Slashdot Mirror
Intel — Only "Open" For Business
Michael Knudsen writes, "Intel still refuses to work with open source projects such that they can provide their users with proper support for Intel's hardware products. As he has done before, Theo de Raadt once again asks users to take action by contacting Intel, telling them what they think of their current policy of not releasing hardware documentation and granting open source projects the right to distribute hardware firmware with their products. Failing to do so only harms users in the way that they risk having unsupported or malfunctioning hardware in their operating system of choice." Read more below.
It's really important that people understand that Intel is only trying to cooperate just enough to make people believe that they're open and doing the right thing. Don't fool yourselves: They are not.
What we need all users of open source software to do is contact Intel and let them know what you think of their current behaviour. If you run a big department and chose another vendor's products over Intel's because it doesn't work in your operating system, let them know, along with how many units they could have sold you. If you are an end user who has had problems when using Intel hardware because of poor support, let them know.
Let them know that their current lack of support will only harm them in the long run because you will be avoiding their products. Let them know that you want your hardware to work out of the box when you have installed your operating system of choice, and how Intel is preventing this with their lack of support.
Intel is not doing you a favor by requiring you to go to a website and download firmware for your hardware. You paid for the hardware, and Intel is thanking you by making it difficult for you to use it. Let Intel know what you think of this.
It's really important that people understand that Intel is only trying to cooperate just enough to make people believe that they're open and doing the right thing. Don't fool yourselves: They are not.
What we need all users of open source software to do is contact Intel and let them know what you think of their current behaviour. If you run a big department and chose another vendor's products over Intel's because it doesn't work in your operating system, let them know, along with how many units they could have sold you. If you are an end user who has had problems when using Intel hardware because of poor support, let them know.
Let them know that their current lack of support will only harm them in the long run because you will be avoiding their products. Let them know that you want your hardware to work out of the box when you have installed your operating system of choice, and how Intel is preventing this with their lack of support.
Intel is not doing you a favor by requiring you to go to a website and download firmware for your hardware. You paid for the hardware, and Intel is thanking you by making it difficult for you to use it. Let Intel know what you think of this.
It should be noted that Intel manufactures the only technologically-current graphics processor which can claim to have open source drivers, and then Intel series of gigabit ethernet NICs is by far the best choice for use with Linux. Intel's wireless chips, the subject of the article, are not completely open but are rather more open than some of the competition.
You should read deeper. Theo was focused here in firmwares for wireless chipsets. There are probably other firmwares needed (as for RAID cards)
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
James Ketrenos, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Agreed, I wouldn't call him a big fat liar as long as I haven't given him the chance to respond and do something about the situation.
I hope and guess this was done.
James ?
If the hardware turns out to be extremely buggy, then it might be Intel's advantage not to publish any documentation. Their drivers and firmware code might be full of software based workarounds for hardware flaws that the PR-department would not want the public to see. If this was the case, publishing these to the open source community would make a hole in Intel's credibility as a hardware manufacturer, and possible create monetary losses in selling new products.
Note that I'm not saying that this is the case, but it might be.
I demand the Cone of Silence!
well, theo deraadt seemed clearly pissed indeed, but was also smart enough to realise that, and for a correct way to contact intel, he suggests the careful post written by another person that was done to TI as an example how to write to Intel.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
While I actually think TFA is virtually useless, I understand that people want better wireless support for their various open source OS's. Intel's drivers for this are really quite open when compared to most others, but if you want drivers that are more open than Intel's, choose ones with the RT2400, RT2500, RT2570, and RT61 chipsets by RaLink. The drivers were open-sourced last year and have progressed quite well. Find more info at http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main _Page and http://sourceforge.net/projects/rt2400.
Put identity in the browser.
What hard, current evidence do you have that the market is barreling towards open source?
I see it meekly traipsing along, while MSFT earned $1400 every second of every day of fiscal year 2006, and is on pace to earn $1500 every second of every day of fiscal year 2007.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
They also ask for the right to distribute firmware under an acceptable license, but Intel refuses. Ironically your link
above describe exactly the Intel attitude: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
OpenBSD want to distribute firmware along with the OS under an acceptable license. They are not asking for the source
code of the firmware. Intel are instractible here, so owners of Intel wireless devices needs to personally accept a license
before downloading the firmware. As an example: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
As for open source drivers: OpenBSD wants hardware documentation, not a Linux driver, so that they can write their own drivers.
Intel claims that they are open source friendly and gives out documentation, but the last is clearly a lie since OpenBSD had to reverse
engineer several Intel wireless chipsets.
Giving the appearance of beeing friendly to open source, while not beeing so, is the latest fad in business. Intel is an example
of this fad.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7184
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
Intel does distribute the firmware for the newer ipw3945 driver under a sane license. Unfortunately, nobody distributes that since it requires a binary daemon to function. One has to wonder why Intel has not relicensed the other firmware files. They have acknowledged that the ipw2100/2200 license is too complicated and doesn't meet the needs of distributors, but they don't want to fix that problem. It would seem that Intel does not want their drivers supported out of the box on open source operating systems.
If I were to write to Intel, I would ask that all wireless firmware be released under the ipw3945 license. Intel legal has already approved it and it provides a clear description of exactly what we want.
I will voice my opinion in the tried and tested way of consumer protesting. I will just not buy Intel for my OpenBSD box's.
I will buy hardware that has an open support commitment and prove those vendors right in there move.
You really need to read what Theo and others are asking, rather than making assumptions. If you did you would realise there are two things OpenBSD asks of Intel, and neither of them relate to your conclusions:
Note we're not talking about open-source firmware, we're talking about opening up the licensing conditions on distribution of the closed-source firmware.