It's persumed that Gravity like the other 3 known forces (Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic) is transmitted through particles.
If that were true, then just like the three other known forces, gravity would be transmitted in waves.
The problem is that gravity is so weak that it's very difficult for us to build sensors sensitive enough to measure the wave effects of gravity, or even their absence to any level of certainty to say that gravity is simply a dent, and not a wave.
Until such time, it makes more sense to suppose that gravity behaves like the other three forces, and not like some special unique force, as much as that's how we fundamentally deal with it now.
But you have to realize that he had to BUILD that movie also. And at best, he'd have to have lugged six TVs all together, getting them all going in sync. But considering that he knows the Emperor Palpatine entrance to the frame, and TFS (summary) says that he encoded a film with all 6 movies on it...
I'd honestly say the guy spent more time than the 5 shorter movies thinking this crazy stuff up, and in all the logistics.
Anyways, the expression "Too much freetime" refers not to the efficiency of time spent, but rather what that time was spent on. If it's outright frivalous and stupid, then it's too much freetime.
I mean, I can only imagine that someone with tons of idle time on their hands would even THINK of this idea...
I am pretty sure that is not the main reason for this policy (of course it probably depends on exactly who you talk to though).
You're right. The main reason for the policy is easy of coding. Linus doesn't want to tie his hands out of fear that he might break some binary driver. And of course he's scared that if he were to break a binary driver, everyone would tell him that his kernel is broken.
So, he wants people to worry that each kernel update might break something, because it just might. and he doesn't want any sort of chilling effect for improving the kernel over something like "this might break binary drivers."
As was pointed out to me by another poster with an actual link to Linus's words.
This choice is for easy of development, and not much to do with ideology (in Linus's eyes. There are people like me, who are happy justifying it with ideology.) Linus just doesn't want to have to worry about breaking the ABI and breaking binary drivers.
He's afraid that if he has an ABI, and a binary driver interface, that it will tie his hands. Basically, "I can't change the way this works, or else I may break some binary drivers out there."
And the last thing he wants is to take an important kernel change that pushes the kernel forward, and have it break some module compiled back in 1995.
If you're bothered that Open Source doesn't target End Users, welcome to the world of Open Source. In Open Source the first line consumers of the product are the developers themselves, and anything that's more work than it's worth for them generally won't get as much air time as what everyone else thinks should be in it.
Good points on all of this. Thanks for not being a dick. I'm always happy to have arguments on slashdot that don't end with "NO YOU SHUT UP!".
So, yeah, you're right on all of that. Linus doesn't object to them on an ideological basis, but many other people probably do. They both support each other's position.
Today I was thinking about this stuff. And I realized, the next time someone tells you that evolution is just a theory, then tell them that gravity is just a theory, then drop something and say "yep, still true."
Does he really want people to recode each release to get their driver to work?
No, he wants you to fold your driver in to the main kernel, and then other people will support it for you.
Also, most kernel patches are source compatible for a long period of time. It's the binary compatibility that usually isn't guarenteed.
And no, Linus hasn't shot himself in the foot. And as much as you like to think that Linux is no longer his hobby OS, it is. Just because it's all mainstream, doesn't mean that he somehow magically has some requirement to appease anyone but himself.
Same as CmdrTaco and slashdot. It's his personal blog, and if you don't like what's showing up here, you're not being forced to read it.
Likewise, no one is forcing you to use Linux, it's one of many Operating Systems out there, and is no more so the only Free Operating System out there. If you don't want the GPL, GNU politics, or you don't like how Linus is managing the kernel, then go use FreeBSD.
I would imagine that there's nothing there that would keep them from supporting binary drivers... funny though that it doesn't have any better driver support than Linux...
What does freedom have anything to do with any of that? There are a lot of free programs (uppercase or lowercase F) that are easy to install and use; why isn't ivtv?
So fix it. That's what Freedom has to do with it.
