Update On Free Linux Driver Development

Remember the offer Greg Kroah-Hartman made earlier this year, to get Linux drivers written for free for any company that wanted them? Now an anonymous reader points us to an article up on linuxworld with an update to this program. Greg K-H, who leads the development of several kernel subsystems including USB and PCI, admits that the January offer was a bit of "marketing hype" — but says it has brought companies and developers together anyway. Twelve companies have said "yes please," one driver is already in the kernel, and five more are in the pipeline.

Comments

so did he write them for free or didn't he

[timmarhy]

if he did, good for him, if he didn't he just like every other lieing software house out there.

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[QuantumG]

the volunteers write them without charging the OEMs, yes.

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[Kelerain]

The marketing hype was the fact that the kernel developers would do this sort of development anyway. This isn't a special program of any kind, it's standard procedure and they were promoting it somewhat like other people promote special "one time offers" and such. So yes marketing hype, and yes they do in fact do that. The helpful part is they have actual hardware samples and/or specs to work with, so it's a real win all around.

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[Atzanteol]

Yes, how dare the bastard exchange currency for goods and services!

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[bobo mahoney]

Volunteers working for free? Now I'm no genius but isn't that a bit redundant?

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[QuantumG]

You've never heard of a paid volunteer?

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[Fred_A]

Volunteers working for free? Now I'm no genius but isn't that a bit redundant?

They could be people working for free (on the side) that are volunteers that don't get paid. You do see stranger things...

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[Tribbin]

Oi, I found the tone of your post quite disturbing so I looked up your other posts.

You have very nice ratings and your posts are insightful but some are quite disturbing, to me.

Take it easy on the potential hypocrites. People are just people.

http://slashdot.org/~timmarhy/

Is it really worth offending and accusing people?

http://slashdot.org/~timmarhy/freaks/

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[orkysoft]

Twenty dollars? But I wanted a peanut!

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[OldHawk777]

Only in politics, crime, nepotism ... and other stuff.

Sometimes, I am just to redundant with a left and right brain tearing my mind apart.

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[m.precursor]

Don't forget about the volunteer firemen. They put their lives on the line and get paid for it. They just get to volunteer to go to the station during an alarm instead of having to go because it is their primary job.

Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he

[greginnj]

As in 'volunteer army', yes. The opposite of 'volunteer' is not 'paid', it is 'obliged' or 'forced'. An employee working under contract is obliged by the contract. An at-will employee could be described as a volunteer, but we tend not to use the term that way. See http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=volunteer.

List?

[Constantine XVI]

A list of the twelve companies, please?

Re:List?

[CasperIV]

The list of primary hardware is relatively short when you consider what is making real penetration. If the 12 that asked for drivers are any of the larger companies in the market, it could be a big deal. It would be like if Broadcom were to come to their door and ask for real drivers that work... that right there would cover most newer laptops.

Re:List?

[Zoxed]

> A list of the twelve companies, please?

Maybe this is covered by the NDA mentioned in the article :-)

(Us, no not us: we are a god fearing capitalist company: we would never deal with those commy GPL peeps !)

Re:List?

[rbanffy]

It's easy to imagine a Microsoft exec saying "Nice driver they made for your hardware. But it would be a shame if the device didn't work under Windows anymore, wouldn't it?"

Re:List?

[ajs318]

I've often wondered about this myself -- could Microsoft actively prevent hardware manufacturers from releasing Linux drivers, just by refusing to certify Windows drivers for any hardware which comes with a Linux driver? And for that matter, have they been doing exactly that?

Now that Windows is moving towards a more locked-down kernel, it's certainly technically feasible. It's probably Anticompetitive Behaviour, but that doesn't seem to be illegal in the USA anymore.

Re:List?

[dpilot]

Let's rephrase this...

There has been enough fuss recently over "Vista-Certified" graphics drivers that didn't really work well with Vista. So all you need is a driver certification plan that pretty much can't possibly be met in every detail. Then go ahead and be relaxed about the certification - most of the time. When you come across a recalcitrant hardware vendor who provides drivers and/or documentation to Linux, it's time to insist on dotting all I's and crossing all T's.

I've suggested a similar possibility in the old 55MpH days on the New York State Thruway. The official speed limit was 55MpH, but the average speed on the road was somewhere above 65MpH. Nearly everyone on the road was a lawbreaker. So at that point, you can use whatever other criteria you wish, and know that whoever you choose to pull over is breaking at least the speed limit. I have no suspicion or evidence that this "selective law enforcement" was actually happening, but never liked the mere possibility.

Re:List?

[ajs318]

There has been enough fuss recently over "Vista-Certified" graphics drivers that didn't really work well with Vista

Can you point me towards some stories? Not trolling, just genuinely curious as I've not been reading about hardware I don't need (my current nVidia card is working well enough with the i-tal "nv" driver) or software I don't intend to buy.

Re:List?

[dpilot]

I can't give you a link, but I believe the biggest fuss was over the early Vista drivers for the nVidia 8xxx series. Oops, google is your friend: "NVIDIA responds to complaints about state of Vista drivers" http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070206-8784 .html

Re:List?

[drinkypoo]

I have no suspicion or evidence that this "selective law enforcement" was actually happening, but never liked the mere possibility.

I can't speak to your stretch of road, but I lost my faith in law enforcement in third grade when a girl came in and told a story about her father going about 5 mph over the limit on Highway 1 just south of Santa Cruz (about the average speed limit at the time, he was being passed by floods of traffic) and getting pulled over. He asked the cop why he didn't pull over the people going far faster, and the cop said he was "easier to catch".

Suffice to say I have harbored a distrust for all law enforcement ever since... And I was only seven years old (skipped a grade, whee.) This distrust has served me well.

Re:List?

[BecomingLumberg]

Nah, they will just be glad they can swipe it, but it in Vista, and then claim Linux is infringing upon their patents.

Re:List?

[ajs318]

..... a problem which only arises because the existing law which already obliges manufacturers to disclose details to hardware owners is not being enforced. Write to your MP and ask for a new law, obliging hardware manufacturers to release, generally and gratis (or at any rate, for no more than the cost of copying and delivery) sufficient documentation so that independent programmers can write drivers for their hardware as a precondition before it is allowed onto the market. Independent expert review of the documentation would be a requirement alongside electrical safety / EMC certification.

Re:List?

[Xtravar]

I don't know about NY, but here in WI we have a law about "keeping with the flow of traffic"... unless I've been mislead all my life, which I may have. In other words, if everyone's speeding and it would disrupt traffic if you didn't speed, then it's okay. Of course, that would be completely arbitrary and difficult to prove, so maybe I am incorrect.

Re:List?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I don't have a list but I have a sarcastic comment.

Maybe the 12 companies are another marketing hype of 1 company with 12 different business :P

j/k, this is good news, etc.

Re:List?

[empaler]

MP? Implicitly, a British law, yes?
That would mean that the option of activism to have this enforced is only possible for the British. That is not to say this is a bad thing, on the contrary - the British market is so large that the HW manufacturers probably cannot negate it, and if they're forced to open up a bit we all win. Even the HW manufacturers.

Re:List?

[ajs318]

I'm sure people in other countries do have MPs, even if they call them by a different name. I'm just too lazy to type "elected representative in your national government".

Any country whose legal system is based on English Common Law (that includes the USA and Her Majesty's Commonwealth) ought to have something similar. Basically, it's a simple property right: if you are the rightful owner of an article, then you are by virtue of ownership privy to any secret embodied in that article. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the old Napoleonic Code (which is the basis of the law in most of Mainland Europe) to know whether it says anything similar.

I'm suggesting a new law because it's generally easier to pass a new law than to enforcing a long-neglected old law.

The more free drivers, the better

[BluSteel]

Marketing hype or not, I'm always happy to see more hardware supported by free drivers. Thanks, Greg.

Re:The more free drivers, the better

[Anonymous Coward]

...free as in beer.

Re:The more free drivers, the better

[EsbenMoseHansen]

...free as in beer.

According to the article, free as in GPLv2.

patents, usability

[bcrowell]

To me, the issue isn't so much drivers as patents and usability.

My daughter's mp3 player didn't need any special drivers, because it's simply a standard keychain drive that happens to be able to play mp3's. However, she totally couldn't figure out how to use it on her ubuntu box. There was one problem after another. Ubuntu tried to do the right thing by popping up a gui app when she connected it, but then we couldn't get the gui app to do what we wanted to do. Part of the problem was that getting the mp3 codec to work was a pain, and that springs directly from the fact that mp3 is patented.

My Brother HL-1440 laser printer is 100% supported in Linux. Brother hired the CUPS developers to write GPL-licensed drivers for all their printers. Joy! Unfortunately, I've run into one usability problem after another, all of which are basically problems with the usability of CUPS. I know I'm not the only person in the world who thinks CUPS is a pain, because I've seen other people criticize it for problems that are the same ones I'm experiencing. For instance, CUPS remembers too much of its state, and when it freaks out (e.g., printer spewing page after page of garbage), it's difficult to get CUPS back into a known-good state.

Re:patents, usability

[QuantumG]

Perhaps you could fund an effort to get the patent invalidated.. or to buy a blanket license for linux.. or to get the patent owner to publically waive their right to sue anyone who distributes the codec or something..

As for CUPS, maybe you could narrow down the exact problem and submit a bug report.. or put together an effort to fund someone to work on it.

It's community software.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gaim (now Pidgin) developers said it best... "Patches welcome!"

Re:patents, usability

[timmarhy]

who wants to fuck around doing all that just to play some mp3's or print a letter? thats why windows wins.

Re:patents, usability

[cduffy]

who wants to fuck around doing all that just to play some mp3's or print a letter?

Someone does. If I'm bored, I do. And only one person has to fuck around, come up with a fix, submit it upstream and get it merged for everyone else to have their problem solved.

It's very liberating to be able to fix your own problems instead of being at the mercy of a vendor who doesn't care.

Re:patents, usability

[pilot1]

I don't know.. maybe people who value their freedom?

Re:patents, usability

[arodland]

Maybe I'm a bit simple but I don't see where CUPS even has "usability" to complain about. You install it (if, oddly, it isn't already), you tell it what and where your printer are (preferably using the KDE print config thing because it's amazingly simple, but the CUPS web jigger isn't bad either), and then from then on you print, and you forget that CUPS exists. Where's the hangup?

Re:patents, usability

[timmarhy]

it's rediculous to suggest such a practise will be accepted by the masses, thats my point. until basic basic shit like this works without a problem, pushing the linux desktop is a wasted effort.

Re:patents, usability

[QuantumG]

I think he's refering to gnome-cups-manager.. which is pretty weak in some parts at the moment. I believe there are some improvements in the GNOME CVS tree that have yet to filter down.

Re:patents, usability

[timmarhy]

RMS is that you? or are you just another zealot who believes not having the gpl on my mp3 player will steal my babies and put me in jail?

Re:patents, usability

[QuantumG]

Seriously, arguing against software freedom in 2007 is just absurd. We've all had this discussion already. I'm sorry you missed 1998, but we're really not interested in reliving it. Go read The Cathedral And The Bazaar and all the other stuff written back then.

Re:patents, usability

[jZnat]

Hmm, I have to fuck around for quite a while to get printing to work in Windows (gotta download bloated, crappy drivers that replace all the native interfaces), or to get codec support (codec? what the fuck is a codec? this is a fucking movie/song! /Joe Sixpack). Nice troll.

Re:patents, usability

[QuantumG]

I wasn't able to get a printer working under Windows XP 64 bit Edition for about 9 months. Only last week did I figure out how to force windows not to try to use the drivers from the print server (which is 32 bit XP) and to stop it from overwriting the 64 bit drivers with the 32 bit ones. I guarentee it is because the date-time stamps on the drivers were out of wack.. in 3 weeks time they'll probably magically stop working again.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

CUPS was written long before USB was a twinkle in Intel's eye and behaves like it. I had a Linux box that I used as a print server via CUPS. One printer was LPT, one was USB. The LPT, man, I could turn it off, turn it on, unplug it, send it into the next timezone and bring it back, no problems. If my server went to sleep, still no problems. The USB printer? I had to write a fucking hotplug script for it that removed it from CUPS every time it was disconnected (either unplugged or turned off) and then reinstalled it when it was connected. 4 times out of 10 CUPS freaked out and I had to log into my print server via SSH and dink around at the shell just to get it to work.

Last I heard, the CUPS developers say that's not a bug, that's a feature, but it'll be fixed in the next major release of CUPS due out 2 weeks after Duke Nukem Forever...

Re:patents, usability

[bcrowell]

Maybe I'm a bit simple but I don't see where CUPS even has "usability" to complain about.[...] Where's the hangup?
Problems I've had:

1. the problem I described in my original post
2. Upgrading ubuntu to a new version made cups stop working.
3. The web interface says administrative functions are disabled. Because of that, I tried editing the config file to accomplish what I wanted. I also downloaded drivers directly from Brother, because that was what people on the ubuntu wiki suggested, but that actually didn't work because of poor packaging. Eventually I figured out that the web interface actually did work, and started using that instead.
4. After I tell the web interface my printer is a Brother, it lists a huge number of drivers, including a very large number for my printer. I initially picked the wrong one, and it sort of worked, but sort of didn't. Later I noticed that one of them was marked "foomatic, recommended." Well, OK, maybe I should have noticed that that one said "recommended," but I had no idea what "foomatic" was, and didn't know if I wanted foomatic or not.
5. Every time I try to print more than 5-10 pages from a GNOME app, the printer freezes. (This never happens with lpr printing from the command line.) When this happens, clearing and restarting the queue doesn't help. Rebooting doesn't help. The only thing that unfreezes CUPS is to delete the printer in the web interface, and then reinstall it.

Re:patents, usability

[grcumb]

it's rediculous to suggest such a practise will be accepted by the masses, thats my point.

Your point draws exactly the opposite conclusion to that of the GP, who says:

And only one person has to fuck around, come up with a fix, submit it upstream and get it merged for everyone else to have their problem solved.

[emphasis mine]

FOSS has worked this way from day 1. And it continues not only to work, but to prove itself superior in many ways to proprietary software approaches. It particularly excels at dealing with software quality. In FOSS, code quality is one of the core metrics[*] of the value of a project, whereas security, debugging and testing are dealt with as externalities (i.e. cost centres to be minimised) by many proprietary software makers. Drivers are a perfect place to make significant investments in FOSS, because then hardware vendors won't be stuck owning the entire problem, and innovative uses of their products will allow them to sell into niches that they never could have afforded before.

