Re: [ANNOUNCE] Position Statement on Linux Kernel Modules

[David Newall]

Greg Louis wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote
>>> (Of course, the best way to rebut that argument [ that outside the
>>> developer community, nobody cares whether drivers are proprietary ]
>>> would be for end-users to vote with their feet, but for a lot of
>>> us, me included, that's not a practical option.)
>>>       
>> The problem is exactly what you describe in your last sentence. Hardware
>> manufacturers are well aware of that and make no effort to provide correct
>> drivers when they (think they) have a monopoly in certain areas.
>>
>> What would be needed would be a public list of alternative hardware for
>> known existing hardware.
>
> That is Utopian, I fear.  For example, what notebook supports the
> installation of alternative hardware?

Yet, in non-mobile platforms, alternative hardware is sometimes an
option, and so the suggestion does have utility.  But it's use goes
beyond those situations, as it engenders a new mindset amongst
manufacturers, a mindset in which they have to play by our rules or lose
market share, and once they start doing that they'll find there's no
reason not to keep doing it.  Then, even mobile platforms will have a
full set of open drivers.

So I think a public list of alternative hardware is an excellent suggestion.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/