That way the next person who comes along isn't as hopping mad as you are.
If you didn't have the Freedom that the Linux kernel gives you, then this ivtv problem would be a big black box you couldn't fix, or do anything with. Your only choice would be to kludge it to work, or throw the thing out.
The position of the GPL zealots though is that the world isn't ready to play fairly in the BSD world.
Of course, in the "perfect Free software" world, the GPL and BSD would be essentially equivalent, because everyone would be using Free software and contributing back.
No, you get annoyed and frustrated that you can't use that hardware, but you don't lose any "freedom" over it. You lose a choice, but no freedom.
I lose freedom when linux is buggy.
No, you get annoyed and frustrated. You have all the same Freedoms to go in there and fix the problem, which you don't have with Windows, and which you wouldn't have if the bug were in a binary driver.
Businesses lose freedom if they can't port their apps and drivers because of constant changes.
No, they lose money, or they drop a target market.
I lose my freedom to run the software I want because windows has more consistant api's for developers to use.
You don't have a Right to run the software you want. At this point, you're just whining that your software doesn't work for you. Sorry that happens, but we're not taking away your Freedom. Unfortunately, those other companies are taking away your choice by not supporting your desired operating system. Nothing about GNU/Linux says "you can't support me", it says "support me if you want to be Free".
This is the same deal with Microsoft campaigning in MA against Open Document. It's like, HELLO! No one said anything about you not being able to use the format, too!
These issues you raise are not Rights nor Freedoms. The Right to look inside and see what's going on with your software is however one that is granted by the GPL to everyone who uses it. And we don't make you give up that Right when things don't start to look so happy pretty and sunny.
Linus's frank point is that having to support binary drivers ties his hands.
I can argue till I'm blue in the face that it's all about ideology, because it is for me and those crazy "wackos" who wrote the GPL, and push the F/OSS community towards Freedom.
Many consumers of Linux just care about the free as in beer, and not about the Free as in speech. I personally find that sad.
Trouble is that many of these non-profit organizations are the schools who are teaching our children to use Windows and Windows only.
So make it so the beggars can be choosers. Donate time, support, and money to them so that they can use Linux. Otherwise you're just talking.
I personally don't care about what any particular person or group is using or not using. As long as Linux has its Freedom, then that's alright by me.
It's hard to imagine that at one point the US wasn't this massive super-power, and that all of these monarchial governments were looking at us and laughing saying we were a bunch of nut jobs... and we were! because we dared to place Freedom above efficiency of government.
Now, many of the same countries that laughed at us, now stand in positions relatively similar to ours, and hold to Freedom above all else. Some better, some worse, but they all see a fundamental need for Freedom as priority number one.
If the majority of people vote for terrible leaders, then how does having the right to cast a vote which doesn't have any effect make me more free than under a dictator?
Because every dictator starts off nice, but then they change, and by the time they change, it's too late to change your mind. Democracies don't work like that. You may not like what Bush is doing now, but he'll be out of office in 3~4 years, and then you don't have to worry about him ever again.
It doesn't make the minority any more free
That's been explicitly the goal of the United States, to protect the minority from the will of the majority. This is the whole idea of rights, that the decisions of the majority don't have the unequivocable force that a dictator has. In a dictatorship, the minority have absolutely no protection, but in a democracy they have a chance for a voice, and in most cases a way to defend their rights from an unjust government.
In a dictatorship-- and more generically-- in an autocracy, one person decides, and you have no reprive from that choice.
So in response to your hypothetical, I would rather be ruled by a fair dictator than a corrupt but popular democratic government. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that who cares it it's Free, free, open or whatever if it sucks?
People thought Pol Pot was a fair dictator when he started. Then he drove his country literally back to the agricultural age, and killed a significant percentage of his population.
Dictators are *never* just. That's why the US government's power is split amoung its parts. Because a benevolent dictator has empirically been shown to be an oxymoron.
