"It's always an interesting day when you get to write a kernel patch, at the urging of Andrew Morton, that notifies the world that non-GPL Linux kernel modules will not work after January 2008 and write some poetry all in the same message."
More here. Hopefully, many closed-source drivers will be opened during the next year if this patch goes through. Update: Linus responds.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-06-01
Another -2. And I'm being good. I haven't even used the c*** word yet. Informative. Still talking about binary blobs.
WOW.
Finally, why was it possible to port MS Office over to Mac OS without kernel patches ?
Excel was developed first for the Mac in 1985 and did not get ported over to Windows until 1987. (Bet you didn't know that)
And Word started as "Multi Tool Word" on Microsofts version of Unix: Xenix.
Word was then ported to DOS and then to the Mac in 1985.
But I don't know how tied current code is to the Windows kernel, but I do know that Outlook and Access do not exist in the Mac version. Access for sure has deep ties to Windows as does Outlook to a lesser degree.
What Office Suite typical functions are so tightly bound to hardware, that it wouldn't be possible to use an abstraction interface instead?
I don't know.
But it may be that Microsoft would use "binary blobs" just to ensure that Office ran on only one distro: Microsoft Linux.
Member since:2006-01-21
Well, they can always try to do that :-). I don't know whether Microsoft, Microsoft Office, Linux or the seperation between kernel space or userspace will be around or even relevant in ten years or so (probably yes, inertia is a funny thing).
But I stand to my point, that the MS Office can't be tied that close to the MS Windows kernel, since according to[1] Microsoft Office 2003, XP, 2000 and 97 (including outlook for all mentioned versions and access for Office 2000) are already supported by CodeWeavers crossover package. Which, I would like to add, is based on the reverse engeneered Windows API (WINE) and is as it seems rather independent of a special linux kernel version[2].
If MS office developers can't port an application to which they have full source-code and documentation access with an abstraction layer like winelib when other parties without this benefits can make this happen by applying reverse engeneering, then, franckly, I've lost the last bit of respect for them. If, OTOH
MS decides to use binary blobs as a competative weapon (like you have suggested), esp. given that there seem to be no valid technical reasons to go this route, there would imho be an even more compelling reason to get rid of binary blobs in the long run.
Still, this is all irrelevant for the discussion at hand. As long as the GPL only kicks in during distribution of derivative works, the installation of binary modules by the user is allowed. And as long as binary modules are needed by some users, developers will strive to eliminate the need for them. End of story
[1]http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/
[2]http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/requirements/
Member since:2005-07-13
But I don't know how tied current code is to the Windows kernel, but I do know that Outlook and Access do not exist in the Mac version. Access for sure has deep ties to Windows as does Outlook to a lesser degree.
Don't kid yourself, it has nothing to do with code embedded in the kernel. If MS was using kernel hooks for Office, then Windows would be even more of a security concern than it is now.
Outlook and Access don't exist for competitive reasons, they're the two applications that most differentiate Office for Enterprise Users from Office for home/small business users. May as well throw Visio in that category as well.
MS created Entourage in place of Outlook in order to provide just enough messaging/scheduling for a complete office suite but lacking just enough Exchange compatibility to make it unviable for use as a substitute for Outlook in corporate environments. My gf was forced to ditch her corporate-issue powerbook for that very reason.
I'd suspect that MS could have the full Office suite running on linux within a year if they were properly motivated. The kernel licensing and binary blobs have nothing to do with it. They can DRM it, they can incorporate WGA, they can do a lot of things. The kernel doesn't change anything.
I'd go out on a limb and bet that if desktop linux ever hit 10% penetration in enterprise markets, there would be an Office for Linux. Right now, and for very obvious reasons (yes, including low marketshare), it's not in their best interests to.
Member since:
2006-06-01
Finally, why was it possible to port MS Office over to Mac OS without kernel patches ?
Excel was developed first for the Mac in 1985 and did not get ported over to Windows until 1987. (Bet you didn't know that)
And Word started as "Multi Tool Word" on Microsofts version of Unix: Xenix.
Word was then ported to DOS and then to the Mac in 1985.
But I don't know how tied current code is to the Windows kernel, but I do know that Outlook and Access do not exist in the Mac version. Access for sure has deep ties to Windows as does Outlook to a lesser degree.
What Office Suite typical functions are so tightly bound to hardware, that it wouldn't be possible to use an abstraction interface instead?
I don't know.
But it may be that Microsoft would use "binary blobs" just to ensure that Office ran on only one distro: Microsoft Linux.