[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

The inherent instability of binary modules is a religious myth. Any
module can be stable or unstable, depending on how it's written, tested
and the environment (hardware/evolving APIs it depends on). For
example, Apple's current Mac OS X is extremely stable imho, despite the
fact that their hardware drivers are generally binary-only.

The same goes for trustworthiness. It's a matter of point of view /
preference whether you trust open-source projects and their security
(which can be far from perfect, as evidenced by the recent break-ins in
various servers hosting source repositories) more than stuff produced
by a corporation. Every model has disadvantages and advantages.
Responsible projects, people and corporations usually all care a lot
about their reputation and can be trustworthy, regardless of the
specific form in which they distribute software.

I think that Rik is right when saying that the key information that
should be conveyed is who is responsible for providing support. The
wording should be kept neutral, without negative connotation nor
religious bias.


On Apr 29, 2004, at 5:47 PM, Jorge Bernal (Koke) wrote:

> On Jueves, 29 de Abril de 2004 23:36, Timothy Miller wrote:
>> Hmmm... how about "untrusted"? Not sure...
> I like "untrusted". Another option is some like "binary only modules
> can make
> your system unstable and kernel developers have nothing to do with
> that" (but
> well written, and shorter if possible).
> --
> Jorge Bernal aka. Koke
> //
> JID:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.078 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site