lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Open letter to the UDI folks?: Killing two birds with one stone
hello All;

Comments are mixed in below. I have already replied to Jon concerning
I2O which was rather lengthy so I will not comment again on I2O.

Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sometimes it is good to be on the road for four weeks. I get to come back
> and read the entire stream of conciousness, rather than get it a piece at
> a time.
>
> Here are some of my thoughts:
>
> Adam is right. While LI embraces the OSD concepts, it is not exclusive.
> We encourage people to be Open Source, but LI's main goal is to have them use
> the Linux(R) operating system as an alternative to Microsoft.

This places Linux in a rather fragile position.
Please refer to

http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19981012-underdev.html

I quote a brief section:

<Begin Quote>

But Linux will fail if it is forced to serve the wrong goal. If,
instead of being a better tool to solve developers' needs, Linux
becomes the latest proxy for Microsoft's competitors, it will
fade into obscurity. This is where Apple, Borland, Novell,
Netscape, et al. went wrong. By becoming obsessed with
Microsoft instead of serving their customers, these companies
forgot that the point of making products is developing solutions
to real problems, not dinging the largest competitor.

<End Quote>

>
> Second, there is nothing that would stop someone from developing a binary-only
> loadable device driver today, as long as they did it from scratch and did not
> use any GPLed code. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

I agree.

>
> Third, while UDI does have the capability of allowing binary-only drivers
> to be generated and distributed, its larger capability is to allow the same
> APIs to go across operating systems. Therefore people who write device drivers
> for *BSD or SPARC or Digital Unix will also be writing them for Linux. This
> is a win-win situation.

It is not a win-win situation when you consider I2O in the picture.
Currently there is no way for Linux to incorporate I2O support.

Please refer to

http://www.sco.com/udi/i2o.html

pay particular attention to the section on Combining UDI and I2O.

>
> Fourth, if you think that a hardware company will sit around waiting for
> Linux developers to volunteer to write their device drivers on products which
> often have a six month (or less) lifetime...this is highly unlikely. But
> to allow a company to develop a device driver for all OSs at the same time,
> and allow them to distribute it either in source or binary (or both) is a win.

I would agree with your statement. We need to educate the hardware
companies
to "seed" Linux developers with hardware before release so that both a
Linux native
driver under GNU GPL and an UDI driver under GNU LGPL may be written,
tested, and
ready for release with the hardware. The benefits of open source have
been documented.
The peer review of source code improves the quality and performance of
the software.
By seeding the Linux Developer Community prior to release would be a win
for the
company also, it would also be a win for all OSes. OpenSource native and
UDI device
drivers, albeit the native would be under GNU GPL and the UDI under GNU
LGPL.

It is that very nature of products which have a "six month or less
lifetime"
that would lead the hardware vendor to slap a driver together which
offers
poor performance, or just plain does not work. This would be no
different than
what we currently have today. Anyone who has installed Windows lately
understands
this. After the market lifetime of a product has passed what incentive
is there for
the hardware vendor to keep updating the device driver?

The end-user is not going to blame the hardware vendor about the driver
he will blame Linux/*BSD/Solaris/HP-UX/IRIX/etc.

>
> Fifth, if you look at the companies listed on the web page, you will see that
> most of them are now LI members:
>
> o SCO
> o Compaq
> o Sun
> o Adaptec
>
> with others becoming more "Linux minded" by the day:
>
> o Intel
> o IBM
>
> If you don't believe the last one, remember "Apache"....and I met six IBMers
> at ISPcon who were bandishing penguins on the IBM stand.

I do remember the IBM and Apache deal. The currency of that agreement
was source
code from IBM with allowed Apache to run better under Winnt. There was a
clear
exchange of source code for support from the Apache developers. I have
repeatedly
asked since the original UDI article appeared what was going to be the
currency
of any agreement between Project UDI and the Linux Developer Community.

I again state that it is extremely unwise to accept the open hand of UDI
while the other hand is resting on the binary-only sword of I2O.
Contrary to Kevin Quick's statement that the UDI hand may belong to a
different
division than the I2O hand, both hands are connected to the same head.

Since we are remembering Apache and IBM, are we also allowed to remember
the SCO marketing letter sent to Linux Users? The marketing letter which
blasted
Linux as "unstable", and we could upgrade to SCO for some large amount
of money.
The very same letter which Redhat place on their Web Site.

We are being asked to suddenly trust these companies which have
"suddenly seen
the light" and found "redemption" in supporting Linux. There needs to be
give and take on both sides. However, in my opinion I only see the other
side
taking and giving very little or nothing in return.

It does not benefit the OpenSource or Linux Communities to "sell their
souls"
for short-term gains/benefits.

>
> Sixth, both several months ago and recently I talked with people from Intel
> about I2O, and while they have promised this before, at least they are still
> saying that the specification will be made public. Compaq's own engineers
> have told me that this is the intent also.

Please refer to my previous reply concerning I2O. I will not repeat it
here.
If someone would like to receive a copy of that reply please send me
private
e-mail and I will send you a copy.

>
> Seventh, the Linux and Open Source community will speak with their dollars,
> as they always have. Distributions that are all Open Source will remain
> so, because that is what their customers want. And when the hardware vendors
> wonder why their competitors are outselling them two to one, it will be
> painfully obvious there are customers who are unwilling to go to a web site,
> or load yet another CD-ROM to install proprietary drivers, and those customers
> will not be wanting to buy hardware with proprietary drivers when there are
> Open Source alternatives.

I agree that both communities will speak with their dollars.
I would also purpose that both communities consider expanding the scope
of open software to include open hardware. I have been investigating
this
already. Expand it to include mainboard/motherboard design, peripheral
card
designs that are open and licensed in such a way that anyone may produce
them
and that they can never be taken "private".

>
> Distributions that do have proprietary software in them will probably continue
> to have it, and may incorporate binary-only drivers. Customers will chose
> whether or not to buy these distributions.

This goes back to my original posting concerning Project UDI.
If the distributions which include binary-only drivers fail, will the
Linux
Community not be labeled as "non-supportive", "contrary", etc?

>
> I will be happy to talk to the UDI and the I2O people, hopefully at the same
> time. I may be able to kill two birds with one stone. It may take me a few
> days, but I will.

I am not sure to whom you are referring. If you referring to the
representatives
of Intel, SCO, etc that are involved in both Project UDI and I2O I would
approach that cautiously.

Remember the old proverb: Keep your friends close but keep your enemies
closer.

The hard part of course being able to determine who are the friends and
who are
the enemies.

>
> md
> --
>
> Jon "maddog" Hall

> (R)Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other
> countries.

--
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."

entertaining angels
by the light of my computer screen
24-7 you wait for me
entertaining angels
while the night becomes history
host of heaven, sing over me
==Entertaining Angels==Newsboys

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.075 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site