There are things that make life easier that are not good things.
Having someone tell you how to vote makes life easier. But then it leads to things that you might not agree with, then you maybe realize, "maybe I shouldn't have voted for this guy, he's a jerk." or "maybe I shouldn't have voted for this proposition, man, if only I had made my life mroe complicated by actually learning about the issue rather than just taking someone else's word for it."
Easier != Good...
oh wait, unless you only care about Linux being free as in beer.
In article , H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >* Linus Torvalds has no interest whatsoever in developing such a > plug-in ABI. Someone else is welcome to do it.
No, it's even more than that.
I _refuse_ to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module.
Hannu Savolainen tried to add some layering to make the sound modules more "portable" among Linux kernel versions, and I disliked it for two reasons:
- extra layers decrease readability, and sometimes make for performance
problems. The readability thing is actually the larger beef I had
with this: I just don't want to see drivers start using some strange
wrapper format that has absolutely nothing to do with how they work.
- I _want_ people to expect that interfaces change. I _want_ people to
know that binary-only modules cannot be used from release to release.
I want people to be really really REALLY aware of the fact that when
they use a binary-only module, they tie their hands.
Note that the second point is mainly psychological, but it's by far the most important one.
Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules.
Why? Because I'm a prick, and I want people to suffer? No.
Because I _know_ that I will eventually make changes that break modules. And I want people to expect them, and I never EVER want to see an email in my mailbox that says "Damn you, Linus, I used this binary module for over two years, and it worked perfectly across 150 kernel releases, and Linux-5.6.71 broke it, and you had better fix your kernel".
See?
I refuse to be at the mercy of any binary-only module. And that's why I refuse to care about them - not because of any really technical reasons, not because I'm a callous bastard, but because I refuse to tie my hands behind my back and hear somebody say "Bend Over, Boy, Because You Have It Coming To You".
I allow binary-only modules, but I want people to know that they are _only_ ever expected to work on the one version of the kernel that they were compiled for. Anything else is just a very nice unexpected bonus if it happens to work.
And THAT, my friend, is why when somebody complains about AFS, I tell them to go screw themselves, and not come complaining to me but complain to the AFS buys and girls. And why I'm not very interested in changing that.
I've never been talking out of my butt. These are the real positions held by the people in charge of this stuff. To argue that my ideas are stupid, are to argue their ideas are stupid.
I think Linus makes a good case here why he doesn't want binary drivers, and in many ways, Linux is his kernel, and if you don't like it that way, then you're free to develop Samrobbix... You can even start from Linux, he won't mind.
Because I _know_ that I will eventually make changes that break modules. And I want people to expect them, and I never EVER want to see an email in my mailbox that says "Damn you, Linus, I used this binary module for over two years, and it worked perfectly across 150 kernel releases, and Linux-5.6.71 broke it, and you had better fix your kernel".
This is why binary drivers are worse from the kernel developer's point of view than open source drivers.
You can't do this. You can refuse to give additional updates to that code, but you're code is free for all under the GPL, you licensed it that way, and we have every right to use it as such. The only way this can be violated is if it came to light that the contributing person was encumbered, and not allowed to give that code in the first place. At which point it would be removed, and replaced in short order.
See the early SCO complaints, and why they won't tell everyone what's wrong with the Linux kernel right now. Because if they do, then we fix, and it becomes very hard to get a finding with no further infringement.
If SCO doesn't tell us what is theirs, then we can't fix it, and it stays there, and they can say that we've not taken due diligence to identify the code, and the fact that it's still there is an indication of the failure of the Linux coders to identify potentially infringing code.
If they tell us about it, then we can fix it, and it shows the courts that the community is ready and willing to not infringe on their copyrights.
It's a double-edged sword, so they're being extra careful to point it in the right direction.
