Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, this new security fix breaks the binary-only gigabit ethernet driver. That's what stable kernel interfaces are for. Actually I don't recall _any_ change in a stable kernel that broke any kernel-interface. Ok, you have this problem with development-kernels, but a production system shouldn't be built on that anyway. I can't say if there are any license problems with binary-only kernel modules, but the horror-scenario that you propose shouldn't occur with stable kernels, so it is no argument against binary-only modules. BTW: when a company decides to build their productive environment on a open-source system like linux, they should really use their brain and choose hardware that has open-source drivers. Actually the open source is _one_ of the arguments pro such a system, so it sounds really stupid to drop this idea on something as important as a kernel-level driver module! This shouldn't say that I would find binary-only drivers any good - actually I won't use them. bye, Georg -- http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:06:32PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote: As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software Maybe somewhen this will happen, but during the next few years, the hardware manufacturer will rather ship NO drivers for special kinds of hardware than open software. :-( Of course open software has the advantage that one could recompile it more easily if the kernel version changes (which company bothers with 35 patches of a stable kernel ! Even MS does not produce such many patches). But I would only try to encourage them to produce linux driver. In a way they like. If one does not like it, one could wait for the hackers out there to produce a working freeware driver. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Remember, if you do not have a driver for your hardware it becomes quite unimportant how fast bugfixes would be made. First we must get the companies to PRODUCE drivers for Linux at all ! Matthew Parry read you, -christian- -- Linux - the choice of the GNU generation. Join the Debian Project http://www.debian.org Christian Hammers * Oberer Heidweg 35 * D-52477 Alsdorf * Tel: 02404-25624 50 3C 52 26 3E 52 E7 20 D2 A1 F5 16 C4 C9 D4 D3 1024/925BCB55 1997/11/01
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
On 17-Oct-98, 08:33 (CDT), Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:06:32PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote: [forcing manufacturers to release device drivers as free software] Maybe somewhen this will happen, but during the next few years, the hardware manufacturer will rather ship NO drivers for special kinds of hardware than open software. :-( But if they are allowed to released closed-source drivers, then there is no incentive for them to *ever* release free ones. In the meantime, I will continue to buy supported hardware, and occasionally inform a manufacturer that I chose not to buy their device because they did not support Linux (either buy providing the driver, or by providing sufficient info for someone to write the driver). Steve
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Can you explain to me what parts of the kernel can or cannot allow closed source modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent it, unless I'm missing something. I really don't know, I'm just relaying what I've read Linus and RMS say. It might just be a licence issue, or more probably it might make drivers less likely to break with a kernel upgrade. -- Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/ - There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now. - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must [valid complaints and security issues elided] good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line.=20 Us, sure. A lot of places, no. Look at the number of businesses using MS. Obviously they aren't overly concerned about these things. Heck, when security breaks under MS, for the most part, they don't *get* a fix, broken drivers or not. But really, these are things best left to the individual. If a person wants to take the risk, fine. With MS there is no choice. You have to wait for microsoft to release a fix - or even wait for NT5 (aka Godot). If we allow Linux to become monopolised, even if it is just for a particular peice of hardware then Linux becomes no better then closed source distributions. FWIW, I shelled out $20 for a commercial OSS license back when OSS/Free didn't support PNP devices so I could get my AWE64 working, and haven't regretted it. [...] Don't expect other comapnies to behave with such good manners. RedHat recently had to stop distributing TriTeal CDE because they were lax about fixing security problems. One of Linux's greatest streangths is that whenever a problem appears there is a hacker somewhere who wants to fix it straight away. We shouldn't give up this core part of the system without a fight. [...] Quite frankly, if companies providing closed binary-only drivers don't provide decent support for them, including a new version for every development kernel, I don't think they're going to be much of a threat, since the general populace is going to be too irritated to stop writing drivers (which is really all that concerns us, I think), and other companies will treat them about with as much support as they treat any other unsupported product. As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? -- Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/ - There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now. - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 08:53:54PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote: As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. and don't forget, binary only driver, be they kernel modules, ggi drivers or other such, they will probably only come in i386 version, or perhaps some other main architecture. most driver can be adapted to other arch/systems so this is not a good situation. also most driver actually are only one driver for various similar products, there is no reason we should load in the kernel two different drivers for basically the same chip for example. And with the quickly changing developpment kernels, will the drivers be updated regularly, or will we have only a 2.2.13 driver, when actual kernels are 2.2.21 and 2.3.103 ? and what if the company producing the driver goes bankrupt, or don't want to support said product anymore (so you can buy the newer version of they product who has drivers for the latest version of the kernel). binary-only drivers are evil, and i think the same goes for closed source source drivers. there is an other side to that, and that is that companies would not want to give out source driver for the latest version of their product, for fear of the concurrent, or something such. also there was some speak of linux adopting the Intel made driver standard across i386 unices. But i am not very familiar with it. Or perhaps some kind of arch independent drivers ? Friendly, Sven LUTHER
