Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel Devs Offer Free Driver Development

schwaang writes "Linux Kernel hacker Greg Kroah-Hartman, author of Linux Kernel in a Nutshell has posted an epic announcement on his blog. This could portend increased device compatibility for Linux users, higher-quality drivers, and fewer non-free binary blobs." From the announcement: "[T]he Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development... All that is needed is some kind of specification that describes how your device works, or the email address of an engineer that is willing to answer questions every once in a while. If your company is worried about NDA issues surrounding your device's specifications, we have arranged a program... in order to properly assure that all needed NDA requirements are fulfilled. Now your developers will have more time to work on drivers for all of the other operating systems out there, and you can add 'supported on Linux' to your product's marketing material."

17 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. How many by Magada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how many companies will be imprudent/progressive enough to take up this offer.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    1. Re:How many by frisket · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That misses the point. A very large number of Linux users are in the position where they are consulted by others about what devices to buy. The availability of devices which will work with Linux increases a company's exposure to all kinds of user, not just Linux users.

      Companies worried about IP issues should ask themselves if they are in the hardware business or the software business. If their objective is to sell more gizzmos, then opening the API to developers is an excellent way to sell more product.

      If a company is concerned about the number of questions they'll be asked by the developers, then (a) they don't know the software business, and (b) they should take a long, hard look at the quality of their documentation.

      The biggest problem is that many companies are already making so much from selling their gizzmos to Windows users not to need to sell them to Mac or Linux users as well, even though it takes no significant effort to do so. The extra profit, even at virtually 100% per unit) simply isn't attractive.

    2. Re:How many by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, working with a competitor to Microsoft may not be a wise strategic decision.

      "Hi, good to see you again. I heard about how you were working with those Linux guys on giving away free drivers for your new card. That's a great move. But that has nothing to do with what I wanted to tell you, which was that there was an accident in the Vista certification lab and we lost the drivers you sent us. Until we can get a fix pushed out for this that means that everybody who buys your product from now on will be told that it has absolutely no support and that even if they download something directly from you it will be flagged as foreign code and won't run. The guys in the lab are really broken up about it and can't figure out how that kind of mistake could happen. Don't worry though, we'll get everything straightened out in the next big service pack. Honest."

    3. Re:How many by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. I would still rather have those cycles for computing
      things I want done rather than supporting some lame hardware
      vendor's attempt to save 5 cents on some bit of hardware.

      Intellegence in peripherals should be expanding outwards
      rather than shrinking. The former aids parallelism and the
      latter sabotages it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:How many by Doug+Lim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the sorts of things that rely on the host PC for all/most of their processing (Winprinters/Winmodems), aren't limited by the host PC's CPU. If you've got a Winmodem, doubling the host PCs CPU speed doesn't double performance. If you've got a Winprinter that does 8 PPM, getting a faster host PC CPU doesn't mean that you'll start getting 10 PPM as printer performance is limited by how fast you can physically feed paper or how fast you can get the print head to traverse the page.

      If a peripheral is taxing the host CPU enough that upgrading the CPU will increase the performance on that peripheral, it's already taking up too much of the host CPUs time.

  2. seems like a good idea by battery111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like a good idea, but it also seems like it would give the device manufacturers an out. "I'm sorry, but we don't officially support the linux operating system". This way they get drivers written for them for free, and don't need to provide any tech support for the device to those users who purchase it for linux. Anyone else see this happening?

    1. Re:seems like a good idea by ricebowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might give the device manufacturers an out but, more importantly, won't it equally give the Linux family an 'in'?

      The point isn't, so far as I can see, to make any profit from the scheme other than to spread the word of Linux and increase the potential compatibilities/reduce the incompatibilities.

      Plus, as a bonus for the device driver writers, it's an impressive CV when you consider the varieties of hardware that are supported by the various Linux distros and the work, and potential elegance, that goes into solving the various demands.

      It seems win-win for everyone, really. And a good, and generous, idea.

    2. Re:seems like a good idea by david.given · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point isn't, so far as I can see, to make any profit from the scheme other than to spread the word of Linux and increase the potential compatibilities/reduce the incompatibilities.

      In fact, this is how it's always worked --- people have been asking companies for device information for years. (I did, once; I wanted the specs for a SIM reader device so I could do a Linux driver. Did I get a response? Did I hell.) The only difference is that this announcement rephrases things in a rather more marketspeak and official manner. Instead of the companies doing us a favour, by providing hardware specs, we are now doing them a favour, by writing their drivers for them.