----
[*] This is not to say that all FOSS software is quality software. Just like everything else in the world, 95% of it is crap. But the best FOSS software is very high quality indeed in terms of stability, resource usage and suitability to the task.
----

Is Linux ready for the desktop? In managed environments, the answer is an emphatic yes. Ease of administration is many times greater under Linux than under the other offerings, and this means that in-house support and developers can focus on making things better rather than simply fighting fires. A number of organisations have discovered this, and more will do so in the months and years to come. I think time will show that document formats are not nearly the bugbear that people currently think them to be.

Is Linux ready for the desktop at home? It's ready in potentio, but it will take time for vendors to work out how to package it on new machines. This will be a tough slog, not for technical reasons, but because Microsoft will do its very best to ensure that they have every incentive not to move from a Windows-only sales model. Having open source drivers provides one more bit of leverage against this inertia.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a common mistake. Linux is NOT Windows!

Re:patents, usability

[enos]

The thing is, things don't stay fixed. The same old problems constantly get revisited when someone looks at something semi-widely accepted and decides the code is too ugly and makes a rewrite that doesn't add anything from the user's point of view but forces them to relearn another system.

It's one thing to go through several days of Googling and HOWTOs when setting up a new OS for the first time. It's another to do that every single time there's a new version out because they decided to change/rewrite so many things for just some trivial improvements.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but of course in some cases this one person doesn't exist and rejecting useful contributions has also been the way FOSS has worked "from day 1".

Re:patents, usability

[ClosedSource]

There's a difference between having a discussion and having a consensus conclusion. If you were really so sure that FOSS was destiny, you wouldn't have bothered to post at all. The fact is that you're still trying to convince people in 2007, you're just using a very poor argument to do it.

Re:patents, usability

[QuantumG]

Oh, we're still trying to convince people.. unfortunately we have explain why "anyone" would be interested in working on Open Source to these people. They make the same arguments from 10+ years ago and when we say "go read X" they refuse. Or, alternatively, we say "well obviously they are, otherwise we wouldn't have all the Open Source software we have now" and they start denying that we have any software.. or just ignore us.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't blame CUPS. OS X uses CUPS for printing (as the back end - Apple's GUI interfaces to CUPS), and OS X printing is the easiest, most trouble-free I've ever used (and I've used printing under Linux, Windows, Solaris, and OS X). This is with a USB printer, which I can plug and unplug at will... even whilst a print job is being spooled!

Re:patents, usability

[ssintercept]

It's very liberating to be able to fix your own problems instead of being at the mercy of a vendor who doesn't care.
the best comment on slashdot in over a year.
however Greg Kroah-Hartman gets greater compatability with hardware (legally) the better.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to even bother to post, and I am a million people.

Re:patents, usability

[Hal_Porter]

The thing is, things don't stay fixed. The same old problems constantly get revisited when someone looks at something semi-widely accepted and decides the code is too ugly and makes a rewrite that doesn't add anything from the user's point of view but forces them to relearn another system.

Hmm, that reminds me of a sad story.

http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/

Re:patents, usability

[AJWM]

until basic basic shit like this works without a problem, pushing the linux desktop is a wasted effort.

This stuff nearly all works without a problem on my Linux desktop -- Suse, which is quite a nice distro regardless of what you think of their parent Novell. I've certainly had a hell of a lot fewer problems with plugging and playing stuff into a Linux box than with Windows (got driver disks for that? that support your particular version? and don't require you to download something from Microsoft's web site that ends up requiring you to register for Windows Genuine Advantage?). By that measure, Windows isn't ready for the desktop.

Re:patents, usability

[the_womble]

Usability: I used to use Mandrake at home and Windows at work. Every time I had a problem with Mandrake and though "maybe Windows would be better" I would soon have a worse problem with Windows.

Codecs: There are instructions on how to install the extra codecs. Its the first thing most people do after installing Ubuntu: its very much a one off.

CUPS: I agree, but GUI tools for managing it are getting better.

Re:patents, usability

[ClosedSource]

Thanks for the straw arguments.

Re:patents, usability

[repvik]

Codecs: There are instructions on how to install the extra codecs. Its the first thing most people do after installing Ubuntu: its very much a one off.

Really? How do you know that "most people" do this? And which instructions are you talking about?

Re:patents, usability

[evilviper]

you print, and you forget that CUPS exists. Where's the hangup?

Was your USB printer plugged-in and powered-up when you started your system? No? Oh well. No printing for you, then. Reboot to print, or work out your own hack for CUPS, or manually get in there fix it every time you run into this stupid problem.

CUPS is the worst kind of software, IMHO. The kind that is just smart enough to second-guess what you've told it, and do bad things, but still not smart enough to be able to handle basic issues on it's own, and requires human intervention anytime something changes.

Re:patents, usability

[arodland]

Was your USB printer plugged-in and powered-up when you started your system? No? Oh well. No printing for you, then. Reboot to print, or work out your own hack for CUPS, or manually get in there fix it every time you run into this stupid problem.

No such problem here, ever.

Re:patents, usability

[jrumney]

I only ever turn my printer on when I want to print. Never had a problem. Try manually loading the usb printer module (modprobe printer). If it works after that, investigate to see why it isn't being loaded automatically when your printer is plugged in or switched on. It certainly isn't CUPS that has a problem with printers coming and going.

Re:patents, usability

[jrumney]

Why did you write a script to remove it? The print jobs will be queued until it is next available.

Re:patents, usability

[tom17]

Ubuntu Feisty:

1. Double click on an mp3 (or any media file really).
2a. Totem opens up, but says it does not have the correct codec.
2b. Totem goes on to tell you it can download the correct codec if you like, you click on yes and enter your password when it asks for it.
3. You listen to your mp3/watch your movie.

I gotta say that's pretty fkin easy. Windows media player would always *try* to do the same but failed for most media files I threw at it, resulting in me having to go googling for codec packs to install.

I think Ubuntu wins this one hands down. It has played everything I have thrown at it so far.

Re:patents, usability

[the_womble]

You could say the same for Windows:

Windows is fine in an office environment, with IT there to fix things.

However:

1) Making Windows secure requires work and knowledge
2) When things go wrong they can be hard to fix, and even when fixed they have a tendency to mysteriously go wrong again.
3) Software is hard to find, install and update. There are no repositories of software that is safe (not malware), will install with a click, and will all be auto updated.

In short: there is no OS that is really suitable for the home, and there are at least some ways in which Linux is better than the competition.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has worked closely with CUPS and spent a lot of time working on printing, let me tell you this. CUPS isn't the problem: everything above CUPS is the problem. The Linux printing pipeline is a total and utter mess, and hacks like FooMatic only make things worse. If driver authors could just agree on a couple of standards (Say, Ghostscript IJS or CUPS Raster drivers only, CUPS as the standard spooler) things would improve immensely.

Re:patents, usability

[quintesse]

Well I share the same feeling as several of the others that have complained about CUPS, I've found it impossible to work with at times. On the other hand I've read a rant from a CUPS developer where he basically accused several distros of crippling CUPS by disabling or changing their default settings thereby making CUPS a lot less usable.

Re:patents, usability

[ajs318]

You shouldn't need to reboot just to make it detect the printer -- that's Windows thinking! Linux allows you to stop and restart misbehaving subsystems on an individual basis. Just

# /etc/init.d/cups restart

which will stop and restart CUPS, thereby forcing it to reread its configuration files and check for connected devices. (On Debian, Ubuntu and derivatives, it's cupsys not cups). If that doesn't work, try

# modprobe printer

and restart CUPS again. If that makes it work, then

# [ -z `egrep ^[[:space:]]*printer /etc/modules` ] && echo "printer" >> /etc/modules

which will add the appropriate line to /etc/modules, and have it loaded at boot time from next time.

And next time you buy a printer, choose a proper one with PostScript Level 3 in hardware and a built-in Ethernet interface, you cheapskate ;)

Re:patents, usability

[timmarhy]

"stuff nearly all works"

and what happens with the stuff that doesn't? can you request your money back or ask for technical support because your trying to use linux? checkmate, i win. the distro that can focus 100% on getting everyday useage right will win IMHO

Re:patents, usability

[Knuckles]

Really? How do you know that "most people" do this? And which instructions are you talking about?

In Ubuntu 7.04, if you try to play a file that requires a restricted codec, it will pop up an instructional message and offer to install the required codec.

Re:patents, usability

[cortana]

Hah. The last printer I needed to install on Windows took me about two hours. First of all, the installer was like 150 MB! Then of course it didn't work because the installer (actually, as it turns out, the installer that installs the installer) assumed that Windows was installed to the C: drive. It didn't occur to HP that people would end up with Windows on F:, oh no, that is impossible!

Re:patents, usability

[cortana]

It's too bad they break printer browsing. If not for that then the Apple hardware that people bring into the house would be able to print to my CUPS-shared printer without *any* configuration at all. As it is the users have to manually enter the printer's URL--oh well.

Re:patents, usability

[ConceptJunkie]

Actually, in all the years WMP has had that capability I've _never_ seen it download a codec. It always fails, and never tells me anything useful. I'd rather deal with Linux where I might have to figure things out more often, than Windows where it pretends it will figure things out but doesn't really do anything. Windows still has a lot of very basic usability problems in some areas.

Linux has lots of usability problems, too, but I find myself a lot more patient using it because I haven't paid some company with tens of billions in the bank, a grotesquely arrogant attitude and 3 decades of experience that still can't get some simple things right.

Re:patents, usability

[Russellkhan]

Yeah right. You can request your money back and ask for technical support all you want, but when exactly was the last time you actually received your money back or useful technical support from Microsoft?
 
...And do you have some delusion that Microsoft is focused 100% on getting everyday usage right? Then why is it that nearly every home user's Windows box that I see is constantly alerting about the security updates they haven't downloaded? And why do these users complain about the problems their computers give them instead of rejoicing with the ease and perfection of having a 100% everyday usage oriented OS?

As a simple example, a couple weeks ago, when I was visiting a realtor, she tried for 5 or 10 minutes to get her computer to bring up some MLS site, and was about to give up before I had to step in and get her connected to the office's wireless network. If Windows is such an ideal, usable operating system, why would the user have such a problem? Should she have called Microsoft, would they have walked her through getting the system on the network?

Re:patents, usability

[ccp]

Was your USB printer plugged-in and powered-up when you started your system? No? Oh well. No printing for you, then. Reboot to print, or work out your own hack for CUPS, or manually get in there fix it every time you run into this stupid problem.

Just one word: bullshit.

I have a USB printer that is powered only when needed, and never before starting the system (Mandriva). Works like a charm.

In case you're not trolling, investigate your setup, because it's not a common problem.

Cheers,
CC

Re:patents, usability

[at_$tephen]

When I code I have to have my music playing right so I'll take as long as it takes and do as much as it takes to get it just the way I want. I just can't code right without a good music setup. Music is not an area you want to cut corners with or accept less than you want. Even in the poorest nations folks have to get their music system right even if it means banging on a few sticks with a motley crew. A life without good music is a poor life. As for printers...they still all suck, especially the office ones.

Re:patents, usability

[DavidNWelton]

"It's one thing to go through several days of Googling and HOWTOs when setting up a new OS for the first time."

That was true a while ago, but Linux has made enormous progress since then. Ubuntu is super easy to set up, as easy as windows is most of the time. My wife wrote her doctoral thesis with virtually no assistance from me on her laptop, which runs Ubuntu.

Re:patents, usability

[Skater]

Sounds like something wrong with your printer driver. My USB HP Officejet works just fine whether it's on or off when I boot. In fact I only turn it on when I want to print or scan something.

Re:patents, usability

[WhiteWolf666]

Instead of Ubuntu, try openSuSE.

Configure everything from YaST, and install a couple of key packages from the Packman repository, and you'll have a GUI configurable, rock solid, mp3 playing, MPEG-4/DiVX/DVD/X264/Quicktime/Realplayer playing monster.

Re:patents, usability

[evilviper]

In case you're not trolling, investigate your setup, because it's not a common problem.

I'm not trolling, and it's not bullshit. Quite the opposite.

From the replies, I'm glad to hear this problem has been fixed, but approx. 2 years ago, it was a very well-known limitation of CUPS.

Re:patents, usability

[freeweed]

checkmate, i win

It's a good thing this isn't a popularity contest, or a football game, or a presidential election.

If you have problems with Linux, so be it. Those of that don't, and/or are willing to work around otherwise minor issues, are all happily running it. And usually experiencing fewer problems than we were before we switched.

Why you seem hell-bent on insisting that we're all "losing" is beyond me. Like I said, this ins't a popularity contest. Use what works for YOU. The rest of us are quite alright.

Checkmate, indeed.

Re:patents, usability

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't seriously be complaining about a problem fixed 2 years ago. there are always some cases of bugs like that, it's the way any kind of software development works. you write it, you debug it, you release it, someone finds a new bug you didn't find earlier, you fix it.

Re:patents, usability

[itlurksbeneath]

You're wrong. Pushing the linux desktop gets 'basic shit' like this fixed. More eyeballs on the screen, more problems found, more problems fixed.

Re:patents, usability

[mhall119]

Name me one OS where everything works, then you can say you win.

Re:patents, usability

[drinkypoo]

CUPS doesn't seem to do the right thing with PPDs either, and I have a seriously hard time getting the margins right. You should never have a hard time printing from Unix to a postscript printer! I'd be better off just using lpd, which I may yet do.

Re:patents, usability

[DavidTC]

No shit.

What the fuck is with printer drivers that installed all sorts of crap along with them? It's a fucking printer driver, it's like 750k at most.

People may want other random applications along with their printer, and hardware companies should feel free to provide them, although I'm forewarning them now that I don't give a damn about that and if you raise the price of your printers to provide said software I'll go with someone else.

But these applications aren't drivers. That crapware shouldn't get installed when you install the drivers.

Of course, some companies still seem to understand the difference between drivers and applications, like motherboard manufactures. Wifi makers, OTOH, all seem to install their own software to take control of wifi away from Windows. Medium-end video cards also, but that's more understandable, as Windows' software for them is crappy. But half the people out there, thank God, aren't providing any drivers at all because XP is actually somewhat comprensive about what drivers come with the system.

Re:patents, usability

[cortana]

At least I'm not the only one who this bugs. Every time I have to install a new program or piece of hardware on a Windows machine I fret about what files and registry keys their "installer" will crap out all over the system. Give me Debian any day!

Re:patents, usability

[DavidTC]

I would like to second that. I've never had Windows download a codec that I needed.

I claim that the main codecs that people need that they don't have to start with, on Windows, are XviD, DivX, quicktime, and real audio. Those, and WMV, are how 95% of the videos people get handed are encoded. These codecs do not, under any circumstances, automatically download. Ergo, Windows's automatic download is near useless. What's worse is that you have no actual way of knowing the name of the codec so you don't know what you need to download, and once you figure out the name, you have to do some pretty heavy searching to find something. Yes, we all know about the K-Lite codec pack, but J. Random Window User does not.

