Update to The Magic Cauldron

Eric S. Raymond wrote in to tell us that he has updated The Magic Cauldron (his essay on economics and Open Source) to contain an appendix on common arguments for keeping device drivers closed (Pay attention Creative Labs!) He also says "The argument turns on the fact that drivers are small pieces of code, easy to disassemble if need be. This argument would be considerably strengthened if I could point readers at a working set of tools for disassembling Windows drivers into recompileable source (or even just assembly) code. I would appreciate pointers to any such tools."

Comments

When are consumers going to get mad???

[Cptn Proton]

Forget the open source movement for a moment. It seems that the lifetime for computer hardware is incredibly short. By keeping the source to driver software closed manufactures accomplish;

1) Decrease the life of the product, shortening support obligations.

2) Hide any shortcomings to their hardware product, saving on warranty obligations.

3) Forcing the consumer to upgrade by preventing product 'enhancments', or fixing 'problems'

4) Reveal design shortcomings to the competition.

Some wise man said that a there are two reasons someone does something. A good reason, and the _real_ reason. The arguement that it protects proprietarty technology is in most instances completely false, as many chip makers release 'reference' designs to many hardware manufactures, who in turn make only small changes to the basic design. And any valid 'proprietary' enhancements there may be are quickly undone when the next competing product hits the market. So companies are left with the real reason - less hassle and more money.

I do not think that is enough that you argue politely the benifits of open source. Consumers are going have to get tired of being on the endless upgrade mill of expensive hardware and the expensive bloated code to use it. How much power do you need to write a letter or balance a checkbook?

Maybe then we would see real innovation in the computer industry instead of creeping featurism.

The only way that you are going to see open source from a manufacture is if it is legislated by congress answering the demand of angry consumers who catch on. IBM's Aptiva MWAVE is a classic example of the above. Cut and paste the link below into your browser.

http://members.aol.com/mbs1058/mwave/classact.ht ml

reverse engineering resources

[unc_onnected]

information on how to reverse engineer is all over the web. fravia, the first site listed, is by far the most detailed, has been around a very long time, and has at least 6 mirrors, in europe, asia, a couple in the usa, etc.

fravia (east coast)

decompilation page

sandman

greythorne

The more interesting question is, given that most of these sites have been around so long, why dont we see more reverse-engineering of software going on? i think the availability of all this information (especially on fravia) weakens esr's argument significantly. regardless of what he says, reverse-engineering is really, really difficult, even for small pieces of code. i dont think he'll convince very many people based on that argument.

As for the appropriate tools, a while ago i found copies of wdasm and softice using ftpsearch (remember, one version of softice was a fully operational time-demo which could be cracked by itself). much of the other stuff you might need that ive seen are freeware or shareware.

unc_

Wrong approach

[Bruce Perens]

Eric's arguments are valid, but he's missing the primary motivator for hardware vendors. If you don't open the source for your device drivers, we will not buy your hardware. We are a market force now, and don't have to rely on threats of reverse-engineering any longer.

Chip vendors don't like this because they don't want their competitors to use their own documentation to produce drop-in replacements for their components. They use trade-secret because it's the cheapest form of protection. However, if they have to open their interfaces to get their chips designed into Linux systems, they will publish their documents and use patents and copyright as protection against their hardware competitors.

Thanks

Bruce