      It's a rather neat bit of lateral thinking.

    3. Re:seems like a good idea by zootm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another way of looking at it would be as formalising the rule that "if you give us specifications, the driver will get written". A lot of the problems with free software drivers is lack of information on how a device works; if this makes it better known that all they have to do is provide some specification, it might encourage companies to submit more of them, and encourage customers to ask people to submit more of them.

  3. Hardware ? by Rastignac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "All that is needed is some kind of specification that describes how your device works". They also need some real hardware to test the brand new written drivers. Specifications are not enough. Who will test the real hardware with the fresh drivers in a real-world operation ?

    --
    -- Rastignac was here.
  4. Dedicated by pzs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever you might say about the Linux community - that it is elitist or sanctimonious or whatever - it is impossible to ignore their commitment to what they believe in. That somebody would be willing to write device drivers for nothing, apparently just to forward the cause of a free operating system, is pretty impressive. Microsoft and Apple can match this devotion only in the ferocity with which they defend their control over their customers, in anti-trust trials and by imposing DRM.

    Peter

  5. This is needed by camcorder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this kind of action, and offer for help is needed by companies. I hope it will be touted enough. What I know is that, companies having really hard times finding skilled coders for developing Linux drivers. Most of them does not care about the specifications, as they have already patents pending for their works, but they can't actually find people to code for Linux and/or they don't willing to pay more than Windows developers for Linux developers for a smaller market.

  6. Re:Wonderful by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (hardware compatibility that could rival Windows and/or Mac OSX)
    Hmmm? Linux already supports more hardware out of the box than Windows does. I'm not talking ancient SCSI cards either; I mean components like an onboard Intel PRO 10/100 NIC from a few years ago that requires an extra driver on XP SP2, but works automagically with e100 on Linux. The only segment where Linux falls down is on very new hardware.
    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  7. Re:Wonderful by keean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except Linux has supported _more_ devices than any version of Microsoft-windows for some time now. Okay so most of those drivers are for older hardware that is no longer supported by new versions of Microsoft-windows... but that doesn't change the facts. You need to qualify your statement, and say what you mean. I guess something like "Microsoft Windows gets support for some new devices more quickly than Linux"... thats about it. I am not even sure there is any truth to OSX supporting more of anything than Linux, Apple-mac hardware is all the same after all.

    Infact Linux supports more devices that any other operating system ever... and thats one of the advantages of open-source kernel drivers... they are maintained with the Kernel, so they remain usable through kernel architecture changes with zero effort from the original contributer of the device-driver. I am sure Microsoft would love to do this with windows, but of course they cannot, as they don't have the source code to the drivers they did not write themselves.

  8. How will the NDA work ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Kernel code will be publically visible, so how is ''confidentiality'' maintained ? The only ways that I can think that this will be done are:
    1. Uncommented Kernel code - Yuck!
    2. Spaghetti/obscured Kernel code - Yuck!
    3. Binary blobs in the Kernel - Yuck!
  9. This is definitley new by flithm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other than the public announcement, how is this any different from the way things already work?

    Actually this really is something new, and quite an announcement. It was never the case before that any old random driver would get created by the open source community. The way OSS development generally works is there has to be a strong need, strong backing, or a high fun factor, for things to get done.

    Prior to this announcement it's not like there was a group of people dedicated to writing drivers -- just waiting for companies to release new hardware, then they'd scurry to reverse engineer it and write a driver. Nor do companies (generally) release hardware specs in the hopes that others will provide a driver for their product.

    A significant portion of initial open source driver development comes from the device manufacturers themselves, and smaller companies without the resources to spearhead these developments simply don't have the ability to have Linux support.

    Your conception that "The community already writes free drivers for vendors who provide specs and loan some hardware" isn't true in the vast majority of cases.

    This really is a big change, because now anyone can create a hardware device and actually have formal linux support, and have this printed on the box. This creates a formal avenue for companies to easily, reliably, and cheaply have Linux support for their products.

  10. Re:Wonderful by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No-one seems to have commented on the fact that if NDA requirements are met the drivers cannot be open source. This doesn't mean fewer binary blobs, it means more.

    And what about Vista's new requirement that all hardware mustn't be compromised by hackers or else the drivers will be remotely disabled? Might a company which produced hardware which is part of the DRM stack risk being more likely to be seen as compromised if it has collaborated with the OSS community?

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);