OTOH, Linux does not come with mp3, so let's say they're tied there. Sadly for Windows, Linux, while, it doesn't automatically download, in, say, Ubuntu, it directs you to a pretty simple interface to download it.

Windows would come out ahead if its automatic download actually functioned for the codecs people need to download. It in no way actually does so. I don't know what codecs it does automatically download, but I've never run across them.

Re:patents, usability

[evilviper]

you can't seriously be complaining about a problem fixed 2 years ago. there are always some cases of bugs like that, it's the way any kind of software development works.

I bet you haven't installed Windows Vista yet. You are therefore no longer allow to complain or otherwise criticize Windows.

I had no reason to believe the problem was fixed... That "bug" existed for a VERY LONG time without any improvements happening.

Also, it really doesn't qualify as a bug. The software just couldn't deal with changes to hardware without restarting, that's an architectural limitation, and one there seemed to be no interest in fixing when I last gave up.

Re:patents, usability

[jp10558]

And Windows doesn't have this problem? I remember cursing XP when I started using it cause everything was different from 98 save there was a start menu... Vista seems the same, I spent better than 10 minutes trying to figure out where network settings were and how to try a default driver for a 10/100 NIC... Mind you, this NIC worked OOTB in XP so where the driver went in Vista is anyone's guess.

I have to spend lots of time keeping up with the UI changes across Windows versions. I'd be suprised if any OS was *worse*.

Re:patents, usability

[ConceptJunkie]

Windows automatic codec download probably works fine for Microsoft codecs that no one uses, although why wouldn't those don't come preinstalled in the first place?

You know viewing video files was horrible in the early 90's because you needed a different player for each format. Then MS released ActiveMovie, which improved things immensely, but by now, it's back to being almost as bad as it used to be where you have to be a friggin' detective to figure out what you need and where to get it. Sure, it will play in WMP (unless it's Real, which is one of about a million reasons why Real just needs to die) but WMP does absolutely nothing to facilitate that.

Re:patents, usability

[Bent Mind]

who wants to fuck around doing all that just to play some mp3's or print a letter? thats why windows wins.

Someone does. If I'm bored, I do. And only one person has to fuck around, come up with a fix, submit it upstream and get it merged for everyone else to have their problem solved.

it's rediculous to suggest such a practise will be accepted by the masses, thats my point. until basic basic shit like this works without a problem, pushing the linux desktop is a wasted effort. Such a practice is already accepted by the masses. I've often come across codecs that don't ship with Windows. Several of them use patented technologies. With Windows you can download codecs from sites that sell them, offer them free with advertising, or are hosted in countries that do not recognize software patents. With Linux, it's exactly the same. To purchase codecs for Linux, look at Fluendo's site. Several Linux distributions are based in countries that do not recognize software patents. These distributions include most every codec you will ever encounter in their software repository. For distributions that are based in patent encumbered countries, there is generally an add-on repository based in a software-patent-free country. For SuSE, it's Packman's site. I know Ubuntu has such a repository as well.

As for CUPS, what does a Windows user do when they have problems with their printer? Most of them I know call me for help. However, baring free technical support from friends and relatives, most Windows users contact their vendor. They read through the knowledge base to find a match to their problem. They write an email to technical support. Technical support either tells them how to fix their problem, or that the problem will be fixed in a future release. This is supposing that they are working with a quality vendor that won't just ignore them. How is this any different than filling a bug report or asking for help in the distribution's forums? Actually, I can think of a couple of ways. Your request for help in the forums won't be deleted to cover up a problem. You will have a wide audience at least glance at your request for help, most of whom will actually know how the program functions.

One strong advantage that Linux has over Windows is that you do not have to wait for that future release to fix a problem. Should you possess the skill to fix the problem, you can. You can then help others fix the same problem via redistribution. This is not possible with closed-source software.

Re:patents, usability

[DavidTC]

Windows automatic codec download probably works fine for Microsoft codecs that no one uses, although why wouldn't those don't come preinstalled in the first place?

That's the question that's been bugging me. Does anyone have a way to put codecs in, or is it just MS? If it's MS, then aren't those already downloaded? So I have a challenge:

Does anyone have any files that will cause, and finish, an automatic codec download on an up-to-date Windows Media Player? If not, does anyone have one that will cause, and finish, an automatic codec download even on an older copy of WMP?

If yes to either question, please provide a link to them if you can.

Windows' 'Find an application to handle this file extension' functionality seems about as useless as this, also.

Re:patents, usability

[BillS73]

This is NOT a Win-Win situation! MS has abandoned millions of computers which are now available for a pittance! I have purchased 4 fine computers from my local library for 15USD to 35USD each. Each will be a Linux box configured for each of my interests. If something does not work, I start over. The first works very well, faster response than corresponding multi purpose WinXP computer installation. Thanks to MS there is a Linux break-out coming! (Sorry if this seems off topic, but it is not. Think about it. Millions need old Windows boxes shifted to Linux over the next year.)

Re:patents, usability

[nametaken]

What you just said about Linux having superior hw support had never, in the last 10 years, been the case for me. All distros have been grossly inferior in that regard... until Vista was released.

The excruciating lack of driver support on Vista is actually more painful than any linux distro I've ever used. Now Ubuntu, SuSE and Gentoo power the same equipment that Vista wouldn't, with very few non-working components.

That means one thing... now is the time. People need to ignore the recent FUD about patent violations and push particularly hard as all your average joes start trying to get Vistra running on their 1yr old (Vista incapable) hardware. This year is the best chance Linux on the desktop will ever have to overcome its worst stigmas and make some kind of inroad, however small, into the desktop market.

Re:patents, usability

[nametaken]

I use a USB printer with my laptop. I have the same problem, but without the script you wrote.

I'd like to find the guy that thinks it's a "feature" having to uninstall my printer, reboot the laptop and reinstall the printer again every time I want to print. The smartass with the "just install it and forget it" must have a workstation with an lpt printer.

Those are the kinds of oversights that make me think this stuff isn't ready for my parents and coworkers.

Re:patents, usability

[ConceptJunkie]

Windows' 'Find an application to handle this file extension' functionality seems about as useless as this, also.

I recall when I was first using XP, which came on a laptop I had purchased around 2002, I clicked on a README from some source code I downloaded. XP, of course, didn't know what to do with it, and the "Find an application" feature, of course, didn't do anything. What's worse, is that Windows does not recognize _no_ file extension as a kind of file, so you cannot assign a default behavior in Explorer (for which I would think Notepad or another text editor would be a good choice).

So XP with all its millions of lines of code and thousands of man-years of development is wholly incapable of handling the humble README file. I haven't used Vista, nor do I have plans to, but I wouldn't be surprised if it can't either.

This is a big reason why some people hate Microsoft: their absolute incompetence at some of the most basic features of an OS, things that should have been solved 20 years ago, despite having the technical skill and wherewithal to make some of the most sophisticated code in the world.

The MS C++ compiler was, at least as of a couple years ago, the most compliant of the elephantine C++ standard of all C++ compilers. That's a tremendous technical accomplishment and worthy of huge praise, yet Windows XP doesn't know what to do with README files, and worse, can't be told. MS is a like a schizophrenic idiot savant with multiple personality disorder: It can multiply two 4-digit numbers in its head in a second, but can't remember to change its underwear.

Re:patents, usability

[AJWM]

and what happens with the stuff that doesn't?

Pretty rare, actually. For oddball stuff (eg, an old Intel QX3 microscope) I can find drivers and interface programs with 10 minutes of Google searching. Mainline stuff - printers, scanners, cameras, storage, etc, etc - works out of the box, unlike Windows where the stuff has warnings all over it not to even try plugging it in until you've manged to install the software on the included disc. (Which then insists on trying to download something from Microsoft's web site, etc, etc. Lord help you if you're trying to add it to a safe Windows box, i.e. one that isn't connected to the net.)

Mind, I usually do a few minutes of research before buying anything that costs more than lunch. It's not hard to find out what's likely to work and what's not.

Last gizmo that I couldn't easily get working with Linux was a cheap-ass sub-megapixel digital camera that came as a freebie with something else, and that was several years ago. For all I know it'd work now.

checkmate, i win

Checkmate? You idiot, there's no checkmate in poker.

Re:patents, usability

[DavidTC]

Oh, don't get me started on that. Notepad sucks ass, and OSes are supposed to have actual functional text editors, not ones that barf on files bigger than 2^16. Windows has astonishing failures as an OS:

1) Total inability to write or read a floppy or CD image.
2) So...no packet sniffing at all, eh?
3) No bluetooth application. Ooookay. So how exactly do I use by HID hardware to control the computer?
4) No modem on hold program. How long has that standard been around? I guess we're lucking we got a terminal program, although you'll notice MS didn't bother to write their own.

All of those are actual functions of an OS, and MS didn't see fit to include them. It's a damn OS, hardware is its job. But I guess they were too busy building in a web browser and email client.

Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[smittyoneeach]

This post brought to you by these two patches, against 2.6.22-rc2:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireles s.general/2368
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireles s.general/2369
The little WG11v2 is a happy interface. Figure I'll need to stockpile a couple them critters.
Now, how is it that I'm off the hook for managing any of that bad, bad firmware with this wee beastie?
Ivo or Michael, though I'm nowhere near as cool as you dudes, I'll buy you a beverage if I see you in Ottawa next month.
Dunno if GKH's driver program actually helped in this matter, but the general trend in hardware is positive, and I feel Realtek and Netgear deserve a free shill.
Best,
Chris

Re:Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel Realtek and Netgear deserve a free shill.

Realtek is on the good list.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213726&cid=173 74372

Re:Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad that Netgear does not specify on their web site the chipset that is used for that hardware. One thing that drives me insane about wireless adapters is that there is usually no indication on the packaging or website what chipset is used because the hardware manufacturers don't necessarily use the same chipset for a given model. One must dig very deep to find out what chipset goes with a given hardware revision of a model and pray to FSM that the hardware revision is printed on the packaging. Otherwise, there is no guarantee what chip will be in the thing and one only finds out after it gets unpacked. Furthermore, it would be nice if Linux were mentioned on Netgear's list of supported operating systems to give a little more assurance to new Linux users who are actively trying to find supported hardware but just don't know where to look. Perhaps these details will be sorted out in the future.

Re:Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[smittyoneeach]

Well, the fact that the Netgear URL ends in "aspx" may be an indicator why they don't use the "L" word.
Here is some primo ganja: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Open_So urce_Wireless_Drivers
There is a page that bears maintenance!

Re:Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice comparison of driver features and their supported chipsets but unfortunately that Wikipedia article does not include any information regarding in which products those chipsets are used.

Re:Mad Propz to van Doorn, Wu and Realtek

[smittyoneeach]

You know what to do.

Fishing for Drivers

[Doc Ruby]

How about a driver for this ATI All-In-Wonder 3D Rage II +DVD PCI card I can't find drivers for?

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[RobertLTux]

doc you may want pipe the output of lspci to a file and see what chips it has (your driver may be included in X.org 6.9/7.0) for example
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV200 QW [Radeon 7500]
is my card and i think that there is a couple rage drivers in the gatos project

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[WeblionX]

Oh, I have one of those. It'd be great to get VIVO working on it.

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[Doc Ruby]

Good advice, except I haven't physically installed the card until I can find a driver - it's the video, and I need that on the machine I'm targeting.

I could install it into a server, then ssh in and dump lspci. If it's the only videocard and no driver, will Linux still work properly? What if it's the second videocard on a server with motherboard VGA?

I am looking at the card itself, with its multiple printed labels identifying the chips and the ROMs. Maybe that's enough. Where is the list of Rage drivers in gatos?

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[WhiteWolf666]

Hmmm?

Several points.

1. Console mode should work regardless. Driver, Shmiver.
2. VESA mode should work regardless. You should be able to get into Xorg if need be. Also, this is how any of the major graphical installers will work.
3. That's an older card; I'd be shocked if that wasn't automatically discovered by . I suspect that SaX2 (from openSuSE) would do it.
4. The GATOS http://gatos.sourceforge.net/supported_cards.php project seems to indicate that it would support your card, and that has been merged into Xorg.

In sum; I think you should put that puppy in and boot. I don't think you'll have any problems.

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks. As usual, "just try it" is the fastest way to at least find out that it doesn't work.

Does SaX2 run properly under Debian or Ubuntu?

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[Ruie]

How about a driver for this ATI All-In-Wonder 3D Rage II +DVD PCI card I can't find drivers for?

This has been part of XFree86 and XOrg for years now (no 3d though - that is just marketing. The first "real" 3d card (i.e. capable of basic GL) was Rage Pro).

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[theelectron]

If you pplug the card in and doen't get video output from POST, your card is dead. Check that. If you do see the POST output but get nada from linux, something is probably wrong with the linux install. My guess is that the card is bad.

"just try it" is the fastest way to at least find out that it doesn't work.

It has been my experience that the simplest way to see if a car works is to put gas in it and turn the key.

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[WhiteWolf666]

Unfortunately, I believe it doesn't work (SaX2).

However, when it comes to video cards, it has been my experience that there are very, very few video cards that don't work in VESA (SVGA) mode out of the box with Linux.

As the other poster said:
1. You should *always* get POST output. If not, card=dead
2. You should almost always get Linux console (vga=normal) output. If not, you've got a very crazy card or an esoteric configuration. Note; I'm talking about standard 80x25.
3. You should almost always get VESA output. This can be slightly more unlikely than #2, since there are a few cards out there with broken VESA implementations. These are generally crazy integrated Savages or SIS chipsets, particularly cut-down mobile version. Even then, some VESA modes should work (800x600 at low refresh rates has never failed me). Generally, if VESA output is messed up, you've got a card or a monitor that is misrepresenting its capabilities to the OS, and you should simply try a lower resolution.

Unfortunately, I know very little about Debian or Ubuntu. I can tell you that SaX2, which is the SuSE X configuration tool, is excellent at probing out weird configurations.

It seems that there maybe Ubuntu packages for SaX2 here: http://sax.berlios.de/ . It is a GPL package, so I don't know why it hasn't been ported around, as to me, it's rather brilliant. There are build instructions for Ubuntu on that link, and googling around it seems there are at least some of the SaX2 packages in Debian Universe (is that a correct name for the repository?).

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[Doc Ruby]

This is fun and educational.

Is there a SuSE liveCD that I could boot from with the ATI card installed, on which I could run SaX2, then use the SaX2 output to find drivers I could install under Debian (or any other distro)?

