Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the can-you-hear-what-I'm-saying dept.
CaNeS
was the first of many to write in and tell us that
Creative Labs now has a beta driver for the Sound Blaster Live!
available on their ftp site.
Alas, they are only binaries, but its a start.
A response to Creative Labs
by
knghtbrd
·
· Score: 5
If all of you were expecting a big, long letter to Creative talking to them about the advantages of Free Software and Open Source, you won't find it today. Oh I could spend the time to write all of that, but only their techs would likely understand it fully and their suits would just not get it. So I'll skip the details on why and just focus on the what:
Creative Labs,
I am pleased to see that you are taking an interest in the Linux platform. I am also pleased that you are now releasing driver support for one of your most interesting products, the SB Live. However, I regret to say that I have not purchased and do not plan to purchase your product at any point in the near future because of what I believe is a lack of sufficcient support for your products. I have seen and was impressed by the SB Live, and would happily reconsider my decision not to purchase your product should the issues I see with support be resolved.
The number one issue I see with support is source code. Without it, I could never right mindedly purchase your product. The only way to use the SB Live is with a software driver. On the Linux platform, these drivers are in the form of kernel modules. Without source, I must wait for you to release a new module every time I wish to upgrade my kernel. This delay is unacceptable to me, and I will not limit myself to the kernel versions you have decided to support.
Additionally, binary only kernel modules pose a significant security and system stability risk. I am not saying necessarily that bugs would not happen--they will. And I'm not saying the coders in the community can fix a problem once discovered any quicker than your in-house coders could--likely they can't. What I am saying is that with published code there are more eyes watching. Bugs are found quicker simply because more people can work to track them down.
Please consider it. The Linux community tends to best support those who best support us.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Binary-only is not good enough.
I've got a plan for the next computer I build. It will have a Matrox G200, because a) it's probably the best 2D card out there, and b) Matrox released all the specs for the G200. I will be sending a snail mail letter to Matrox & ATI, and possibly Nvidia (depending on their TNT 3D path - source or no source) telling them exactly why I bought what I did. The same thing goes for the sound card. I'll be buying one based on the Trident 4D wave chip - because Trident themselves developed an ALSA driver for it. Creative and Trident wil be getting letters on that.
Why am I planning to go to such lengths? Because I want people to know I support companies who support us. I might never modify my GLX module (or whatever) for the Matrox G200. But I want the ability to do that. I want to know that if I buy myself an Alpha, that it will probably work on that too - and if it doesn't, I can probably make it work there.
Creative: If you want Linux people to buy your cards, give the source of this to Alan Cox for inclusion in his -ac series. It will rapidly get tested, bugfixed, and then I will consider taking you off my 'blacklist' - where you currently enjoy the company of corporations such as ATI. I influence the purchasing habits of a large group of people, and I consistently tell them not to buy ATI cards - because better cards abound. I reccomend against Creative, too.
You can have your intellectual property - but you can't have my money.
Re:Source release isn't strictly up to Creative
by
splaytree
·
· Score: 3
Emu Systems (Emu-Ensoniq as it is called now) is a wholly owned subsidary of Creative Labs. If they want to release the source code to the SBLive! drivers, they can. It's all up to Creative, not Emu.
Slashdot Mirror
Creative Labs,
I am pleased to see that you are taking an interest in the Linux platform. I am also pleased that you are now releasing driver support for one of your most interesting products, the SB Live. However, I regret to say that I have not purchased and do not plan to purchase your product at any point in the near future because of what I believe is a lack of sufficcient support for your products. I have seen and was impressed by the SB Live, and would happily reconsider my decision not to purchase your product should the issues I see with support be resolved.
The number one issue I see with support is source code. Without it, I could never right mindedly purchase your product. The only way to use the SB Live is with a software driver. On the Linux platform, these drivers are in the form of kernel modules. Without source, I must wait for you to release a new module every time I wish to upgrade my kernel. This delay is unacceptable to me, and I will not limit myself to the kernel versions you have decided to support.
Additionally, binary only kernel modules pose a significant security and system stability risk. I am not saying necessarily that bugs would not happen--they will. And I'm not saying the coders in the community can fix a problem once discovered any quicker than your in-house coders could--likely they can't. What I am saying is that with published code there are more eyes watching. Bugs are found quicker simply because more people can work to track them down.
Please consider it. The Linux community tends to best support those who best support us.
I've got a plan for the next computer I build. It will have a Matrox G200, because a) it's probably the best 2D card out there, and b) Matrox released all the specs for the G200. I will be sending a snail mail letter to Matrox & ATI, and possibly Nvidia (depending on their TNT 3D path - source or no source) telling them exactly why I bought what I did. The same thing goes for the sound card. I'll be buying one based on the Trident 4D wave chip - because Trident themselves developed an ALSA driver for it. Creative and Trident wil be getting letters on that.
Why am I planning to go to such lengths? Because I want people to know I support companies who support us . I might never modify my GLX module (or whatever) for the Matrox G200. But I want the ability to do that. I want to know that if I buy myself an Alpha, that it will probably work on that too - and if it doesn't, I can probably make it work there.
Creative: If you want Linux people to buy your cards, give the source of this to Alan Cox for inclusion in his -ac series. It will rapidly get tested, bugfixed, and then I will consider taking you off my 'blacklist' - where you currently enjoy the company of corporations such as ATI. I influence the purchasing habits of a large group of people, and I consistently tell them not to buy ATI cards - because better cards abound. I reccomend against Creative, too.
You can have your intellectual property - but you can't have my money.
Emu Systems (Emu-Ensoniq as it is called now) is a wholly owned subsidary of Creative Labs. If they want to release the source code to the SBLive! drivers, they can. It's all up to Creative, not Emu.