And compared to linspire this ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| libv May 21, 2006 4:34 PM EDT |
... Isn't approving closed driver vendors tactics? There was a big flamewar concerning exactly this thing after Pamela Jones wrote an article about this. Is there an article about this brewing yet? Sure, SuSE actually does things for free software (feel free to name a single linspire developer working with X - i'm not sure but it could be just as bad with the kernel), but isn't that besides the question here? And yes, i do realise that this is more about the kernel than about X, but offering closed drivers for the kernel is "worse" from a license point of view. So Pamela, stick your neck out here too. Share the blame, or admit to target only one. (Yes, i know, but i fully admit to do the latter) |
| grouch May 21, 2006 4:42 PM EDT |
libv: >"There was a big flamewar concerning exactly this thing after Pamela Jones wrote an article about this. Is there an article about this brewing yet?" Sorry you missed it. There were a few who were too quick to judge, just as you seem to be doing, because they didn't bother to get the whole story first. The situation is not similar to Linspire's situation at all. The information put out by Novell is not misleading, does not promote closed drivers, does not advocate closed drivers, and does not include a claim that Linux is "unusable" without closed drivers. Did you bother to read the linked article? How about Novell's FAQ about their method of getting drivers out to installed systems ahead of those drivers making it through the mainline kernel? Do you understand the problem or the solution Novell is offering? |
| libv May 21, 2006 7:18 PM EDT |
I quickly scanned this one but read earlier ones. But the last paragraph says it all here. Vendor provided packages, with vendor localised "updates", with full ABI tracking support by novell. Surely that translates into only one thing. This is about Novell doing as much as possible to encourage binary drivers, without Novell getting burned badly, as only circumstancial evidence is there. What other use could this be? Surely an open vendor would put all its effort into getting stuff into the kernel directly. It's not as if distributors ever ship linus directly. This is just Novell marketing making a lot of effort not making the real statements out loud, and thus avoiding a marketing catastrophy like linspire or that liveCD flamewar. Time will show which packages will be offered through this. |
| grouch May 21, 2006 7:32 PM EDT |
libv: Your quick scan left you with false impressions, apparently. Perhaps the article is unclear. 1. Hardware vendors do not coordinate their release of hardware with Novell's release of SUSE, nor with any other GNU/Linux distributor. 2. Installations may incorporate new hardware at any time, including between releases of distributor's kernel updates. 3. Novell prefers hardware drivers in the mainline kernel, where they belong, so they do not spend so much time and effort in their service contracts fighting non-debuggable closed drivers. 4. Kernel releases are not coordinated with hardware vendors' releases of hardware. 5. By offering to send new drivers down the pipe via the normal updating for SUSE, Novell helps their customers get support for new hardware quicker and helps hardware vendors get drivers out to existing and new installations, while waiting for the drivers to be accepted in the mainline kernel. It is not a promotion of closed drivers. That would cause a great deal of extra expense for Novell. |
| dinotrac May 21, 2006 7:41 PM EDT |
libv: This is one of those "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" things. The reality is that many Linux users (myself included) do and will want good drivers for their devices. More to the point, many non-Linux users who might consider becoming Linux users will also want good drivers. Novell is not Debian. It is a publicly-traded corporation whose purpose and legal obligation is to make money for its shareholders. That is a proper and reasonable thing for Novell to do. Some people insist on purity. That's fine. Go debian and leave out non-free. Some people insist on nervously glancing away. Those folks can use Red Hat and Novell, but stay away from Linspire, which is not remotely circumspect about its use of non-free software. Some think that Linspire actually promotes non-free components. The question -- one for which there never is a good answer -- is this: where is the line between accepting reality and promoting non-free software. |
| grouch May 21, 2006 7:48 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Some think that Linspire actually promotes non-free components." That would be Linspire who thinks Linspire actually promotes non-free components. In particular, Linspire's CEO claims that Linux is unusable without closed hardware drivers. This is completely at odds with reality and with the policies of the two big commercial distributors, Red Hat and Novell. Each of those actively pressures hardware vendors to release open drivers and get those drivers accepted by the kernel developers. Each has had significant success at that. |
| dinotrac May 22, 2006 1:21 AM EDT |
grouch: I believe this is the appropriate place for a well-considered "yada-yada-yada". |