FWIW, Debian has repos for stable, unstable, and experimental, as well as others outside that testing regime. "Universe" is a name for an Ubuntu repo, which is very similar in structure, though independent in content, to Debian's repos (as Ubuntu is derived from Debian, including using an APT system).

Re:Fishing for Drivers

[WhiteWolf666]

There's a live DVD here: http://en.opensuse.org/Download

However, I don't think you need to go that far.

From what I've read, the Rage II drivers are in Xorg, and are part of the atimisc X server. They will be automagically loaded if you specify the Xorg module "ati".

If you've got a working Linux install, I'd try that.

Here's an xorg.conf that was automatically generated by the Debian X config utility. http://brenta.free.fr/IMG/txt/xorg.txt

I have no knowledge of Debian at all, but it seems to be a valid result from a google search.

As you can see:
Section "Device"
        Identifier "ATI Technologies, Inc. 3D Rage IIC 215IIC (Mach64 GT IIC)"
        Driver "ati"
        BusID "PCI:0:18:0"
        Option "UseFBDev" "true"

Uses the Driver "ati" . I believe you should have no problems with your card, and shouldn't have to download anything to get it working. Has it given you trouble before?

I've had an ATI card refuse to boot with a given motherboard once, which was weird, but wasn't anything I could fix from Linux. Other than that, I've never really had a problem with older ATI cards, just newer ones which aren't supported by the built-in Xorg drivers.

vaporware is hype

[phrostie]

this is productive

Criticism from the peanut gallery

[tyler_larson]

FTA:

While one developer of a competing open source operating system has criticized the NDA approach...

While no mention was made of the identity of the criticizing developer, 10:1 says that the "competing" operating system has the letters *BS* right there in the name.

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[timmarhy]

i bet my millions that it's THEO, the iron fisted overlord of openbsd

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[QuantumG]

If only there was a casino that would cover this kind of action.. you could make a lot of money betting on things that happened 5 months ago.

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[robbak]

It is only linux that considers NDAs acceptable for open source. They say they espouse Openess of information, but actively seek NDAs that prevent it. That makes no sense.
A NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code, i.e. sufficient for anyone to rewrite the driver for any OS or in any language.
All products should have their specs as html on public servers.

BURN all NDAs. Now.

(I wonder who has burnallndas.com? No-one? Wow. Makes me want to take a trip to my nearest registrar!)

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[QuantumG]

The purpose of the OEM getting the driver developer to sign an NDA is so they can just give the developer all their documentation, including stuff they would prefer their competitors never see. If they don't do this, they have to get someone to sit there and go through everything that is being released and censor it. You can't just expect a company to hand over their product secrets so you can write a driver without any assurance that you're not going to immediately sell their documentation to their competitors.

A[n] NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code, i.e. sufficient for anyone to rewrite the driver for any OS or in any language. And that's exactly what the Software Freedom Law Centre will be requiring from OEMs.. poorly commented code doesn't live long in the kernel tree.

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[baadger]

> It is only Linux that considers NDAs acceptable for open source.

Thats not really true of "Linux". It all comes down to the developer (or number of developers) who want(s) to write a driver... signing an NDA is a personal decision, theres no policy. *In general* the Linux developer community tends to be very pragmatic, they don't care about OS purity so much, and want working, well written, drivers and *code* under the GPL.

> A NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code.

If you just replicate all the specs and documentation you got from company X in code comments you've made the NDA totally pointless from that companies point of view. So unless you can convince them that NDA's are in fact point they are never going to allow this to happen.

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[lysse]

Yes, but that's only because 10 of the 11 competing OSes have had *BS* somewhere in their name, some time in their past.

(Splitters.)

Re:Criticism from the peanut gallery

[tyler_larson]

> A NDA would be acceptable if it allows you to release fully commented code.

If you just replicate all the specs and documentation you got from company X in code comments you've made the NDA totally pointless from that companies point of view. So unless you can convince them that NDA's are in fact point they are never going to allow this to happen.

Though it doesn't seem to make sense, that's still exactly what happens. The spec contains much more than just what goes into the driver, and the company would probably be willing to release the subset of the spec that deals with just the driver interface if they could get it cleaned up enough to not contain any unnecessary secrets. However, work costs money, and they'd much rather just get their driver developers to work under NDA.

What this process yields is a high-quality driver which contains no trade secrets, because those secrets are irrelevant to the driver. After that, developers of other OSes (such as BSD) can use this first driver as a reference for building their own drivers without having to be burdened by an NDA.

Writing this first driver in a restricted environment bootstraps the whole process of getting free drivers out into the community for the product in question. Rather than having to sanitize the spec for public use, they instead get a free driver released, which accomplishes essentially the same task. This ends up happening more often than you think.

Why...

[QuietLagoon]

one driver is already in the kernel,

Why are drivers cluttering up the kernel? Doesn't that mean that the kernel is ever-increasing in size and complexity as more drivers are added to the kernel? Two things that a reliable kernel should avoid?

Re:Why...

[QuantumG]

1. They're loadable modules.
2. You should maybe leave the kernel development to the kernel developers.

Re:Why...

[QuietLagoon]

Maybe you should try to understand that some people ask questions in an attempt to learn, and not to troll.

Re:Why...

[QuantumG]

Maybe you should try some humility instead of phrasing your question like you're a know-it-all.

Re:Why...

[Breakfast Pants]

Yes and no. For one, they can be dynamically loaded as kernel modules. Or you can custom compile your kernel without any dynamic loading, to have just the drivers you need. As long as driver foo isn't touching many systems, it doesn't drive up complexity to have driver bar that touches the same number of systems.

Re:Why...

[QuietLagoon]

The question mark at the end of the sentence indicates humility. I admit that I do not know, therefore I ask. Thus is the reason for the question mark.

Re:Why...

[pembo13]

Then you need to learn how to ask questions better.

Re:Why...

[jZnat]

I believe it's because you mentioned that they are "Two things that a reliable kernel should avoid?" That makes you sound like you know better, so that's the troll-like bit. Also, everyone on /. is assumed to know everything about everything when posting unless said otherwise...

Re:Why...

[QuietLagoon]

I believe it's because you mentioned that they are "Two things that a reliable kernel should avoid?"

I think that ever increasing size and complexity are things that a reliable kernel should avoid. What is wrong with that?

Re:Why...

[jZnat]

If you had said "I think" or "I thought", you wouldn't have sounded like a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person. Linguistics and all that.

Re:Why...

[Darby]

Seriously, I don't know crap about kernel development, but:
1) I knew the answer to your question since the first time I even tried to compile a kernel. By "compile a kernel", I mean run make menuconfig, flip through idiot proof menus and say yes when it tells me to.
2) You proposed a bunch of dumb ideas implying that the people who actually do know how to develop one are idiots.
3) asking questions in a dick way and then appending a question mark in no way indicates humility, or even politeness.

Seriously, asking dumb questions is fine, but *you* need to actively treat them as dumb questions if you want them to be treated as legitimate questions in a problem space in which you're ignorant. Don't treat the people you want answers from as dumb preemptively.

Re:Why...

[Chirs]

If you compile your own kernel you can choose to either leave out the functionality entirely, build it as a runtime-loadable module, or build it into the kernel.

So the only permanent size increase is in the kernel source code. Assuming that the driver is part of a class of similar devices, there is basically no complexity increase as the driver will bind into the standard API for that class of devices.

So generally there is very little downside to adding new drivers to the tree.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are again trying to be a smartass

Re:Why...

[dbIII]

Nothing really - you've just missed that the drivers are the kernel - that is where they belong. An operating system is there to let the applications talk to the hardware after all. With linux it has been possible for a long time to have them in seperate files (a modular kernel) as distinct from one big file (a monolithic kernel), which is how a linux distribution can install on a wide range of hardware and how you can often upgrade stuff just by moving the hard drive into a newer box. Compiling in support for everything is possible if hardware is detected and modules loaded when required - so long as enough is there in the first file to be able to mount the first filesystem and load in the drivers for the rest of the hardware.

With MS Windows drivers still run in kernel space but are often produced outside of the control of Microsoft.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only, there would be a perfectly reasonable alternative of having a stable API (come on, by now the kernel devs should have enough experience with the domain + maturity to come up with a good, modular, stable API).

A driver written to such an API wouldn't necessarily be Linux-specific (i.e., could be another license than GPL), would be more portable across different operating systems, it could be loaded into kernel-space (for efficiency), or loaded into user-space (for safety + security, also interesting for binary drivers, which EXIST, and have to, because of patent and IP issues, like it or not). Yes, you could have loaders to load one module in different places. Not exactly outlandish, such an idea, IMHO.

Oh, and any new kernel download would not HAVE to contain ever more drivers for obscure devices. Of course a distro like Ubuntu would care to carry at least the most widespread devices, with the rest maybe available as an automatic on-demand download.

Ulrich

Re:Why...

[Hal_Porter]

People are only getting defensive because you're asking them difficult questions.

Inside the kernel, the software interfaces are subject to change without notice.

http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/stable_ap i_nonsense.txt

So the only approved way to get support for a driver is to GPL the code and get it included there. Then, if one of the kernel maintainers feels like doing some refactoring it's their responsibility to make sure your code builds after the change is made.

Now the next question is who's responsible for running the unit test to make sure the code is really OK after the kernel was refactored. Is it the guy that wrote the code originally, has hardware samples and knows how to run the test, or the kernel maintainer who knows about the change but doesn't have hardware or the time/knowledge to test it?

And the answer is I don't know.

Re:Why...

[Stocktonian]

FYI, Linux is still a monolithic kernel. It has loadable module support but that just means it gets loaded into the monolith.

Re:Why...

[QuantumG]

Why do people continually make the same argument for a binary interface?

It's been addressed again and again and again.

Here's the definitive response.

Give it up.

Re:Why...

[Knuckles]

What is wrong with that?

The believe that more driver modules make the kernel more complicated.

Re:Why...

[dbIII]

FYI, Linux is still a monolithic kernel. It has loadable module support but that just means it gets loaded into the monolith

No - in terms of compiling the kernel it means what I wrote above or more precisely what you will find in the README file. I suspect you are getting mixed up with terms used in the microkernel debate but I am not talking about that.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you really made an ass of yourself here. I mean, I've seen some serious ass-makings in my time at Slashdot - I've even done it to myself a few times - but this one.... fuck, this one takes the cake.

Asking why there are drivers cluttering up the kernel is like asking why there are arteries cluttering up your circulatory system. Heh, why don't you go send a patch to Linus that simply removes all the drivers. He'll be very grateful for your contribution, I promise.

And then, even after your ignorance was pointed out to you, you carried on with bullshit like "I just think that increasing size and complexity is bad! What's wrong with that?". In other words, "I didn't read your post, but here is my opinion again, slightly reworded. I'm sure you'll find it both insightful and groundbreaking."

And then you're all like "Thank you for your rational answer", which you obviously intended as a dig at all the other replies to your post. Replies written by more intelligent people than yourself.

Anyway, without further ado, I hereby award you with this year's Slashdot Dickhead award. May it help and guide you through your long and illustrious career as a guy who revolutionizes Linux kernel development with insightful Slashdot posts.

Re:Why...

[petermgreen]

Someone has to gather together all the drivers that are considered of sufficiant quality and keep them up to date with new kernel versions. Given the instability of linux's module API (not a descision i particularlly agree with but i can see why they made it), the people who develop the kernel are as good a choice as any.

typically drivers are compiled as modules nowadays so they aren't loaded into the running kernel unless the hardware detection system says they should be.

Re:Why...

[rbanffy]

As an useful example on how communication and interpersonal skills (like properly phrasing a question so not to trigger the troll flag), Theo (of *BSD fame) may not really be the [insert opinion here] he appears to be. I think his lack of empathy and, therefore, his inability to properly communicate and to relate to other people is to account for his reputation.

If that does not ring a bell, perhaps I may suggest you to seek a good shrink in your area to help you understand and deal with this "non-problem".

BTW, if you read this, Theo, it is valid suggestion. I strongly advise you to take it.

The question mark indicated a question. The rest of the question implied a "I know better" attitude that is utterly unwelcome just about everywhere.

It would take you about 10 seconds of googling to find out most drivers on Linux are loadable drivers and are not compiled into the kernel, but belong to what we call the kernel because they are maintained together and released as a single set of files.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://alpage.ath.cx/linux/index.htm

Re:Why...

[QuietLagoon]

If you had said "I think" or "I thought", you wouldn't have sounded like a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person. Linguistics and all that.

That's why I ended the statement with a question mark. I was not stating it as a fact, but I was asking it as a question.

One person correctly read my syntax, and provided a helpful answer (for which I thanked him/her). If I were a "knows-better-than-you" kind of person, as you assert, I doubt if I would have been so thankful towards the person who helped me.

Re:Why...

[Hal_Porter]

But that link is completely disengenuous. Lots of other OSs have stable API (source level) between drivers and the kernel. Unix type OSs have a relatively simple driver API, so it's not very hard to keep it stable. And in fact every processor has an ABI document describing how the parameters in his "Binary Kernel Interface" section should be set, so it's not hard too get a stable binary interface too.

Even in the Windows world which has a much more complex driver API, it's not too hard to write a driver to support a couple of OS revisions (E.g. Win2k, XP and Vista) and distribute it as a binary, I know because I've done it. Other driver classes are even better - SCSI miniports can run from Win98 and Me,to NT,2k,XP and Vista. They can also run in NTLDR's weird pre OS environment and on Risc NT workstations or 64 bit Vista boxes. You need to build a binary per architecture, but that's probably for the best.

Sure it's extra work for the kernel maintainer to keep interfaces stable, but Microsoft do it because they want OEMs to write Windows drivers for their hardware.

Greg doesn't want to do this because he wants to make things so hard for NVidia and all the other binary blob companies that they decide to GPL and release the source code to their drivers. And he wants to be able to refactor things without having to discuss it with anyone else. That document doesn't mention all that though, he just tries to raise a bunch of technically hard sounding problems, announce they are unsolvable and leave it at that.

Re:Why...

[Cal Paterson]

I think that ever increasing size and complexity are things that a reliable kernel should avoid. What is wrong with that?

The fact that it's a non-issue. Increasing the number of drivers in the kernel does not increase the complexity - they don't depend on each other or anything. They're all independant. What really seems to have ticked people off (including myself) is that you phrased your question like you knew what you were talking about, and you in fact (rather obviously) did not. In future, you should be careful to show that your questions are curiousity-based, and not adversarial. I will be careful not to see socratic irony where none exists.

Re:Why...