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must [valid complaints and security issues elided] good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line.=20 Us, sure. A lot of places, no. Look at the number of businesses using MS. Obviously they aren't overly concerned about these things. Heck, when security breaks under MS, for the most part, they don't *get* a fix, broken drivers or not. But really, these are things best left to the individual. If a person wants to take the risk, fine. With MS there is no choice. You have to wait for microsoft to release a fix - or even wait for NT5 (aka Godot). If we allow Linux to become monopolised, even if it is just for a particular peice of hardware then Linux becomes no better then closed source distributions. FWIW, I shelled out $20 for a commercial OSS license back when OSS/Free didn't support PNP devices so I could get my AWE64 working, and haven't regretted it. [...] Don't expect other comapnies to behave with such good manners. RedHat recently had to stop distributing TriTeal CDE because they were lax about fixing security problems. One of Linux's greatest streangths is that whenever a problem appears there is a hacker somewhere who wants to fix it straight away. We shouldn't give up this core part of the system without a fight. [...] Quite frankly, if companies providing closed binary-only drivers don't provide decent support for them, including a new version for every development kernel, I don't think they're going to be much of a threat, since the general populace is going to be too irritated to stop writing drivers (which is really all that concerns us, I think), and other companies will treat them about with as much support as they treat any other unsupported product. As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? -- Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/ - There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now. - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
Matthew Parry writes: Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? I don't believe we can. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? It's a bad idea to think that we can enforce anything [except compliance with copyrights and such that we hold]. The best we can do, in general, is encourage. For the case of the Linux kernel, Linus has been strongly in favor of commercial deployment being possible, as long as it doesn't actually impact the kernel in a bad way [it has to stay easily maintainable, and among other things that means that it has to stay GPLed]. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Matthew Parry wrote: I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this effectively the same as linking against a library? Err. a) The free kernel links against a free driver or b) A non-free driver links against the free Kernel. Compared with the KDE debacle, Linux would be the library and the driver would be the program. For me it looks like the situation is exactly the other way round. Linus didn't put the whole kernel under the GPL. I'm sure that there is no restriction to binary-only-commercial drivers. And even if it isn't, what are we going to do if proprietary drivers become common? We'll have a main dist that is useless on a lot of computers. Maybe we're not able to distribute them. So what? People should instead buy hardware for which the specs are available. I think Debian should take a stand against proprietary drivers and only distribute kernels with the proprietary driver code removed. I mean people were worried about the proprietary QT Define proprietary driver code. becoming a standard on Linux - I think a much more worying prospect for Linux (and the free software community as a whole) is having Linux boxes that won't function *at all* without proprietary drivers! This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free drivers. Regards, Joey -- Experience is a useful thing. Unfortunately it is only acquired just after one could have used it.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:00:52 +0200 From: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Matthew Parry wrote: I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this effectively the same as linking against a library? [...] or b) A non-free driver links against the free Kernel. Compared with the KDE debacle, Linux would be the library and the driver would be the program. For me it looks like the situation is exactly the other way round. If Linux were under the LGPL then that would be OK, but if the relavent parts are under GPL it's still the same problem. And even if it isn't, what are we going to do if proprietary drivers become common? We'll have a main dist that is useless on a lot of computers. Maybe we're not able to distribute them. So what? People should instead buy hardware for which the specs are available. That's just ridiculous. There might be a small number of people like myself who bought a computer so I could run Linux on it, but most have a computer already and want to try Linux out. What sort of advocates would we be if a lot of people's first experience with Linux was a CDROM that did nothing? Linux isn't just a hacker thing anymore. I think Debian should take a stand against proprietary drivers and only distribute kernels with the proprietary driver code removed. I mean people were worried about the proprietary QT Define proprietary driver code. The parts of the kernel code that would allow closed source modules to work with it. becoming a standard on Linux - I think a much more worying prospect for Linux (and the free software community as a whole) is having Linux boxes that won't function *at all* without proprietary drivers! This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free drivers. I'm not really worried about winmodem style hardware. I'm more worried that if hardware manufacturers start releasing non-free drivers then people might be less inclined to write free ones from scratch. Allowing crucial parts of Linux to become closed source is inherently evil - Hence the importance of the KDE/Qt debate. -- Matthew Parry [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/ - There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now. - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Can you explain to me what parts of the kernel can or cannot allow closed source modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent it, unless I'm missing something. - Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] UnixGroup Admin - NASA LaRC On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Matthew Parry wrote: The parts of the kernel code that would allow closed source modules to work with it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNiNSFtwoBnGmInM1AQFPfQP8CmRy2foizrZJE1PZc55DugTAzB2kP+A9 j/Pyzv8ZfOfX2DKCELW5qLTGZARWdnsOk9Jez4ukWqFqWIZ0Vtu5C0rsReegRLti /COWmR/IwNxaXmiqlda2gVxI9dsMcUnGT0Q/c15ohuQccCti8zr/qAuD3pTn6Rhs O3XZc1OR3pk= =jG3E -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free drivers. I can picture manufacturers who _would_ have released specs no longer doing so because they can write their own. Knowing some of those cruddy el-cheapo places write pretty bad windows drivers, what can we expect from them with linux? daniel Keep the kernel free!