| grouch May 22, 2006 3:59 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Well, it would be about as helpful as talking about un-named "[s]ome people" who "insist on purity". Have you been talking to General Ripper? http://www.filmsite.org/drst3.html The points are: 1. Hardware comes out between releases of distributions and kernels. 2. Novell, like other distributors, already backports security fixes, etc. to update installed systems. 3. Novell is offering hardware vendors a quick route to those installed systems via their usual update pipeline. 4. Hardware vendors can get their wares supported by existing Linux installations while waiting for their drivers to be accepted in future kernels. 5. While this system could be abused by pushing out closed drivers, it is against Novell's interest to condone that. It is more profitable for Novell and for hardware vendors to get open drivers accepted and maintained in the kernel. 6. This is in no way similar to Linspire's promotion of closed drivers. This also has nothing to do with whether you or I choose to use closed drivers. Those strawmen burned long ago. |
| libv May 22, 2006 4:29 AM EDT |
It isn't direct promotion, the marketeers make sure they phrase that right, but it's hardly discouraging closed vendors either. Although i really like a few people within Novell and i owe quite a lot to them i also see what they are doing and how. Feel free to name an X developer with Novell who does hardware drivers these days. Really; there is no-one. Egbert Eich is too busy with the board and stuff, Matthias Hopf isn't doing graphics drivers directly, and David Reveman, well, he's finalising Xgl, a scheme to allow X to run almost totally independent of the driver or the hardware; never mind the eyecandy, deep down, that's what Xgl is about. And that's it. Add this story to it, and can we still reasonably claim that novell is actively working against closed drivers? |
| grouch May 22, 2006 4:55 AM EDT |
libv: I recommend a good reading of Jeff Jaffe's blog (CTO of Novell) at http://www.novell.com/ctoblog/ Some selected quotes: "I blogged about our industry’s opportunity to create an open Linux desktop that avoids vendor lock-in. I received great feedback about the Linux desktop." "Many companies are on a mixed source strategy: shipping closed source when it is beneficial and complementing that with some open source products. But other than pure open source companies, I don’t think that any companies are as enthusiastic about open source as Novell is (cf. http://www.novell.com/ctoblog – April 3 post - for some illustration of that passion). " "Our decisions are guided by the pragmatics of resource constraints. With infinite resource and infinite time we would open source everything. But we are accountable to provide technology that meets our customer needs, today – which pushes us to be objective rather than aspirational as we make these decisions." Perhaps the most important one on the whole thing: "I invite feedback." |
| tuxchick2 May 22, 2006 8:40 AM EDT |
What Novell is doing is improving driver installation and delivery. period. If you read their FAQ, or the updated Groklaw article, you would see this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060517165019850 ""Here's the FAQ for the Partner Linux Driver Process", which I haven't read yet myself. Here's Novell's press release. I also now have a statement from Novell. [ UPDATE: ] Novell's Kevan Barney writes to me: Many developers in the kernel community consider kernel‑level modules to be subject to the GPL terms. Novell respects this position and has a policy of distributing kernel modules that are compatible with the GPL. Novell continues to work with vendors to find ways to efficiently provide users functionality that may currently only be available through non‑GPL kernel modules. These efforts include designing an open source solution or creating an alternative means for users to access the functionality. Our announcement yesterday is the followup to our promises and includes the mechanism to provide kernel‑level modules which can then be consumed electronically as well as via physical media by our users by using our unique YaST and ZENworks capabilities in add-on packages handling as well as patch and update management. When the vendor is directly distributing a kernel‑level module to our users, the vendor is responsible for support, which in many cases is done in close collaboration with Novell, as well as compatibility with the GPL of any code delivered. He also points to this segment of the FAQ: "As an active member of the open source community, Novell's position is clear: The best place for partners to develop kernel drivers is upstream in the kernel.org source tree, where kernel driver code benefits from thorough review and community involvement. Novell promotes having all Linux device drivers be a part of the official kernel.org source tree. However, we recognize that some drivers are not there yet or have been integrated only after a kernel release has happened. For this case, we offer a way to get a supportable and certifiable driver anyway using the Driver Process described here."" Drivers on linux come in three categories: closed Windows binary, native Linux binary, and FOSS. Ndiswrapper and WINE sort of makes closed Windows binaries work. Fie on those. I'll take the latter two any day, of course with preference to FOSS drivers. Novell is providing a tasty carrot to vendors to improve their native Linux and FOSS support by providing a streamlined, sane mechanism for delivering and updating drivers. There is no comparison to Linspire. Linspire's official position is closed binary drivers and multimedia codecs are teh hawt, and that Linux suxx0rs without them. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!