> Lars NoodC)n schrieb: > > It seems that OpenBSD's Stop the Blob message is getting more recognition: > > > > http://www.fsdaily.com/stop-blob > > > > As the article points out, better late than never. > > > > Though OpenBSD had been on my list of things to look at for years, it > > was the Stop-the-Blob campaign that provided for me the final nudge. > > > > Regards > > -Lars > > > > > Sorrym but your are misguided. GNU and the Linux kernel hackers have > protested often over all the years. One thing that has holded them back > is that firstly Linus
I hope that nothing I ever say holds back our developers or community from doing what is right. I did not realize that the GNU and Linux kernel hackers were such dutiful slaves. > does not seem to care very much about the GNU > principles (but he cared so much to chose GNU license) I -- and many of our team -- don't give a rats as about the GNU principles either, and look how much more we have done. > - another thing > seems to be that many Linux kernel hackers work for companies that > understand their mission as to provide the customers with what they > want. This other thing is actually the ONLY problem. It is just business as usual for the Linux wanna-be-monopoly. It is that those people work at companies that sign NDAs to get them documentation, and then noone else gets the documentation. Yes, they are already people of a "higher class", and then why would they spend even a second of their time making the docs more free. They feel so special and empowered to be in the inner clique; so they don't fight a fucked up system. If you see a fucked up system, do you want to fight it? Or do you want to defend the people who don't fight it? I think you are an apologist for those who don't fight the system. > And also, as you all know, open documentation has gone a long way > till today. No. Open documentation has NOT gone a long way at all. Do you have full Broadcom 100mb / gigabit ethernet documentation? Do you have Intel 100mb / gigabit ethernet chipset programming documentation? Do you have documentation for ANY wireless chipsets except the two or three that we pressured to be free? If you don't have documentation for those, what do you have? What is a long way for you? Perhaps a 100 year plan? > For long years on many hardware parts free software was not > available. > > Richard Stallman protested openly in 2006 more visible than OpenBSD did: > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html He cried, and nothing happened. He cried, and then did no reverse engineering. He cried, and the only people who listened and agreed are those who do nothing. You all think this is all about 2 kinds of video cards. Video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards... cry cry cry. what about all the rest of the things in a machine? > You are right that OpenBSD and Theo did make reoccuring demands over > many years and one could truely say that OpenBSD has always been more > determined and clear. If Linus would have been an advocate for free > software I am sure things would have been gone in a different direction. > > Personally I believe all free operating systems have worked on the > change of the situation. Personally I believe that all the other free operating systems added together have worked MUCH LESS on this than we have. > The popularity of Linux has helped to create a > market that has better and more open documentation - and machines that > are made to work perfect with Linux (like eeepc) are more easily made to > work perfectly for OpenBSD and other free OSes. Where do you come up with this load of crap? The eeepc has an UNDOCUMENTED ethernet chip and an UNDOCUMENTED wireless chip. Of course it works in Linux, because the ethernet vendor gave an undocumented source code driver to the Linux vendors, and the wireless vendor gave an undocumented BINARY driver to the Linux vendors, and oh boy, that makes it all so good, and such a GREAT example. No other PC laptop selling today has more undocumented parts than this laptop. Your example is so pathetic; it shows you have not a clue. You are an utter idiot. The eeepc is an exact manifistation of the problem coming round again. One year ago we had complete support of every major component in every laptop, and then voila, this Linux-based laptop came out which required a LINUX BLOB. You are a clueless fanboy. What a load of crap. You don't know what you are talking about. Everything else you said is exactly the same blathering; you are trying to say happy Linux things but there are no facts to support that the Linux crew or FSF has done ANYTHING which has gotten documentation for hardware out there. They have failed to use their dominant position to anyone else, and they have done a damn poor job of even supporting themselves. Any documentation which is out there is because we pushed it out, or some specific person or company decided to. The FSF and Linux never had anything to do with any document release -- at best they have done damned little considering the clout they could have. If they have, please provide exact facts, and for more than 1-2 chips, which have their full documentation available. The facts stand against you. Watch out, because some chips you think may be out there because of Linux, I had been talking to the same people at the same time. > There are different paths that are walked, but I remember there have > been a lot of quarrels with hardware vendors from the Linux kernel > hackers and often some hackers tried to establish a more strict policy. Good lord. You think you can make shit up and it makes it true. Your perceptions are utterly wrong. Collectively the Linux developers have done DICK to pressure vendor documentation releases. What did they do? Linux developers and the companies that employ them have spend the last ten years signing NDAs with vendors, and therefore only that very small group of people have the documentation. It's not even "lots of Linux developers" who have those docs; no, in each case it is typically 1-3 developers who have docs for a particular chipset, and then when a bug is found by an outsider he has to work without docs. That helps noone except them -- it does not help the other communities. Even when it helps them to have these docs, it helps them poorly, since at an optimistic level only 1% of their development community have a particular doc they might want to read. The Linux developers are selfish dickheads who have exactly the same monopolistic mindset as Microsoft -- who also signs NDAs with vendors. I see nothing different about their processes. They want an advantage. And having vendors documents is an advantage. But it IS small minded of them to only want that advantage for only 1% of their own development community. Your words are not a whitewash; you are either lying or you have spent a lot of time trying to write a treatise after having spent zero time studying what is actually happening. > My guess is that more Linux hackers today think that they have enough > drivers to push things forward and to use the power to indeed force > hardware vendors to comply. > Linus could help greatly if he would speak out in the same sense. I > doubt he will, because he is thinking more about practical aspects He is not practical. He is a monopolist, and the current situation is that Linux is strong enough that they get documentation from most vendors, under NDAs. That makes them like the other super power who they love to hate, and keeps all the other people trying to write operating system code third world. And that suits their very American viewpoint just fine, I suppose.