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
If the day ever comes that some hardware maker decides to write his own driver for Linux (say a maker of a win-modem decided to write a linux driver and throw the disk in the box) but did NOT license under the GPL, choosing to keep it propritory would that be so bad? As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux. We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which are NOT licensed under the GPL. You don't HAVE to buy these, unless you feel that they are what you need, and worth the price. _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote: As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux. We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which are NOT licensed under the GPL. You don't HAVE to buy these, unless you feel that they are what you need, and worth the price. ...and in the case of sound drivers, nobody has told you about ALSA. pgps9TWQJHj1H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote: If the day ever comes that some hardware maker decides to write his own driver for Linux (say a maker of a win-modem decided to write a linux driver and throw the disk in the box) but did NOT license under the GPL, choosing to keep it propritory would that be so bad? It wouldn't be bad at all, so long as it included source so that it could be patched to accomodate newer / different versions of the Linux kernel if the manufacturer went out of business or stopped supporting newer versions of the Linux kernel. Even if this source couldn't be freely distributed, it would still be better than having no source. The source is of limited use without the device anyway, and by purchasing the device, you'd get a license for the driver and its source. I'd hate to be stuck running kernel 2.0.35 two years from now because I bought some obsolecent device from a company that refuses to release a binary driver for a newer kernel version. As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux. This is very different. I can run the same copy of Wordperfect under Linux 2.0.28 - 2.0.35, as well as 2.1.125. I can't say the same for my kernel modules, which rarely work correctly with kernel versions other than the one I built them under. A major problem arises when a major change comes about in the Linux kernel that makes the module incompatible with the kernel the end user wants to run and the user has two choices: either run an older, potentially less stable and secure Linux kernel, or upgrade the kernel and lose the use of their hardware device. In the case of an important device, like a SCSI controller or a network card, there really isn't any choice at all here. We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which are NOT licensed under the GPL. You don't HAVE to buy these, unless you feel that they are what you need, and worth the price. These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must install a different version every time they upgrade their kernel. Sometimes simple changes (like UP-SMP or vice-versa) break the modules, and require yet another version to be installed. If these commercial sound drivers were distributed with source code, the end user could simply recompile after upgrading to a different kernel, and not have to hassle with downloading or purchasing newer versions of the modules. I think binary only drivers have a huge potential to greatly inconvenience Linux users, expecially if new versions aren't made available every time a new kernel upgrade is made available. Consider the following scenareo: After months of hacking, the Linux kernel developers release Linux 2.2.0. Company X decides to build 4 dozen Linux 2.2.0 boxes for their new server farm, employing Company Y's Gigabit ethernet cards for network connectivity. Company Y offers their ethernet cards as a binary-only kernel module. About two weeks after the release of Linux 2.2.0, a major security hole is posted on Bugtraq. It seems that due to a bug in the networking subsystem, any user can remotely halt any Linux machine, often resulting in loss of data or filesystem corruption. A minor rework of the network layer is required, and Linux 2.2.1 is released just hours later to fix the problem. Unfortunately, this new security fix breaks the binary-only gigabit ethernet driver. During the time between the Linux 2.2.1 release and Company Y's release of the updated driver, Company X has two choices: either keep their current configuration with gigabit ethernet and risk having their machines remotely crashed, potentially costing thousands of dollars in lost business for each minute of downtime, or downgrade to a 100mbps card with an open-source driver, and still potentially lose customers because their machines now communicate up to ten times slower than they did before. To avoid putting individuals and businesses in a difficult situation like Company X's, it's important to employ as much of the protection provided by the GPL as possible to help preserve the freedom and source code availabilty of the Linux kernel and its components. Although I recognise how important good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Ben Collins writes: Can you explain to me what parts of the kernel can or cannot allow closed source modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent it, unless I'm missing something. I don't see that you are. The user installs the binary-only driver for his MegaThumper sound card from the CD that came with it or from MegaCorp's web site: what does that have to do with us or with Linus? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
---Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although I recognise how important good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line. It may not be possible, but I guess Linux needs some sort of standard for kernel-driver interfaces that would allow an older driver to work with newer kernels. To a limited degree, this is true with MS windows..Drivers supplied with win95 can work with win 98, some '3.1 drivers even work with '95 (with restrictions). But I see your point, if Kernel changes make existing drivers broken a binary only driver is not a good idea. OTOH due to NDA's a binary only driver might be the only way some companies COULD distribute a driver for Linux for their hardware (thank you Mr Gates!). _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
