On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:19PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> > that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
> > You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> > requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
> > Its as simple as that.
> And when your customer gets screw because you refuse to update your binary
> driver because you do not know or have had the chance to follow any
> evolving API, you are going to blame us in OPEN source, right.
At our office, we actually had a sysadmin suggest that the reason
we had problems with viruses propagating was because they couldn't put
everyone on Exchange (some of us use Unix/Linux) and that was causing the
problems. Of course... Operating systems which are immune to these things
are to blame for the epidemics on the ones that are suceptible. That
makes sense. Grrrr.... Of course the availablity of quality drivers with
sources are the reason for crappy closed source drivers... I can see his
reasoning (isn't that scary). <;-/=/
Actually, it does make a perverted sort of sense. If we didn't
have systems that didn't have these problems, nobody would think that
there was anything wrong. They would just think that "of course, this
is what you expect from suppliers". They would have no yardstick to
measure against, so rebooting a computer once a day or having a blue
screen would just be part of the normal experience. So we DO contribute
to his problems! We provide a standard which he can not live up to or
even pursue given the manpower and talent he may have (or not have).
How is he suppose to innovate when the Open Source community is setting
such a high standard for him? :->=>
> Meanwhile the API changes may have boosted the performance factor and you
> have screw yourself and customer base because you are to lame to see the
> value of open source.
>
> Some time ago I proposed CLAPI, and you are one of the venders that would
> benefit from such a beast. This model would have required you to LGPL a
> kernel library that would have all the functional IP (that is not IP) that
> is to lame to be placed into the hardware. If your hardware is so flakey
> that you have to pump/prime it for operations....well....you get the
> point.
>
> If I recall you and your company on one of the worst offenders of taking
> code (GPL or not) and changing it and putting it out as binaries. I am
> surprized that you have not been taken down yet. Then if someone asks for
> the return of the code base and changes because they can under the terms
> of the license that you removed from that code, you charge them a fee and
> suggest actionable terms if any disclosure into the public form from
> where it came.
Well... Yeah... Of course, Andre. Can you see how that stiffles
his innovation.
> Regards,
Later!
> Andre Hedrick
> Linux ATA Development
Mike
-- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST