"In order to broaden Linux hardware support and simplify the process of acquiring, installing, and updating device drivers, Novell has created a new driver system that will enable vendors to supply drivers to users directly. Linux drivers are traditionally maintained in the kernel itself, and third-party drivers that aren't available in the kernel often have to be installed manually, a process that generally involves compilation. In many cases, users have to wait for the next kernel release cycle before they can get software support for the latest hardware. Novell's new Partner Linux Driver Process could potentially resolve some of those problems by providing a simple and consistent process for deploying drivers independently."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
If Intel can release full, open-source drivers for their Centrino wireless chipset, why can't Broadcom or Texas Instruments?
Not "can't", "won't".
Intel doesn't sell any actual radios, (they sell the chipsets to people who put them in radios,) so they can easily avoid the regulatory problems associated with open source drivers.
Broadcom and TI do sell actual radios. And both sell into the telephony market, which has much stricter regulatory requirements than wi-fi market.
They both decided, long ago, to simplify their life with respect to regulatory agencies, by limiting who can modify the code that runs on their radios.
Member since:2006-02-01
Intel doesn't sell any actual radios, (they sell the chipsets to people who put them in radios,) so they can easily avoid the regulatory problems associated with open source drivers.
I'm not disputing this, I'm genuinely curious: why would there by "regulatory problems" with open-source drivers?
Member since:2005-07-12
>> Just one question: why?
So hardware manufacturers don't have to waste time rewriting or worse, recreating their drivers... or hoping somebody in the community will do it just because of Yet another change in the internals of the kernel.
Seriously, you want to ask the question why, how about why would a hardware vendor selling products with $29.99 to $59.99 price points (like wireless cards) have ANY interest in supporting an OS that has in the past three years ALONE required three radically different codebases just to have support? Much less that there's no guarantee that next year your drivers won't be broken AGAIN by the next kernel release?
It's why I get a laugh out of people wondering why companies don't release drivers for five year old devices that cost <$50 at retail - duh. It costs MONEY to make drivers without giving away how it works.
and that's what opening up the hardware interfaces IS - giving away trade secrets; ANY arguement to the contrary falls into the provinces of ignorance, naivete or just plain wishful thinking.
Of course, companies wanting to make money on their products and supporting their products, much less PAYING programmers to work on them MUST be evil, right folks? ([i]That's dripping sarcasm for those of you NOT from New England[/]i)
Member since:2006-02-01
So hardware manufacturers don't have to waste time rewriting or worse, recreating their drivers... or hoping somebody in the community will do it just because of Yet another change in the internals of the kernel.
Seriously, you want to ask the question why, how about why would a hardware vendor selling products with $29.99 to $59.99 price points (like wireless cards) have ANY interest in supporting an OS that has in the past three years ALONE required three radically different codebases just to have support? Much less that there's no guarantee that next year your drivers won't be broken AGAIN by the next kernel release?
It's why I get a laugh out of people wondering why companies don't release drivers for five year old devices that cost <$50 at retail - duh. It costs MONEY to make drivers without giving away how it works.
Except that the argument that they'll have to keep updating their driver for every kernel release only applies if they have a closed-source driver. If they release a GPL driver that's accepted into the main kernel, then they can just release the code "into the wild" and never have to worry about it again.
And I can understand that hiring a programmer to do the work might not be justifiable. But how much does it cost to get the legal dept to draft an NDA, and send some sample hardware and the spec document to a willing volunteer? I believe this is what Creative does with their soundcards, and it seems to work well.
and that's what opening up the hardware interfaces IS - giving away trade secrets; ANY arguement to the contrary falls into the provinces of ignorance, naivete or just plain wishful thinking.
I completely accept that this is the case when it comes to 3D cards. I certainly don't accept it when it comes to other components. Otherwise, why would HP or Intel or Ralink or Prism (to take some examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others) release GPL drivers? Why would Creative help in the process of getting drivers written for their new Audigys?
What have Lexmark got to fear that HP have not?
Of course, companies wanting to make money on their products and supporting their products, much less PAYING programmers to work on them MUST be evil, right folks? (That's dripping sarcasm for those of you NOT from New England
I'm from Old England. There's nothing you can teach me about sarcasm.
Anyway, I don't really see what you're getting at here. The company will make the same amount of money from me buying the hardware whether I use it on Windows or Linux.
And as I've said, they don't even have to pay a programmer to work on it if they don't want to. E-mail whoever it is that's trying to write a reverse-engineered open-source driver (you can bet there'll be somebody). Offer him the specs document (or, if that doesn't exist, the source to the Windows driver) under a strict NDA. Job done.
Member since:2005-07-12
>> So please could somebody explain the following to me: if HP can release full, open-source CUPS drivers for all of their printers, why can't other manufacturers?
Uhm, because HP hasn't made a change to how their printers are interfaced in close to a decade? HPGL and/or HPCL was well documented back when most open source fanboys were still in diapers.
>> If Intel can release full, open-source drivers for their Centrino wireless chipset, why can't Broadcom or Texas Instruments?
Because intel created a fixed hardware interface implementation for multiple devices because they can afford to have their products cost more and/or spend the extra money on making radically different hardware use the same low level interfaces...
While companies like Broadcom and TI often change the hardware specifications and interfaces completely between models to cut costs, improve speed, or simply to try something different - technically, it's the hardware equivalent of the kernel API situation - which is why when you combine a kernel API that's not fixed with hardware specifications that aren't fixed... bad things tend to happen.
Member since:
2006-02-01
And so, yet again we have the line trumpeted that "Linux will never succeed unless there's a stable kernel API... Linux needs closed-source drivers". Just one question: why?
I can understand the situation with modern 3D cards, and why neither Nvidia or ATI want to release open-source drivers. But I don't see how the same situation applies for printers or wireless network cards for example.
So please could somebody explain the following to me: if HP can release full, open-source CUPS drivers for all of their printers, why can't other manufacturers?
If Intel can release full, open-source drivers for their Centrino wireless chipset, why can't Broadcom or Texas Instruments?
I just don't understand.