[kasperd]

Now the next question is who's responsible for running the unit test to make sure the code is really OK after the kernel was refactored. Is it the guy that wrote the code originally, has hardware samples and knows how to run the test, or the kernel maintainer who knows about the change but doesn't have hardware or the time/knowledge to test it?

The unit test really should include sufficient emulation of the hardware to test the driver. If the hardware vendor supplied such a unit test, you could run it after a refactoring without access to the hardware. If the driver which passed the unit tests turns out not to work, somebody with enough knowledge of the hardware should improve the unit tests.

In case the driver does something which is out of spec, the emulation code would have two options, either behave as the real hardware would, or cause the unit test to fail. Actually I have sometimes been thinking how much easier a lot of things would be if every hardware vendor would provide such emulation code. I'd be perfectly happy with getting the emulation code as binary blobs, as long as I can just run them isolated in a user mode process for the purpose of testing interaction. Whether the CPU emulation in such a case would be similar to xen, qemu, vmware, or a complete emulation provided by a CPU vendor might depend on exactly what you wanted to test. Before anybody say vendors would not do this, because then people would use the emulation rather than buying the hardware, I'd like to point out, that obviously the performance of the emulation would suck compared to the real hardware.

As for the licensing question, I don't see any problems in having the hardware emulation code beeing a propertary license as long as we are allowed to copy it and use it for testing of interaction between hardware and drivers. This code is not being linked against the kernel, thus it does not have to be GPL. If a vendor is able to do some good planning, they could even release this code before the hardware enters the market. AMD was able to do this with the 64 bit architecture, and for that reason Linux supported the architecture even before the hardware was finished. (Too bad it took Intel and Microsoft years to catch up, and when they finally did made it sound like Intel invented the whole thing).

Re:Why...

[QuantumG]

If you can't read that document and get the fundamental message that: if we freeze interfaces we will have to support backwards compatability on those interfaces forever and the benefits of doing that just don't outweigh the advantages; then you're not trying.

Apple can do what they do because of two things: they control the hardware, and they don't support backwards compatibility for drivers. Linux, which not only doesn't support the hardware, but actively encourages the use of plenty of different architectures, can only do what it does because the development team is so much bigger than Apple's.

As for Windows? How is this even remotely relevant? They're a billion dollar company and they spend all their time and money maintaining backwards compatibility and developing bolt ons to their OS. If anything, Windows is a perfect example of what happens when you present a stable API to driver makers.. you end up with 20 different stable apis, all which you must maintain.

You'd know all this if you'd ever tried to write a driver for Windows.

Re:Why...

[Hal_Porter]

The unit test really should include sufficient emulation of the hardware to test the driver. If the hardware vendor supplied such a unit test, you could run it after a refactoring without access to the hardware. If the driver which passed the unit tests turns out not to work, somebody with enough knowledge of the hardware should improve the unit tests.

You've never written any code which deals with hardware that actually works, have you? This is the kind of thing people say until they actually do it, and find that the hardware does things like randomly drop interrupts, or corrupt memory by bus mastering, or miss register accesses, and it only does it under obscure circumstances. And there can be bugs in the OS kernel or other drivers might corrupt memory. And the hard ones are ones that only happen 0.0001% of the time. The only way you can tell if a driver really works in a real system is to test it with the real hardware which has all the bugs, not some idealised model which only has the ones you can know about.

Re:Why...

[Hal_Porter]

You'd know all this if you'd ever tried to write a driver for Windows.

I've written several drivers for Windows. Incidentally, Windows isn't completely back compatible for drivers - they don't guarantee an XP driver will work on Vista for example. E.g. Win2k introduced WDM and plug and play to NT kernels which forced most drivers to be completely rewritten. The API for display drivers is very dependent on OS. Vista and later have a kernel mode framework which doesn't work on earlier OSs. NDIS has changed enormously, mostly for performance reasons.

Having said that it's not too hard to make a driver which works on two to three revisions of the OS, and usually with one binary. Probably you could do a driver which does Win2k, XP and Vista for example spending a couple of weeks coding and testing when the betas come out or bugs get reported, and that's 90% of the OS market. I.e. a few man months of effort over five years gives you a driver which supports the vast majority of computer users. Most companies only care about the last two revisions of the OS anyway.

But this is completely different from Linux where the interfaces inside the kernel change between minor kernel revisions without changing performance at all, and the kernel maintainers go out of their way to make it impossible to use binary drivers. So you spend endless effort supporting a platform with 0% of the market.

The cost/benefit ratio is enormously worse for Linux and even if you do it a people will just call you a leech because you didn't release the source code. Given that there's no commercial reason to do it, why bother?

Re:Why...

[kasperd]

What triggers a problem with flaky hardware doesn't have to be a driver change. If it happens rarely, there is no guarantee a developer would find it, even if he had the actual hardware. OTOH, if the circurmstances and the symptoms are known, they could be simulated in a unit test, and the probability could be increased to the point where you are bound to see them in a test run. Also such problems are likely to only show up with certain combinations of hardware. I have for example seen a system where Linux would lock up if sound card and harddisk were in use at the same time, but only if a network interface was present in the system. However it didn't make any difference whether the driver for the network interface was loaded or not. If an additional ATA card was added to the machine, the problem would also show up in Windows. Do you think Creative would have discovered this, had they written the driver themselves? I think not, because they probably never tested the card with this hardware combination. Would the problem have showed up if you tested it with an emulation of the same set of hardware components? Maybe not, but nevertheless it would have been a useful tool when debuging the problem. Simply seeing the difference between emulation and real hardware could provide a hint about the cause. And a problem can often be easier to figure out, if you have a working instance to look at.

Re:Why...

[Grishnakh]

You come off like a total asshole; that's why you're getting this response. If you don't like being treated as an asshole, maybe you should go back to school and take some English classes, for instance in composition. Even a high-schooler would know better how to write in order to not sound like a complete jerk, as you have.

And udev?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Greg should be fixing that POS of udev instead of throwing marketing ads, and assuming other responsibilities that will result in yet-again broken results.

Can't copy GPL code?

[Skapare]

From TFA:

While one developer of a competing open source operating system has criticized the NDA approach, developers are free under the GPL to use the Linux driver as the documentation for a new one as long as they don't copy the actual code. "The drivers are generally better written than the specs," Kroah-Hartman says.

What? If the driver code is GPL, why can't I copy it?

I suspect he means "copy" as in "make a derived work" that would have chunks of code taken from the original. But still, this is what GPL is about ... being able to take an existing source and make a derived work from it (that presumably would be better), and redistribute that derived work also under GPL (so someone else can derive from that later on ... and on ... and on).

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Wonko the Sane]

What? If the driver code is GPL, why can't I copy it?

Presumably, the people he is talking about want to release code in under a GPL-incompatible license. So they can't just copy the code.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[QuantumG]

Yes, you are absolutely right. This statement:

While one developer of a competing open source operating system has criticized the NDA approach, developers are free under the GPL to use the Linux driver as the documentation for a new one as long as they don't copy the actual code. in attempt to be diplomatic has just added confusion. Allow me to clarify:

      one developer = Theo de Raadt.
      competing open source operating system = OpenBSD
      criticized = profanity

So to rewrite the sentence so it actually make sense:

While Theo de Raadt, has slung profanities at the NDA approach, he is free to write a driver for OpenBSD if he wants by using the Linux driver as documentation, but he best not copy any of the code from the Linux driver if he wants to avoid having to GPL it (which he almost certainly does).

Which makes this comment:

"The drivers are generally better written than the specs," Kroah-Hartman says. make a lot more sense. But what the hell, I'll translate that too:

Theo, stop moaning about specs.. these companies are not going to give us blueprints to the damn hardware.. and whatever they do give us is going to be confidential. That's the reality. Deal with it. If you refuse to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with these companies then don't complain when the only documentation you have is a Linux kernel driver. The specs aint that great anyway.

Or, at least, that's what I read.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Skapare]

Thanks for updating the facts on this. I didn't know Theo was the party involved. Now that makes sense. And of course he doesn't want OpenBSD to end up being GPL. Microsoft might have the same issue if they didn't already have their own means to get the technical details :-)

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[jZnat]

Only the American companies who confuse being hardware manufacturers with being software developers force these NDAs which result in drivers which are basically decompiled blobs. Projects like OpenBSD (and Linux even) have had better experience with Asian companies for example on getting documentation regarding hardware. Blueprints to the hardware are not needed to write a driver; just the op codes and messages you can send to the hardware to control it. For example, CPU architectures are quite documented when it comes to their op codes, so therefore we are able to have open source compilers (e.g., GCC). On the other hand, the op codes for GPUs in NVidia and ATI hardware, are kept completely secret for most likely bullshit reasons (or because they're already infringing on the other company's patents and don't want anyone to know), so therefore we're stuck with blobs or intensive reverse engineering processes that can take over a year to finish.

I think Theo has a better opinion on Free Software than any of the Linux kernel developers do. Now if GNU had actually written a kernel themselves rather than adopted Linux back in the early 90's, we wouldn't have this NDA/blob problem due to RMS. I don't know how far the "GNU desktop" would have come by now, so I don't know how much success they would have in getting hardware companies to provide documentation on how to use the damn hardware.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Darby]

didn't know Theo was the party involved.

Heck, the OP might not "know" that (maybe he does) but I barely even noticed that I read the summary more or less how he translated it ;-)

That's very relevant to why, while I use Linux for my web, file and database servers, when it comes to my firewalls it's OpenBSD. *Every* *fucking* *time*.

Yes, Theo can be abrasive. Yes, he's an absolutist on a lot of topics. Absolutely yes, that's the type of person I'll trust for the security of my network and my business. I'll install a binary blob driver for my desktop so I can run games, but security is not a game.

Given that the primary focus of his distribution is security, he's 100% absolutely *right* to refuse to allow binaries which he and his team can not audit to the extent that they do every other part of their releases.

So, they might be behind on support for some hardware, but when it's done, your confidence in its security is rightfully higher.

So, it's not just that he doesn't want it GPL. He doesn't trust people whose goal isn't security to write his code for him. He sure as shit isn't going to put his reputation and the security of the people who trust his OS in large part because of that reputation in the hands of some third party. So, maybe a lot of people think he has a reputation as a dick, but let's see them go up against him purely in a security context. They've had issues, but vulnerability for vulnerability he wins against damn near anything else. In the context of anything a normal person could get ahold of, I don't think anything else is even in the same league as OpenBSD. Not Linux, sure as hell not Windows.

Security and useability are in an inverse relationship. Some people are willing to adjust their balance on that scale and that's fine. A lot of good things can come out of that. It is absolutely a great thing that there is somebody out there who refuses to shift it away from security too.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Kjella]

I guess it boils down to "How complete can a driver be documented and still comply with an NDA?". I mean, if the code is full of setting magic memory addresses to magic values then it's not really open source because you can't make a clue of it without NDA'd docs. On the other hand, if the bit registers and opcodes are all clearly laid out and documented in the source, isn't that exactly what's covered by the NDA? Software developers don't need any circuit layouts in the first place, they just need the interface.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[QuantumG]

The point of the NDA is so that the OEM can just hand over all their documentation without having to sit down and censor it all so they're not handing over anything that might give their competitors an advantage. They clear the developer to disclose as much information as needed to make a device driver that is well documented and works. They don't clear the developer to turn over the secret algorithms that might be used in the hardware or the production methods that may be of interest to the OEM's competitors.. but they might give that stuff to the developer because it was in the same filing cabinet.

If the driver isn't well written, commented and documented, it will not be accepted into the tree. The NDAs are being drafted by the Software Freedom Law Centre.. you don't think they're going to get the best possible deal?

Otherwise, what would you prefer? Would you prefer the OEM hired a developer to make a binary-only driver? Which they'll stop supporting as soon as it is economically justifiable? Would you prefer they just don't release any drivers for Linux? Don't say you would prefer if they just sat down and wrote perfect developer documentation cause there's no such thing.

Software developers don't need any circuit layouts in the first place, they just need the interface. Sometimes you do.. sometimes "the interface" just isn't defined and you need to sit there with an osciloscope to figure out what the hell this piece of hardware is doing.. and knowing what line is what kinda helps.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[dbIII]

Now if GNU had actually written a kernel themselves rather than adopted Linux back in the early 90's

Hang on. Gnu has the hurd - and until the late 1990's RMS was joyfully saying "linux, never heard of it. ha ha" in repeated interviews. I suppose it was funny to some at the time and nobody really thought he had never heard of it paticularly since it kept coming up in interviews. The LiGnuX renaming suggestion afterwards that later turned into the gnu/linux renaming suggestion could never be taken as a joke - linux is not the kernel for gnu and gnu did not adopt linux. They are different projects as some discord in gcc development showed.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[huiac]

So, from what you say:

You're fine with firmware that's soldered onto the board as a non-FRU mask-programmed ROM, but if it's loaded as a vendor-supplied blob that can (at least in principle) be updated as issues are identified, that's bad?

Interesting tradeoff...

John.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[QuantumG]

Shame about the HURD.. that's what happens when you try to do something experimental when you're playing catch up. They should have just focused on a monolithic kernel from day one.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Darby]

You're fine with firmware that's soldered onto the board as a non-FRU mask-programmed ROM, but if it's loaded as a vendor-supplied blob that can (at least in principle) be updated as issues are identified, that's bad?

Actually, I never said I was "fine" with anything.

Given the same piece of hardware, it's better to have drivers written by people who care about security than by those who don't. If issues are found, I want the people fixing it to be those whose incentive is securing my infrastructure as opposed to those who see fixing flaws in their product as a cost to be avoided if at all possible.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[evilviper]

While Theo de Raadt, has slung profanities at the NDA approach, he is free to write a driver for OpenBSD if he wants by using the Linux driver as documentation, but he best not copy any of the code from the Linux driver if he wants to avoid having to GPL it (which he almost certainly does).

That's really a rather baseless attempt to confuse the issue. Theo deRaadt has attempted to use GPL'd code as hardware documentation many times, and he knows full well the limitations of it.

There's ample, in-depth explanations of specific issues of this if you just search the OpenBSD mailing list archives. Particularly with fairly recent Sun hardware.

If you refuse to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with these companies then don't complain when the only documentation you have is a Linux kernel driver. The specs aint that great anyway.

NDAs directly conflict with open source principles. It's astonishing that Linux developers are so anxious to go that route.

The fact that he's claiming the driver is just as good as specs demonstrates that he has never attempted to do that himself.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[QuantumG]

There's three ways to get an open source driver written:

1. Get the company to release docs so that independant programmers can write drivers. This is the approach Theo advocates.
2. Reverse engineer the hardware and write the driver independantly. This is the approach taken by a number of people, including the OpenBSD developers at times.
3. Get a company employee or contractor, under NDA, to write the driver. Often the result of this is not an open source driver.. it's a binary driver, and that's what Greg is trying to change by offering to do the work of an employee or contractor for free.

