Slashdot Mirror
Open Sourcing Closed Sourced Drivers?
AnonymousIntern asks: "I'm interning at a company where I've signed all kinds of privacy agreements, so I'd ask that you not name me (nor use my id). The company I'm interning with sells a suite of software, along with various boards. Their software got ported to Linux a couple of years ago, but the Linux drivers for the boards (open source) don't have most of the capabilities found in their windows (closed source) counterparts because the company fears releasing a piece of technology in the chips that they've developed. Many people in the company are very level-headed proponents of open sourcing the whole driver (thus giving Linux users the same power they can get running the windows version), but fear releasing their tech. Can anyone suggest a course of action? I know this issue has come up before, but I feel it needs to be continually addressed." Now I'm all for opening driver sources, but if it came down between the choice of more driver support for Linux and Open Source code, I'd be torn. This is a subject I'm sure many of us feel strongly about, so please share your opinions.
First, nobody in the Windows world is making money on hardware drivers. Especially not hardware vendors.
Second, closed source kernel drivers severely limit the user. You are limited to certain kernels, with certain options. You may not be able to apply security patches. And Linus has made it clear repeatedly that if the kernel needs to change and that breaks binary drivers, that's not his problem.
A hardware vendor providing binary only drivers relegates his hardware to second-class citizen status, because there are a lot of people who don't want to put on a straitjacket to use a certain piece of hardware.
John Carmack said it best when he refered to Nvidia's XFree 4.0 situation. In a nutshell is said that most linux users want a good working driver over an open-sourced one. That's something I tend to agree with.
If it's a GOOD driver, I don't have any problem using a binary driver. The problem comes in most cases when it's not a very good driver to begin with, adn poorly supported. I'll use the SB Live! drivers before they were open as an example.
They released so-so binary only drivers. They also weren't updated. Which leaves a big hole in even the number of people that can even use it. Drivers have to be compiled for every kernel version, and SMP versions. Creative assumed everyone ran a stock RedHat 6.1 install, and just forgot about everyone else. Although I aplaud Crative's opening their drivers, I would have been happy with closed source drivers that did everything their Windows counterparts do(read Liveware 4.0).
Most dont' want drivers open so they can hack them and make them better. As the case with my Live!, I couldn't even USE them unless I had the source. Since they just supported the 2.2.12 kernel that's on a stock RedHat 6.1 install, I had to re-compile it for 2.2.13-SMP.
So my point being. If it's a WELL SUPPORT DRIVER, most will use it, and like using it. The driver has to be kept right in line with everything your Windows drivers will do, and the same preformance. You also have to release a version for all the recient kernel versions. If it's some crappy hack like what Creative tossed out there before they opened their driver, that's when you'll get the backlash.
Seriously, if it comes down to that choice, I'd rather have better support in Linux.
Having been a Linux user for years (starting with an early Slackware distro), I have to say that ease of use is *still* a priority for me - even if I am prepared to dive into config files and the like, I prefer not to. Open Source is important to me as a developer and on a more idealistic level, but in the real world, I'd rather see companies supporting Linux and giving the same level of features (or better) in their software as the Windows users get.
At the end of the day, it isn't every company who is going to take the Open Source path. Those that don't should be gently encouraged, but quite realistically we have to just get on with life and using our computers - and I want to use mine with all the functionality I can get.
"Give the anarchist a cigarette"
A little planning goes a long way...
But it's not the drivers they are worried about, it's the hardware. They are afraid competitors can use the drivers to help reverse engineer the card and come out with a competing card.
Exactly what stops competitors from being able to do this? Closed source drivers can be examined, hardware can be taken apart. (You can protect the hardware, but you'd then have problems shipping what is effect a bomb.)
Is it truly necessary to release open sourced drivers? Or is it just necessary to release good drivers? Cant binary drivers be made compatible across Linux distros? If not, it seems like this is something that is truly necessary.
How different is *BSD from Linux as far as drivers go? Is it REALLY that hard to recompile drivers to make everyone happy?
Well, the best solution would obviously be open-sourcing the whole thing - but if they won't do it, why not do both simultaneously?
Put a limited open-sourced driver up so everyone can use it and it can be included in distributions (and developed from there, chances are it will outdo the closed-source version some day), and at the same time, release a closed-source driver for download so people who need the extra functionality right now and don't insist on having everything in source form can use that.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html