user’s are not quality , your developers are the one nobody want’s t to work with or pay to make work full time.
You clown are better at making funnies and songs then making OS’s , and your not even that good in that either.
Edited 2008-11-05 23:29 UTC
Wow. This guy sure is an amazing troll. It astounds me that someone can be so ignorant.
Edited 2008-11-06 00:17 UTC
phew… nevermind if I agree with you in any point, those posts make for a very unnecessarily unpleasant reading.
edit: typo
Edited 2008-11-06 00:31 UTC
Dude, get some professional help for your BSD anger issues.
I think that to use this license don’t help the spread of many interesting FREE operating system. GNU/linux is becoming a Microsoft for BSD/MIT OS users.
Edited 2008-11-05 17:42 UTC
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.
The GNU/Linux BSD code is shared back and provided to the BSD/MIT daily.
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.
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.
1. There is no provision in GNU/Linux to block any other OS on anything.
2. The BSD/MIT OS and it’s user enjoy GPL and Linux paid for software daily.
3. BSD/MIT are there own killer by there own hubris and lack of everything.
4. BSD/MIT can start supporting there OS by reaching out to hardware maker instead of calling them names.
5. Paying for support goes a long way. Creating your own seperate hardware channels and showing sales help too.
Apple do deliever both code and money to the freebsd foundation.
How much code has gone back up the openssh project from the diffent linux distro’s?
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.
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.
Besides the licens ofcause.
Such as?
The lack of everything havent stoped the linux distroes from getting their hands dirty in bsd licensed code.
Who’s doing the name calling?
And who’s paying for the hardware support in linux?
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 …
You mean back down , they fund , man and deliver code.
The inclusion problem is at the BSD ends …
[/q]”It’s only compatible because the … code went back to the bsd’s aswell.” [/q]
1. There is no BSD licensed code. BSD is a protection clause.
2. The BSD protection clause as no provision against license switching. The BSD protection clause as no provision for code being contributed back either.
Somehow it grow an invisible requisite for it when people like you discuss it.
3. Most of the drivers created by GNU/linux company are dual created under hte GPL licensed and BSD protection clause.
The one BSD use’s everyday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfce
Etc …
“Are you talking about . openbsd and netbsd. ”
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.
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 …
See above , I named a few.
1. There is no BSD license it’s a protection clause and the inteligent BSD are all starting switching away from it.
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.
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 😉
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.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
“And who’s paying for the hardware support in linux?”
* Everyone.
– GNU/Linux user’s buy GNU/Linxu hardware.
– GNU/Linux distribution and service and OEM retail vendors ask for it.
– Witch make OEM sale and make offers and order of hardware we want.
– ODM Company making GNU/Linux hardware mandatory due to it being the #1 OS worldwide.
– Hardware device and part maker respond to the demand
of the market.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment….
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 …
Edited 2008-11-05 22:24 UTC
Moulinneuf is a clueless troll. Nothing but lies.
Edited 2008-11-05 22:48 UTC
Why not ban him permanently?
My guess the admins find his bs funny
He is an epic troll…
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/
Howso? because they dont’ believe in the churce of gnu?
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?
there’s no need for it to be a licens.
Me and everyone else outside your basement.
Do provide backup. Just for once.
Why would they use a gpl licensed driver when they appently are dual licensed?
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)
I doubt even you know what your talking about.
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?
translation you cant name a single thing you have helped to pay for that goes into another project.
What BSD projects would that be?
You made that claim a lot of times and each time you failed at provideing anything to back it up. Let’s try again.
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?
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.
So if i pay for support why shouldn’t i get to use it without being restricted by the gpl?
Aha…
And who would that be?
What oems are you talking about? Dell who wont even tell how many units they ship?
It might be the #1 OS in your basement but in the real world it’s not.
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?
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.
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 😉
Oh great, now he’s an internet lawyer too.
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.
I am not you hamster 😉
The Open Graphics Project is something he should take a look at. They want to develop fully open hardware, not just open documentation but fully open designs.
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.
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!
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?
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.