The reason why options 1 and 2 are such poor options is that the specs you get are woeful. Hardware engineers are only slightly better at documenting their work than software engineers, and every company is loath to hand out specs which reveal the inner workings of the hardware unless the receipiant is under NDA. That's the reality of the situation.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[dbIII]

I think it came down to not many people working on it. It still exists but is not the popular choice for development. Linux always seemed to be a more inclusive project but I can't really quantify why I got that impression. Would Donald Becker have been welcomed with open arms by hurd or would they have been upset that he was writing ethernet drivers for commercial reasons? It was drivers like that that ultimately made linux very useful.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[pyrrhonist]

They should have just focused on a monolithic kernel from day one.

But then they couldn't have named it Hurd!

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[QuantumG]

Linux always seemed to be a more inclusive project but I can't really quantify why I got that impression. Linus, that's why.

He has great humility.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[ajs318]

Yes, but that wasn't what they wanted to do -- they wanted a microkernel. The thing that Linus grasped and the Hurd developers didn't is: you have to position fences according to what might conceivably need to cross them, not just where they look pretty. Microkernels (with drivers running mainly in user space) may be "purer", but monolithic kernels (with drivers integrated into the kernel) just work better in practice.

If the GNU people wanted a monolithic kernel, they could just have used the one out of what was then just BSD. Except that already came with a reasonable set of userland utilities ..... It's only very serious enthusiasts who buy a drivable car just to hoik out the engine and use it in a different chassis.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Alioth]

The datasheet on how to make a piece of hardware work is NOT the blueprints. It is absolutely moronic that hardware manufacturers won't tell you how to make the card work in software. It's only the "IP paranoid" who are stupid enough not to release a datasheet. Most Far Eastern manufacturers seem very happy to give you the datasheet for the hardware, after all, it may well result in more sales. Once again, a datasheet is not a blueprint.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're telling us that you think the Linux developers don't care about security, or you've been taken in by Theo's rhetoric.

If the Linux kernel developers obtain NDA'd paperwork and access to developer support from a WiFi card manufacturer, and use it to write a GPL'd driver which is then included in the mainline, that's Free Software. You can use it to learn how the hardware works, you can modify it, fix bugs, give improved versions to other people etc.

But Theo doesn't like that, the GPL'd driver can't be copied verbatim into OpenBSD, so it's not good enough for him, he calls it a "binary blob" and claims it is useless as a basis for supporting the hardware on OpenBSD. For OpenBSD Theo says it's better to have a photocopied list of registers given to the Windows driver team for the previous version of the hardware in 2004 and two pages of scribbled handwriting. Of course he doesn't put it that way, he manages to give the impression that there's going to be a carefully edited three ring binder of documentation, with sample code that his "developers" can paste into the OpenBSD version control system without annoying license problems. For any non-trivial hardware this sort of documentation frequently does not exist.

We know what the reality on the ground is, when OpenBSD developers have both the "official documentation" and the working GPL'd driver, they copy from the GPL'd driver. Theo is angry that his team got caught, he's angry that his method (which seems ideal in theory) doesn't work in the real world, and he's particularly angry because despite efforts at sabotage people would rather run OpenSSH on Linux than struggle to use OpenBSD.

He's not a very nice man. That's OK, I can deal with people who aren't very nice. JWZ isn't nice, nor is Stallman and nor is Linus sometimes. But if you're going to be like that then you'd better be 100% right, and in this case Theo is wrong.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[ajs318]

You missed one out.

4. Change the law -- so hardware manufacturers are REQUIRED to release documentation so that independent programmers can write drivers, as Theo is calling for, if they want to be allowed to sell their hardware at all.

I believe it is going to require a law, as QuantumG points out that manufacturers are often unwilling to release this information. However, that information is in no way secret -- it forms an integral part of the instructions for using the device. It may not be a chapter that many people are going to read, but that does not make it any less useful. Making it a legal requirement will ensure that all competitors are forced to release their specs together.

(I suppose I also ought to elaborate on this, since "change the law" is a pretty big undertaking. I believe the best chance of this becoming law is in the Mainland EU, where there is a history of pro-competition, pro-consumer and pro-environment lawmaking. A law like this would give consumers more choice {since they can now choose from a greater range of hardware and software combinations} and reduce pollution {from otherwise-serviceable electronics rendered useless by lack of software support}. Additionally, it would prevent dishonest manufacturers from hiding mendacious claims concerning their hardware behind closed-source software {I'm thinking of cases such as where a digital camera labelled as "6 megapixels" actually has only a 2 megapixel image sensor, whose output is interpolated by firmware to a 6 megapixel JPEG image; the RAW file format would reveal this deception, but because it is closed and proprietary, the consumer is hoodwinked into buying an inferior product. Manufacturers of genuine 6 megapixel cameras are forced to choose between playing the same game or selling fewer units at higher prices}. I say "Mainland EU" because once-proud Britain has already sold out to the USA and may well get "black-balled" at some point in future.)

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[ctzan]

s/diplomatic/hypocritical/

and stop that silly drivel now: if I driver is complete and isn't written with obfuscation in mind, all the great 'secrets' about the workings of the device should be already compromised.

they want people to sign NDAs in order to force them to write half-functional, obfuscated crap so they could keep the impression that their proprietary model is still the rule, and try to shove it again down people's throat after that 'open-source' fad dies out.

it's ironic that OpenBSD came to be more close to the ideals of free software (as of FSF) than linux - but linux just became too important, and unscrupulous self-promoting assholes and attention whores are already considering it their exclusive playground.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[tinkerghost]

The fact that he's claiming the driver is just as good as specs demonstrates that he has never attempted to do that himself.

Have you ever done design from a spec you weren't involved in writing?! Half the specs I have seen come across my various desks - in 3 different industries in 20 years - have been almost useless. A good chunk of them refer to internal documents you can't get your hands on - because they're sensative. At least once, the document didn't even exist anymore - but it had been general practice in the place for years & everyone still kept refering to it.

Hell, right now I'm working on an integration project where the XML tag names in the spec don't match the tag names in the test environment, which are also different than the ones in the live environment. Some well writen code that's internally documented would be a blessing here. Especially since I would know that it actually works as opposed to trying to determine if it's the spec or my code that's broken.

The worst specs are those that come in cut & pasted from other specs - I once tested some tank parts - only to ruin my test oven when half of them melted at the quoted test temperature. Given all the test specs & the design specs I've seen over the years, unless it's a blueprint or an actual defined test protocol, it's almost worthless at best & self contradictory at worst.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[LarsG]

..as exemplified in the famous Torvalds - Tanenbaum debate? ;-)

*ducks and runs*

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Dan Ost]

No, the BSD kernel is UNIX derived.

The whole point of GNU was to be free of AT&T's taint (hence the recursive acronym GNU = "GNU's Not Unix")

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[LarsG]

RMS has never been opposed to people making money writing software, what he's opposed to is people making non-GPL'd software.

If you are interested, look into Cygnus Solutions and how they made a business out of developing, maintaining and providing support for GCC. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/ti emans.html

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[ajs318]

In the early days, the GNU project were using a BSD kernel. TTBOMK, by the time the GNU project was announced, BSD was already completely free of AT&T code. Though, all the various unix-like systems seem to have a family tree more tangled than the various Royal families of Europe.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this half-functional obfuscated crap? I keep hacking on the Linux kernel and not finding it. There are so many OpenBSD fans in this thread, and yet no-one seems to know where the half-functional obfuscated crap is, maybe it's on your mailing list, being spread by Theo ?

I'm unimpressed that you think a non-obfuscated driver somehow magically reveals all the workings of the device. Either the last hardware you wrote a driver for (you have written a driver right? I'm not talking to some idiot who is just parroting what Theo tells him without having any actual experience?) was something really noddy or you have some very simplistic ideas about hardware design. The difference between the functional contract of the hardware and its actual design is really quite significant. In internal documentation, when it even exists, there is no reason not to mix them together. In documentation supplied to the Linux developers under NDA the same applies, but any documentation that could be supplied to the OpenBSD team would have to be quite different. Who is going to pay for that documentation to be written?

Theo's argument would work fine if all your hardware was being built by diligent engineers who've never shipped a product without preparing a filing cabinet full of detailed and well tested instructions for driving it in software, none of which mentions any proprietary hardware design secrets. In reality what happens is that a new version of the chip is produced and someone realises that only half the memory used for a ring buffer works, so they alter the drivers to only use a half-size ring buffer. No-one updates the documentation, or if they do it's a scribbled note on the schematics which says "Doh! Missing SLCT line on 2nd RAM chip". The Linux coders under NDA get told "yeah, don't use the full size ring buffer, at least not in versions 1A through 3D" and Theo rants and screams that the resulting code (which just checks the version and halves the ring buffer size) is "obfuscated".

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Anonymous Coward]

The op codes are hardly secret. For reasons that would be obvious if you'd stayed awake during the class on graphics there are lots of variants on the theme of multiply and accumulate plus some matrix operators, trig functions, some texture stuff and a few miscellaneous useful instructions. There's even a /standard/ although of course the real hardware doesn't necessarily have /exactly/ the same physical operators as the virtual hardware described in the DirectX and OpenGL standards.

It seems to have taken about an hour for someone to go from being able to program the 2nd generation ATI shader hardware from Linux to them having figured out from first principles and a copy of the OpenGL standard what half the instructions do.

The trouble is that we're used to fiddling with the easy part of the CPU. When you already /have/ an operating system doing the behind the scenes dirty work the CPU instructions seem pretty simple. And it's the same writing a shader for a 3D game. But the hardware /drivers/ need to get down and dirty. What we don't know about ATI and nVidia's hardware isn't about GPU opcodes, it's about arbitrary alignment rules, timing constraints, how to workaround bugs in the hardware, that sort of thing. I assure you that the list of x86-64 opcodes isn't enough to get Linux running on AMD64 CPUs either.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[dbIII]

RMS has never been opposed to people making money writing software, what he's opposed to is people making non-GPL'd software.

Given the history of emacs (commercial development under the GPL immediately prior to where he forked it away from the developer) and the trolltech bashing (even AFTER they changed to the GPL) the impression he often gave was that commercial software was a problem to be tolerated at best. In contrast the linux community took a very different view.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[LarsG]

Given the history of emacs

Of which emacs do you speak? There have been many. Gosmacs?

and the trolltech bashing

Well, RMS was right on that one. You can't build a free desktop on top of non-free software.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Grishnakh]

If you refuse to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with these companies then don't complain when the only documentation you have is a Linux kernel driver. The specs aint that great anyway.

As an embedded hardware and software engineer who's had experience with device drivers, I second this last statement. Internal specs are generally a mess, poorly written (usually by people with a very poor grasp of English), and usually lacking in important but subtle details needed to get the drivers to actually work correctly. This last part is usually resolved either by experimentation and debugging, and/or communication with the hardware engineers and architects who designed the part. In the end, the driver code itself serves as the best documentation for how to communicate with the part. The specs might give some good insight at a high level about how the system works, but it's really not necessary once you have a working driver.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Grishnakh]

You conveniently left out his parenthetical comment, "(even AFTER they changed to the GPL)". RMS was absolutely right before this point; after this point, the anti-Qt people were dead wrong. Once the code was GPLed, the problem was resolved. It's not like they're going to switch it back to a proprietary license. Qt really is a better solution technically, and now that it's GPLed, there's little reason not to use it for desktop applications.

I'm glad the GNU folks were adamant enough to convince Trolltech to release Qt under the GPL. But after that, they should welcome the contribution, not continue to bash it.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Grishnakh]

So you're calling for more governmental regulation and intrusion, which accomplishes nothing but forcing the company to expend more resources making publicly-available documentation? As an embedded hardware and software engineer, I'd rather spend my time doing something productive instead of wasting time on unnecessary documentation.

The company already has documentation used internally, which has all the specifications about the device. This documentation is not censored for distribution to the public, so it may have information not necessary for use of the device, but which contains internal details. The documents aren't written by professional document-writers after all; they're written by engineers, who would rather spend their time doing something else like designing hardware or writing software.

So we have two options, besides the reverse-engineering route:

1) Have a developer(s) sign an NDA, and develop an open-source driver which contains all the information necessary to use the device. This probably includes some details which were left out of the spec, since these specs are usually not well written, and lacking in subtle details which the driver author gets by (get this) talking to the hardware engineers. This driver is released under the GPL for all to use (or modify, learn from, etc.). The company spends nothing, and the community gets a Free/free driver. The company is happy because they spent nothing and can now stick a penguin logo on their product, and get more sales. The developer probably gets a free piece of hardware in the deal.

2) Get a bunch of tech-clueless politicians to draft a law to force companies to provide documentation just for a handful of interested driver authors. The company has to assign an engineer to write a version of the specs which doesn't have any confidential information, and only what's needed to write the driver. The engineer wonders why he can't just spend this time writing the damn driver himself, which will look far better on his resume than just writing some documentation. More time is wasted as this goes through review cycles, with managers and marketing people reading the doc to make sure the engineer didn't put anything confidential in there by accident. The document is released, and driver developers complain that the doc doesn't have all the info they need to write the driver, and the company says it does, and you can sue us if it doesn't. The company has wasted a lot of money, and the community gets either no driver, or a poorly-functioning driver.

I know which one I'd pick, and it isn't #2.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[LarsG]

Qt went GPL in 2000, wasn't it? My memory might be failing me, I remember there was a lot of noise from Stallman before Qt went GPL but not after - at least not directed at Trolltech. He made a statement regarding the KDE developers and repentance, but that was iirc directed at KDE devs, not TT.

Then again, Stallman is not exactly known for his diplomatic skills.

Re:Can't copy GPL code?

[Grishnakh]

To be fair, I don't remember the situation that well either. It's most likely that RMS shut up after this point, but there's anti-Qt people who are STILL bashing Qt/KDE about this even now.

Modules

[Tharkban]

Modules. Pretty much all drivers are modules and not compiled directly into the kernel. They don't increase the kernel size unless you load them. Although they do increase the kernel source size (in their own files generally) so it is taking a little longer to compile all kernel modules, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for things just working.

Re:Modules

[QuietLagoon]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the rational answer.

Re:Modules

[Cal Paterson]

Next time, you might want to try a rational question.

Try researching before making outlandish statements.

Re:Modules

[QuietLagoon]

Next time, you might want to try a rational question.

The questions were very rational. Just because you might not like them, does not make them irrational.

Try researching before making outlandish statements.

They were questions, not statements.

