Well, that's one way to put it. I've seen another model of compromise - the XAnim codecs. They were distributed as object files so you could link them into the player if you want to. Besides, I think protecting any information that resides in the drivers is utterly pointless, because if your competition has to go to your sources they are already late for the market (for most cases anyway) and if not, well, they can reverse-engineer the binary driver anyway. The driver is useless without the hardware. The way I see it, the only thing you might need to protect is protocol implementations. In that case you could just release an object file, with an API that could be wrapped into the current kernel API. That would solve it, at least for a couple of kernel versions - at which point you probably have to release a new version anyway to add features and fix bugs. Open source for drivers would be preferred, but I agree with people saying that stable driver is more important. --cut this crap
Well, I'd say this interview really comes to a point not discussed too much. It's easy to be an extremist and say that everything should be open sourced and it's the solution to all world's software problems. The truth is different, however. Open source model works well and should be promoted in operating systems and hardware drivers plus a multitude of basic services (such as mail delivery, windowing system and GUI widget library). What I really can't see is what do hardware companies think, if they don't publish programming information or open source drivers for their products. That is a true win-win situation. They sell more hardware (they don't get any extra money for the drivers anyway) and the user is more safe with the thing - having the source means that you can always get someone port the drivers to your new system, if you have to change. When it comes to application software, things are a bit different. Most applications really should NOT be designed by programmers, but people that have to use them. Another thing with open sourced apps is that you have millions of apps for the same purpose, which all have their own flaws, if nothing else, then rapidly changing configuration files and incompatible support libraries. It's really annoying to find a new RPM of your favourite app, and notice you'll have to update half your system. Using sources does not usually help, because the source won't compile unless you update something. All this is relatively easy if you have a fast link at home, but... My conclusion: Open up OSes, drivers and services. That's what everybody owning a computer must have anyway. The companies would use their resources much more effectively in things that require usability study and involve large (complex) pieces of software.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's one way to put it. I've seen another model of compromise - the XAnim codecs. They were distributed as object files so you could link them into the player if you want to. Besides, I think protecting any information that resides in the drivers is utterly pointless, because if your competition has to go to your sources they are already late for the market (for most cases anyway) and if not, well, they can reverse-engineer the binary driver anyway. The driver is useless without the hardware. The way I see it, the only thing you might need to protect is protocol implementations. In that case you could just release an object file, with an API that could be wrapped into the current kernel API. That would solve it, at least for a couple of kernel versions - at which point you probably have to release a new version anyway to add features and fix bugs. Open source for drivers would be preferred, but I agree with people saying that stable driver is more important. --cut this crap
Well, I'd say this interview really comes to a point not discussed too much. It's easy to be an extremist and say that everything should be open sourced and it's the solution to all world's software problems. The truth is different, however. Open source model works well and should be promoted in operating systems and hardware drivers plus a multitude of basic services (such as mail delivery, windowing system and GUI widget library). What I really can't see is what do hardware companies think, if they don't publish programming information or open source drivers for their products. That is a true win-win situation. They sell more hardware (they don't get any extra money for the drivers anyway) and the user is more safe with the thing - having the source means that you can always get someone port the drivers to your new system, if you have to change.
When it comes to application software, things are a bit different. Most applications really should NOT be designed by programmers, but people that have to use them. Another thing with open sourced apps is that you have millions of apps for the same purpose, which all have their own flaws, if nothing else, then rapidly changing configuration files and incompatible support libraries. It's really annoying to find a new RPM of your favourite app, and notice you'll have to update half your system. Using sources does not usually help, because the source won't compile unless you update something. All this is relatively easy if you have a fast link at home, but...
My conclusion: Open up OSes, drivers and services. That's what everybody owning a computer must have anyway. The companies would use their resources much more effectively in things that require usability study and involve large (complex) pieces of software.
--End this crap.