Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Free/Open Source Software Hardware Requirements?

Posted by Cliff on from the flip-side-of-the-ole-chestnut dept.

Bender asks: "Most on Slashdot seem to be concerned with getting Free/Open Source software to be compatible with hardware (firmware, register sets, etc). My question is from the other side of the table: I'm in the hardware business and I'm wondering if there are any central guidelines to better guarantee compatibility with Linux/*BSD. As an example, to guarantee that our hardware runs Microsoft Windows, we have to conform to the Windows Logo Program Requirements. These requirements dictate (among other things) firmware interfaces, debug ports, and DRM. Some of these requirements, if not implemented carefully, could trigger incompatibilities with non-Microsoft operating systems. Is there a Linux/*BSD equivalent to the Microsoft requirements to allow hardware designers to build OS agnostic systems?"

6 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. To make it work with linux... by Tribbin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... send a free piece of the hardware to every major kernel-programmer.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  2. Re:Well... by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Complete and freely available documentation.
    Agreed. To make it even better, publish a basic driver in source form and under a non-restructive license (BSD-like probably works best). That gives people a starting point.

    Documentation available under NDA is useless for open source (publishing the source itself will likely break the NDA).

    --

    Stephan

  3. Re:Legacy, Ick by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Blame that on the people who refuse to upgrade to current stuff and bitch at MS when their stuff breaks, forcing MS to support their old, piece of crap hardware.

    I fail to see why office or home applications should dictate a particular architecture. Gaming and lab work are probably the only things which may be picky, due to bus speeds. The AMD64 is a nice start, but when can we exepct some of the other housecleaning of PC design? All I've got on my desk at home is very souped up PC-XT. Meanwhile some really good architecture has died along the way as everyone fought to support quite possibly the most exasperating legacy beast, just like everyone else. Moo.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Re:Don't worry by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe, but considering that Linux and friends have been accelerating in marketshare growth and visibility, the compatibility issues will become a greater priority for the OEMs and it will be the companies' employees who will take care of what would otherwise have been the dirty hippies' project. Just another instance of supply catching up with demand.

  5. Re:Logo? by Junta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can say that the Logo certification requires a significant amount of technical work, not just some buy off. So yes, the logo does actually mean something on a solid, technical level with respect to accomodating Windows and working with the Windows environment.

    I do not do the work, but I have had products I'm working on impacted by some pretty low-level technical changes on the product required to meet WHQL from other groups.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  6. Re:Well... by Nimrangul · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Seems you and me disagree, guess I better fork you.

    Here's how I see it, NDA is bad, nothing done under an NDA is worth using. Because if you have work done under the NDA and you stop working on it, noone else has the documentation you signed an NDA for and therefore cannot maintain the code.

    NDA work being released is almost as bad as a binary.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.