On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:11:08PM +0200, Oron Peled wrote: > On Sunday 16 November 2003 19:46, Micha Feigin wrote: > > Allowing binary only modules has its advantages ... > > ... This approach opens up the chance for more hardware support for > > linux... > > This is very shortsighted point of view. If most of the Linux developers > would think so, we could have in a few years "yet another closed > source operating system named Linux" -- What a waste... > > Somehow there are still people who think that Linux is just another > operating system (and Apache is just another web server etc.) > > Think for a moment -- why has Linux advanced so much? What made > it so attractive to developers? How come Linux/Apache/Perl/Python/Jboss > etc. hit MS so hard where OS/2, Mac, Amiga, Novel etc, has > failed (with a lot more shoving power behind each of them). > > The answer is simple, each developer *knows* that his work may not be > monopolized by others in the future. His work is protected (although in a > different sense than Ilan Finci was refering to :-) > > If you are warried about hardware support for Linux -- than try to accept > only OSS drivers and wait for critical mass to force the vendors. > You think I'm living in dreams? Let me tell you a short Linux history: > In ~1994 there was a similar problem. Some vendors refused > to release specs for their SCSI controlers due to "IP issues, > blah, blah, blah". One of them was Adaptec which was one of the > market leaders. > > In about 3-4 years, the ammount of Linux servers surged so much that > the SCSI (and SCSI-Raid) market was heating up. Some competitors had > OSS drivers (e.g: Future Domains), while Adapter had only "reveresed > engineered" OSS drivers. > > Guess what? Soon enough, Adaptec (like any other SCSI vendor out there) > had OSS drivers for their full range of hardware (including Raid > controlers) > > So now we have similar problems with graphic cards vendors.... But Linux > is already in the high-video arena (Holywood) and is entering the > Enterprise Desktop (that's why we have so many people asking about this > now). These companies probably think -- > "We will take binary drivers and have the Linux advantage without > IP problems". > > Yeh, sure.... SWIM AND DON'T GET WET: > - Linux is not such a system because its lead developer is a talented > Finish programmer (altough it helps :-) > It's because of the way it evolves. In this environment, closed source > programs are usefull only as interim, migratory solution.
This may work with hardware as you claim, and I do prefer open source solutions, but I also want my hardware to work, and to have some proffessional quallity software that there is no chance will ever hit the opensource. Although drifting off again, peer pressure wont solve all the opensource problems. Lets see peer pressure get matlab in the open source ;-) (or maybe final cut which hasn't even made it into the windows version). > > > -- > Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron > > If it's there and you can see it, it's REAL > If it's there and you can't see it, it's TRANSPARENT > If it's not there and you can see it, it's VIRTUAL > If it's not there and you can't see it, it's GONE! > > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