Re:Translation

[Wonko the Sane]

Translation from marketing-speak to English: "Greg K-H was lying, knew that he was lying, doesn't feel bad about it, and will do it again".

wrong, wrong, right, right
You're only half wrong.

Re:Translation

[stonedcat]

Well if nothing else it did accomplish something.
Not sure how anyone can exactly complain about that.

1 or 2 new drivers is better than the no drivers.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't help the reputation of open source software at all.

Haven't you BSD trolls got something better to do, like stealing more GPL code?

Re:Translation

[QuantumG]

Uhhh.. no he wasn't. He wasn't lying at all.

Why would you feel the need to post a "translation" when you have no idea what you are talking about?

The fact that people are willing to write Open Source software without charging a fee for their services is hardly a new concept, but Greg did the smart thing of treating it like it is and, in doing so, attracted the attention of people who thought that it wasn't the case.

This was one of the biggest problems with the Free Software movement before Open Source came along.. no-one talked about the benefits that businesses could get from the community. For a while, no-one talked about anything else, and then it went quiet again. RMS will tell you that we need to talk about freedom. I happen to agree, but we also need to talk about the practical advantages of open software development too.

Re:Translation

[spikeb]

oh shut up

Re:Translation

[Rycross]

How exactly was he lying? They said that they would code drivers for free for companies that released their specs, and they did. The "marketing hype" was that they were making a big deal and advertising for something that they already did, and would have done anyway

Hats off, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

These are people the Linux community must be proud of. They are helping hardware manufacturers to consider Linux by showing them why open source code helps actually to sell hardware. Thank you guys, and keep up the good work!

Your sig

[WindBourne]

BTW, you may wish to go easy on john. On the Saturn, they lost a few of the engines on the way up. Fortunately, they did not blow, but plain and simple, they did fail. As you pointed, Spacex and Armadillo is looking to place a large number of identical engines along the line of parallel server. But they are not the first. In addition to USA, the Russian have been and still do. As long as the engine is well developed, this makes sense. In fact, I think that both Amadillo And spacex are doing it right.

Re:Your sig

[QuantumG]

I think I did go easy on him :)

It's not really Carmack who is the one on the pipe, it's the people who are suggesting that you could make 100x100 module first stages to support 25x25 module second stages. But still, the reason why that is insanity (unobtainium would be needed to hold the modules together) is also a good reason why 5x5 or 8x8 configurations are a bit loopy.

But hey, I don't mind.. Armadillo is a fun effort to watch.

Re:Your sig

[WindBourne]

wow. 100x100. I guess I did not see that. That is "interesting"

Discontinued projects

[phorm]

Yeah. The GATOS project would have worked with this, however it seems to be discontinued for modern kernels. Even if it weren't, the documentation seems pretty horrid, so I couldn't tell either way.

Driver Groups

[NaNO2x]

I wonder if support could get out to little groups who are trying hard. I personally have a webcam with no driver and the group trying to develop one just doesn't seem to be there enough. If someone is offering this support then it would be nice if he found a group like this and helped out. It would be nice to have a website that brings together all drivers that are being worked on and make them easy to find for someone who really wants to help. Here is the driver I was talking about by the way: http://www.actiongames.co.uk/m560x/

Re:Driver Groups

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason Microsoft is dominant. I can't believe it. Example: Years ago I installed Linux - Red Hat and found that I couldn't get X working. Solution, get a video card that worked.

If your webcam isn't supported under Linux, stop whining, spend some of the money you saved by not buying Windows, and buy a supported webcam. It can't be that hard, Slashdot had an article about the guy that wrote xhundred drivers.

Cash talks in this marketplace, so vendors make sure they will sell their cards and make money by writing drivers for Windows.

Sure, I'd like to have everything supported on every free O/S, but get real.

Re:Driver Groups

[QuantumG]

Is your webcam in this list.. if not, maybe you could contact that guy.

Re:Driver Groups

[NaNO2x]

Actually, I am 100% not whining, I do have another webcam but that wasn't my point of this post. I realize Linux's shortcomings but that doesn't mean I need to get pissed about them, I try and help fix them personally. I just wanted to post an example and an idea for making things easier.

Re:Driver Groups

[pandrijeczko]

If your webcam isn't supported under Linux, stop whining, spend some of the money you saved by not buying Windows, and buy a supported webcam.

Your attitude sucks, my friend.

Sure, we more experienced Linux users know that we have to choose hardware very carefully sometimes in order to ensure that it's supported by Linux. But the poster has asked a perfectly reasonable question and you say that he's whining - this is hardly a good way of encouraging people to try Linux out, is it?

Outlandish statements

[The Monster]

Try researching before making outlandish statements

Welcome to Slashdot. If there weren't any outlandish statements, there'd only be a couple of stories a day on the front page.

List of the hardware devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, a list & short description of the hardware devices?

Goodbye Yellowbrick Road

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation from marketing-speak to English: "Greg K-H was lying, knew that he was lying, doesn't feel bad about it, and will do it again".

This doesn't help the reputation of open source software at all.

Open Source tried to change the world and become the enemy. Microsoft will just step into the gap they leave behind. After all, Microsoft is accountable to the law, shareholders, and paying cutomers. Some stray Linux mouth just proves that open source are run by a bunch of chancers. Stallman is heading for the extreme loony tunes end of reality and Slashdot is a shrinking force online. Bye, bye GPL. It's been nice knowing you.

1 down, 1.2 billion to go !!

[Anonymous Coward]

1 down, 1.2 billion to go !!

Oh, wait, wrong macro. 1 down, 12 thousand to go !!

Linux hardware selection rules, from digg

[Werrismys]

Apparently people don't read the rules of Linux hardware:
1. No ATI
2. Check the hardware compatibility list
3. "Partially supported" means "barely functional if you can get it to install."
4. No ATI
5. No, really, don't use ATI.
6. Really, I don't care if you're a fanboy, don't use ATI!!!

Re:Linux hardware selection rules, from digg

[Anonymous Coward]

BS: I'm running ATI, NVIDIA and intell controllers, all works fine. Get a linux course or a distro that works for you and stop whining.

Re:Linux hardware selection rules, from digg

[cortana]

It obviously doesn't work fine; the feature where you can use 'apt-get source' to obtain the source code for any component of the system appears to be broken.

How do people engage manufacturers to help ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do people get manufacturers to help with the develpment of Linux drivers ?

I am one of those who purchased a Lenovo 3000 N100 based on their statements about support of Linux (in particular to SUSE) only to find that the laptops were not completely Linux compatible.

Specifically the inbuilt web camera - which is based on the Sonix SN9C201 (no - not the SN9C102).

There is no sign of any support for this USB chip - there is some support for other chipsets, but the word on the 'net is that Sonix don't want to help.

Can anyone suggest a strategy to get the attention of Lenovo/Sonix and either have them provide a driver, or at a minimum release the necessary documentation to allow others to do so ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A story which has a happy ending

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.saillard.org/linux/pwc/ - we now have completely free Philips' webcam driver that doesn't need an addtional binary to drive it. We're all better off!

Re:A story which has a happy ending

[Hal_Porter]

Did you read the original comment

The same old problems constantly get revisited when someone looks at something semi-widely accepted and decides the code is too ugly and makes a rewrite that doesn't add anything from the user's point of view but forces them to relearn another system.

Nemosoft wrote a GPL driver which called out to a binary decompressor module. All was OK for a couple of years. Then Greg decided to rip out the callback. So suddenly the camera would only work in 160*120. Nemosoft then asked for the crippled driver to be removed. Greg did. Then Saillard forked the driver and decompiled the decompressor and put it back in the kernel. Nemosoft then complained that the decompiled code was illegal and got it removed from the kernel again.

Each step sounds like a perfect example of what the original poster was complaining about - people keep making changes that cause things to stop working.

Re:A story which has a happy ending

[DavidTC]

You forgot the first step:

'Nemosoft decides to use some weird patented compression for its cameras.'

Every problem followed from that decision.

Re:A story which has a happy ending

[Hal_Porter]

Philips decided to use the compression because they make the camera. Nemosoft wrote the driver. From what I can tell, you need compression to get a decent frame rate/resolution on USB 1.0. Philips worked out a way to compress efficiently in hardware. Since this the only part of the webcam which is non obvious, Philips wanted to make money out of it by licensing, or maybe they licensed it from someone else. For whatever reason, they didn't want to release source code to the decompressor. They did let Nemosoft get the details under NDA and write a binary only plugin for the driver.

Not NVIDIA

[elronxenu]

Unfortunately the openness doesn't extend to NVIDIA, who refuse to release specifications or other assistance to developers working on the ULi M920x chipset, which is used for receiving Digital Television.

NVIDIA bought ULi and then cancelled development of the M920x, but you can (still) buy DVB receivers which use this chipset.

Requests for assistance or interface specifications have been refused by NVIDIA.

answers

[Anonymous Coward]

1) where? you say you've had problems with CUPS and others have complained, but there's nothing about an actualy complaint, just complaining in your OP

2) Ubuntu's problem, not CUPS most likely

3) Admin functions are disabled because you're supposed to log in as administrator. IIRC you can have that as your normal login account, but it's just "log in" to the CUPS webpage (there's a "login" option, which should have sparked the idea off...) as administrator and you have your administration functions available. Unlike windows, this is a multi-user system which uses limited accounts to do some stuff so that a break in one service doesn't break any others: apache having a bug that gives local access does so as user "http", so the damage that can be done is limited to the damage that account can do.

4) This happens with Windows too, if you don't use the Brother install CD to set up your printer. You click on "Brother" in the printer drivers and see a huge list of Brother printers, none of which say 1440 Laser. So you try another brother laser. low res. Another crashes and eventually you find that "Apple: postscript" works because your printer has postscript (I don't know if your system has, but this happened to me with a laser printer). Why Apple? Because that's what Windows works best with. Don't ask me why. So this isn't a problem with CUPS either. If brother had a "CUPS installer" this would work fine. Just as it does with Windows.

5) This does sound like a bug. Talk to the CUPS people and they'll tell you how to log where it's falling over. They'll be able to work out from that what the problem could be, offer ways to test and/or work around the problem and eventually a fix will be available and you'll be asked to test the fix for them. This is what happened to me when I found a bug in the konqueror renderer (div tags weren't being closed).

Re:answers

[the_womble]

3) Admin functions are disabled because you're supposed to log in as administrator.

Another Ubuntu problem: deliberately disabled.

As for his problem 2), stuff does tend to break on Ubuntu version upgrades. If you want stability you need to stick to the LTS versions: Ubuntu should really call other versions unstable.

I think Ubuntu is over-rated. I am considering switching back to Mandriva. Overall I have found Ubuntu to be more work, have unsatisfactory admin tools (especially Kubuntu), and be less reliable. The big plus with Ubuntu are the repos and the forums, but if Mandriva is otherwise good I will happily pay up for Mandriva Club which should offset that disadvantage.

So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

So if I want XZY driver then I have to install the latest 'beta' kernel because the drivers aren't separate from the kernel.

maybe if the drivers were separate I could just get the driver I wanted without all the 'bonus' features in the new kernel.

The problem is that the kernel api changes so much that the only way to track the changes in the drivers is to make the drivers part of the kernel, I'm sure as hell there are a lot of people out their who wish that the kernel api was a bit more stable.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[QuantumG]

Stable == perfect. We'd all love the kernel to be perfect.. but unfortunately, I left my magic wand in my other pants.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

ok, stable between version of more than one increment.

Every other major os in the world seems to manage it perfectly well.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[ajs318]

So if I want XZY driver then I have to install the latest 'beta' kernel because the drivers aren't separate from the kernel.

Yes; or, if you're a level 5 or higher advanced wizard, you could try backporting the driver to the kernel you're already running (just grabbing the XZY module from the newest tree and compiling it against your running kernel may be enough, if your kernel is fairly modern). Note that many distros have pre-compiled kernels for you to download, if you are too lazy to compile your own.

With Linux, compatibility is guaranteed at the source level, not the binary level, and no secret has ever been made of that. If, somehow, the kernel developers managed to miss a huge, gaping hole, meaning that something really major has to be rewritten, the ABI will necessarily change -- and it may be mathematically impossible both to maintain compatibility with legitimate legacy code and fix the flaw. (Look at all the stuff which broke on XP SP2 just because it used, albeit for "legitimate" purposes, the same "features" of Windows 95/98/Me as malware used.) Therefore, the kernel developers' preferred cop-out^Wsolution is not even to bother trying -- just get everyone used to the idea that sometimes, it's necessary to recompile code to make it work.

As a beneficial side-effect, this policy impedes the development of closed-source, binary-only drivers.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

"As a beneficial side-effect, this policy impedes the development of closed-source, binary-only drivers."

beneficial to who? the religious or joe sixpack

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[ajs318]

Beneficial to everyone! Beneficial to kernel developers, because they can study the interactions between components in a way that is only possible with access to Source Code. Beneficial to systems integrators, because they know that they can specify X and Y hardware with Z and W software and it will all just work together. Beneficial to ordinary users, because the Grand Pooh-bahs of High Magick can work on any problems that may exist. Beneficial to users of specialist, non-80x86 hardware, because with Source Code they can compile drivers for their systems. Beneficial to hardware manufacturers, because they will shift more product. Beneficial to developers (and by extension users) of non-Linux operating systems, because they will have an easier time rewriting drivers from scratch with the aid of some Source Code even if they can't use that code directly.

And yes, beneficial to purists, because the kernel remains i-tal.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

well it doesn't benefit me, I just want my hardware to work, I don't really care if I can get the driver source code or not

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[ajs318]

Your hardware continuing to work, even following important changes over which you may have no control, is entirely contingent upon somebody having access to the driver Source Code.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

only if I have to update my kernel, and the kernel doesn't have a stable ABI.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[QuantumG]

Free Software is different. Fundamentally different.

This is a good thing.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[ajs318]

There are two ways to do anything. There's the quick and dirty way (with the potential to come back and bite you in the arse), and the proper way. The proper way, for reasons which have been demonstrated elsewhere ad nauseam, is to prefer Open Source drivers. Keeping a stable kernel ABI just for the purpose of allowing closed source drivers is the quick and dirty way.

The point is, you never know when you may have to update your kernel. If a huge kernel vulnerability has managed to hide under the radar for a long time, then it suddenly surfaces; or if a new mathematical technique is discovered which makes a kernel exploit previously deemed impossible possible, and the only way to fix it must necessarily break the kernel ABI (perhaps because the vulnerability is within the ABI layer itself), you'll have two choices: update your kernel or stay off the Internet.

Now suppose you have an old-ish, but nonetheless satisfactorily working, piece of hardware with closed source drivers, so you are utterly dependent upon the manufacturer for driver updates. If the manufacturer decides not to release an updated driver for your card, you're -- not to put too fine a point on it -- fucked.

If you want your hardware to Just Work, your best bet -- in the long term -- is to write a polite letter to your Elected Representative and request a new law obliging hardware manufacturers to release specifications. From the point of view of ordinary users, there's little practical difference between that, and a stable kernel ABI and closed source drivers (unless and until the above scenario occurs). From the points of view of kernel developers, systems integrators, users of specialist, non-80x86 hardware, developers and -- in the end -- even hardware manufacturers, things will be a lot better with mandatory disclosure.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Software is for niggers. Reading between the lines, it is clear that you are also a nigger.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[Anonymous Coward]

As an EE, I would like to say: Fuck you, bitch. Zealots like you are the reason why our product will never support linux- supported platforms are my call, and people like you disgust me.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

Let's see, there's an os out there with 90%+ market share and it has plenty of drivers and a stable ABI. well with 90%+ you would expect it to have drivers even without the stable ABI.

There's another OS out there with about the same share of the market as linux and guess what, a large proportion of the hardware you buy also has driver that work on that OS and it has a stable ABI.

Then there's Linux, don't try to buy any hardware for it without doing your research first, even if the box has supports Linux on it I doubt the driver will work because it was written against an old kernel and the ABI has changed between kernels.

Personally I'd rather have a stable ABI, some drivers that stop working when a new major version of Linux is released and if they go out of support then hell lets write some open source drivers like we have to now.

Experience shows, stable ABI == Support from vendors, unstable ABI vendors say go screw yourself.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[ajs318]

The point is that limited disclosure, as practised by some hardware manufacturers, is just wrong. It prevents:

• Kernel developers from studying the interactions between components
• Systems integrators from making informed decisions regarding hardware and software compatibility
• Users of non-80x86 Linux systems from making use of hardware devices
• Ordinary users of standard 80x86 Linux systems from benefitting from the general efforts of the wider community
• Developers of non-Linux OSes from supporting hardware
• Ordinary users of standard 80x86 Linux systems from using hardware that they rightfully own, if the vendor decides to cease support across a kernel ABI change
• Everyone from making full use, perhaps in ways not originally envisaged by the vendor, of hardware that they rightfully own
• Hardware manufacturers from selling units.

Now, in a democracy, the idea is that we have laws which -- hopefully -- prevent people from doing harmful things. Sometimes it's necessary to curtail one person's freedom in order to protect another's freedom -- for instance, the owner of a knife is not allowed to go around stabbing people, because my right to not get stabbed overrides your right to stick your knife in whomever you like. And not everyone has the physical strength to defend themself against an attacker armed with a knife, so they can call on the law for assistance. Such a law might be seen as harming the interests of knife manufacturers (because they probably would sell more knives if it were legal to go attacking people with knives) and body-armour manufacturers (because they would sell more anti-stab vests), but the simple fact is that the set of {people who do not want to get stabbed} outnumbers the set of {people who want to go around stabbing people}.

By a similar token, not every computer user has the wherewithal to figure out a complex piece of hardware if the manufacturer is stubbornly refusing to provide information that they need. Manufacturers falsely believe they are benefitting from this situation (the harsh fact is their competitors are almost certainly reverse-engineering their products, and probably with better resources than Fred-in-the-shed can muster); but the set of {people who would stand to benefit from full disclosure} outnumbers the set of {people who actually or perceivedly benefit from the status quo}.

Hardware manufacturers might not like it at first, but they're going to have to get used to it. In the long run, Mandatory Full Disclosure -- although it will require the force of law to achieve it -- will turn out to be better for everyone (not just "ordinary" users) than the quick and dirty bodge of a stable kernel ABI and closed-source, binary-only drivers. In the meantime, of course we need to continue with the reverse-engineering efforts and the direct targeting of manufacturers, but we also need to push just as hard for our rights to be enshrined in the law of the land.

Re:So if I want XZY driver

[oliverthered]

I can see all those oppressed windows users rioting at the door of the hardware manufacturers.

In some kind of wonderland, yes it would be great to have the details of the drivers.

In the real world, a driver even if it's a little buggy and support gets dropped 5 years down the road is still better than no driver at all.

Re:Fishing for Drivers: I know the problem

[y86]

I know the problem...... ATI! They just said last week that they will release opensource drivers.... it's been a week... no progress.. even on this old hardware...... When can someone sue?

Stable Binary API

[Ash Vince]

What Linux really needs is a Stable Binary API so that hardware manfacturers can release drivers that work with the current kernel and know they will work from now for the life of that hardware. At the very least there should be a stable way to interact with the kernel that does not change in minor version revisions (ie - Stable API for entire 2.6 branch).

Rather than trying to force private businesses to play by the same rules as free kernel maintainers there should be an acknowledgement that some people may have a different agenda (maximise revenues in this case) and they should not be forced into adopting an approach that is entirely alien to them.

This is the main thing holding back linux from supporting a great deal of the hardware that is currently supported by Windows, OSX or BSD.

Without this stability manufacturers are still scared of saying they support linux, as they know the same piece of hardware may not support linux in 10 days time when the kernel is "tweaked". This creates all sorts of legal problems which alot of hardware manufacturers are scared of. It is easier to say they do not support Linux on the box as a disclaimer.

Another problem is that alot of hardware manufacturers do not want to release the exact technical specs of what the sell in case they competitors use them to create compatible products which could utilise their drivers. This leaves them having to compete with a product that has far lower R&D costs.

Hopefully Greg KH and Linus will realise this one day but until then we are stuck with waiting 3 years after a piece of hardware was released for someone in the community to reverse engineer the windows driver and create their (our) own.

The current approach might well produce a better quality driver (and kernel) but it is far to slow. Who wants to spend several hundred pounds on new hardware only to find it is obsolete before the linux kernel supports it.

Re:Stable Binary API

[Chirs]

Are you aware of the reasons for the lack of a stable binary API? If not, I suggest you read the following:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds /linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/stable_api_n onsense.txt;h=a2afca3b2bab6fb923fb9eda102073606d15 c278;hb=HEAD

The best way to get something supported by linux is to get it into the mainline tree as early as possible. Linux has support for hardware with a single unit in existance, so its not as if its really hard to get drivers accepted into the tree.

As for not wanting to release hardware specs....do you really think that their competitors don't already have the specs on the hardware? I had a roommate who worked for a company that did nothing but reverse-engineer chips and write specs on how they worked.

Re:Stable Binary API

[greg1104]

If Linux ran on one type of processor architecture, a stable binary API might be possible. That's the reason Windows has been able to provide one for so long; there were/are discontinuities at major bit-width shifts (right now some people are struggling to get 32-bit drivers working on their new 64-bit Windows), but since the underlying hardware is basically always x86 things chug on with a simple driver model.

The fact that this is completely untrue for Linux makes a binary API impossible. Please read The Linux Kernel Driver Interface for more information; the "Binary Kernel Interface" section explains exactly why what you think should happen can't.

This isn't a political argument, it's a technical one. The only way to get a "stable binary API" into Linux would be to put a virtual machine-like interface on top of the kernel that drivers could talk to while being completely insulated from platform issues. While possible, the performance would be bad, and building/supporting that mess would turn into a political problem with the kernel developers.

Re:Stable Binary API

[Slashcrap]

Hopefully Greg KH and Linus will realise this one day but until then we are stuck with waiting 3 years after a piece of hardware was released for someone in the community to reverse engineer the windows driver and create their (our) own.

It would definitely be "their" and not "our", because "our" would imply that you had some kind of ownership over the driver. Since your post demonstrates a total failure to understand the current Linux development model and advocates a new model which would basically ruin it, I don't think that you can really consider yourself a part of the community.

I know you'll argue that you have just as much right as anyone else to try and steer Linux kernel development in the right direction through argument, but actually you don't because you're not a kernel developer. Contributing a lot of time wasting whining is not the same as making a useful contribution.

This is the main thing holding back linux from supporting a great deal of the hardware that is currently supported by Windows, OSX or BSD.

Linux supports a much greater range of hardware than OSX and I'm pretty sure that BSD doesn't have a stable binary API. A Windows driver for 95/98 will not work on 2000/XP and a 2000/XP driver probably won't work on Vista. The 64bit versions of XP has been available for some time now, but isn't exactly blessed with an over-abundance of drivers. How can that be so when the stable API makes it so easy to develop drivers?

So basically all of your examples are flawed. You should have used Solaris as an example, since that has the most stable binary API. Of course, it also supports the smallest amount of hardware which is even worse for your argument but that's just nitpicking at this point.

The current approach might well produce a better quality driver (and kernel) but it is far to slow. Who wants to spend several hundred pounds on new hardware only to find it is obsolete before the linux kernel supports it.

If you're willing to trade quality and stability for the ability to use the latest whizz-bang hardware, then what's stopping you from using Windows? It's clearly not a financial consideration if you're willing to spend hundreds of pounds on hardware.

Since you fundamentally disagree with the philosophy and development path of Linux, I don't see why you would want to use it anyway. Also, any ideas you have to "improve" Linux must automatically be treated with suspicion.

Re:Stable Binary API

[Ash Vince]

Thanks for the link, I hadnt read that before but has read similar postings from Greg.

Unfortunately it did not really answer my main point. I was in no way trying to suggest that the current situation was not the best one for producing the best quality, most stable and most reliable linux kernel.

What I was trying to suggest is that this is a very one sided attitude however that does not take into account the legal issues regarding selling hardware that supports linux and can be represented as such. In many ways the link you sen confirmed this very early on with the disclaimer where the author clearly states he is not a lawyer.

I did however take on Gregs point regarding kernel developers not being paid and it being hard to force them to donate their time for free to something with no gain. I was under the impression that by now, most of the kernel developers were being paid for their time like Greg and Linus. I am not either of thems line manager though so I have no idea what it says in their job description.

All I was trying to point out is that maybe a more balanced approach was required and that allowing companies to build proprietary closed source code on top of a Linux base was a very good thing if it made Linux invaluable to the commercial world. This would help ensure it continued survival.

Try looking at the Syllable project. (http://www.syllable.org/)

This project may or may not succeed but I do think they have some valid points about developer centric design sometime stiffling linux growth in the desktop market.

Re:Fishing for Drivers: I know the problem

[Aeiri]

Link?

I don't ask for much...

[idontgno]

An open prism54 driver which works with WPA would be nice. NDISWrapper, though functional, is such a hack that I feel vaguely dirty using it.

Re:Translation

[ctzan]

'open source' was an attempt to confiscate the Free Software movement, and build a 'business model' on other people's work.

If the political & religious (sic) implications of "Free as in Freedom" make you nervous, just stay away from the whole thing.

Don't forget that FSF started by actually paying people salaries for writing free software; people have to eat in order to write software, free or proprietary.

Those 'open source' lies about people writing working software in their free time remind me of sport in socialism, where professional athletes were supposed to work hard in factories, and train only during the weekend.

Nobody is writing a functional driver at home at night after 10 or 12 hours of hard, stressing day work.

If you have to lie for corporate ideological reasons, at least don't pretend that people are actually believing you :)

Time for an insightful car analogy

[Dan Ost]

Car analogy:

The last time I used a car, I had to hand crank it myself to start it. It was completely unacceptable!

a few replies later...

From the replies, I'm glad to hear this problem fixed, but approx. 70 years ago, it was a well-known limitation of cars.

Seriously, you make broad criticisms and then admit you really don't know the current state of things? How fair is that?

Next time, be honest about the last time you used the system, state your concerns about how the system behaved then, and then ask if your experience is still relevant.

Re:Translation

[Duke]

This was one of the biggest problems with the Free Software movement before Open Source came along.. no-one talked about the benefits that businesses could get from the community. For a while, no-one talked about anything else, and then it went quiet again. RMS will tell you that we need to talk about freedom. I happen to agree, but we also need to talk about the practical advantages of open software development too.

Yeah. Why doesn't RMS have an article like this.

Uh... a list, anyone?

[Grendel Drago]

I understand that companies might be hush-hush about works in progress, but how did this article get published without even naming the one completed driver that this program has yielded? I know Greg K-H didn't say what it was, but someone could have at least asked him.

It would be extra nice if the Plustek OpticBook 3600 was on that list, but somehow I doubt it.

Re: you must have the same hardware as CUPS devs

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm a bit simple but I don't see where CUPS even has "usability" to complain about. You install it (if, oddly, it isn't already), you tell it what and where your printer are (preferably using the KDE print config thing because it's amazingly simple, but the CUPS web jigger isn't bad either), and then from then on you print, and you forget that CUPS exists. Where's the hangup? Uh, the hangup is that none of that happens. Instead, you plug in the printer(s), pull up the any of a dozen configurators (and right there you know there's a problem - or people wouldn't keep trying to rewrite the configuration tool) and whack about with it for a week.

Eventually you give up, tear out CUPS entirely, and install the Berkeley LPD, which works perfectly 100% of the time despite being a horrific mess of incomprehensible spaghetti code.

If you haven't had this experience, you lucked out, friend. But many of us weren't so lucky. I suspect CUPS is way too complicated, and has emergent behaviour that the developers can't get a grip on.

Re:Translation

[QuantumG]

Yep, and it's the best reason why RMS has totally failed to present an argument for Free Software that business finds acceptable. It took a new push to fix it. Go read some Bruce Parens sometime. There's a reason why "Open Source Software" is defined using the 4 freedoms of Free Software..

Reply Misnomer:so did he write them for free

[OldHawk777]

Volunteer firemen heroic part time job, but the volunteer part is a misnomer (I think).

Why, then, does CUPS work fine under Mac OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Was your USB printer plugged-in and powered-up when you started your system? No? Oh well. No printing for you, then. Reboot to print, or work out your own hack for CUPS, or manually get in there fix it every time you run into this stupid problem."

My Mac uses CUPS(http://developer.apple.com/printing/), and does not have any of the problems you mention with USB printers. So, are you sure this is a CUPS problem?

Re:Fishing for Drivers: I know the problem

[y86]

It was on slashdot last week, but here is the results of a quick google search on the topic: http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=288

Re:score 0 is right on

[Douglas Goodall]

AC, cursing, emotional response.

Nothing there to make your position interesting. Claiming an EE as an AC doesn't and shouldn't get you much in the way of credibility.

sd_resp2@earthshod.co.uk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey sd_resp2@earthshod.co.uk, you're one deluded control freak. Why would we make law when 90% of people are running windows on 8086/AMD64? Only a tiny minority of people (linux users) are suffering from lack of drivers, and thats their own stupid fault because they don't care about stable ABIs.

Linux is a mess; a joke; a hackers toy.