But the point still remains, once you GPL code, everyone has a right to use that code so long as it remains compatible with the GPL. In the Open Source Software world, you can't take your marbles and go home, the marbles are everyone's. You can however make better marbles and refuse to share. But then you look like an idiot.
Linux is covered under the GPL. If it were about choice, it would be a BSD license.
GPL is about enacting measures to bring Freedom for all. BSD is about Freedom for all now.
What irks me is that people use the GPL, then wonder why these fanatics want to muck with it or something. They kind of make this argument like: "Where did these zealots come from?"
The short answer: They were here before you, they're the ones that set it up. If you're wondering why the GPL is being preached by a bunch of "wackos" and zealots, it's because THEY WROTE IT.
Everyone else who isn't a zealot is generally just coattailing on the GPL name.
I'm sorry Freedom is making your life hard. In the next elections, I'll be happy to tell you how to vote, so you don't have to worry about reading all those silly laws, and actually determining who would be a better candidate.
Why not Open Source Hardware? I'm up for it? What makes that even WRONG?
Seriously, what about Freedom in Hardware makes it wrong? Why would I *not* want open source hardware? What is *wrong* with open source hardware? Is there some magical physical phenomena that says that I should stop wanting Freedom just because it's a physical object?
Slashdot Mirror
It's persumed that Gravity like the other 3 known forces (Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic) is transmitted through particles.
If that were true, then just like the three other known forces, gravity would be transmitted in waves.
The problem is that gravity is so weak that it's very difficult for us to build sensors sensitive enough to measure the wave effects of gravity, or even their absence to any level of certainty to say that gravity is simply a dent, and not a wave.
Until such time, it makes more sense to suppose that gravity behaves like the other three forces, and not like some special unique force, as much as that's how we fundamentally deal with it now.
We're a small niche, but don't think we don't have a life when all this equipment is just sitting here after hours for us to play with.
Well, my friends didn't think I didn't have a life because I like to program as my hobby.
The point is that it was a humorous poke at the person, and not at all intended seriously.
I mean, seriously, some people need to just grow a sense of humor, and understand that not every insult is malicious.
But you have to realize that he had to BUILD that movie also. And at best, he'd have to have lugged six TVs all together, getting them all going in sync. But considering that he knows the Emperor Palpatine entrance to the frame, and TFS (summary) says that he encoded a film with all 6 movies on it...
I'd honestly say the guy spent more time than the 5 shorter movies thinking this crazy stuff up, and in all the logistics.
Anyways, the expression "Too much freetime" refers not to the efficiency of time spent, but rather what that time was spent on. If it's outright frivalous and stupid, then it's too much freetime.
I mean, I can only imagine that someone with tons of idle time on their hands would even THINK of this idea...
Too much free time...
I am pretty sure that is not the main reason for this policy (of course it probably depends on exactly who you talk to though).
You're right. The main reason for the policy is easy of coding. Linus doesn't want to tie his hands out of fear that he might break some binary driver. And of course he's scared that if he were to break a binary driver, everyone would tell him that his kernel is broken.
So, he wants people to worry that each kernel update might break something, because it just might. and he doesn't want any sort of chilling effect for improving the kernel over something like "this might break binary drivers."
As was pointed out to me by another poster with an actual link to Linus's words.
This choice is for easy of development, and not much to do with ideology (in Linus's eyes. There are people like me, who are happy justifying it with ideology.) Linus just doesn't want to have to worry about breaking the ABI and breaking binary drivers.
He's afraid that if he has an ABI, and a binary driver interface, that it will tie his hands. Basically, "I can't change the way this works, or else I may break some binary drivers out there."
And the last thing he wants is to take an important kernel change that pushes the kernel forward, and have it break some module compiled back in 1995.
If you're bothered that Open Source doesn't target End Users, welcome to the world of Open Source. In Open Source the first line consumers of the product are the developers themselves, and anything that's more work than it's worth for them generally won't get as much air time as what everyone else thinks should be in it.
You see that is the problem. A computer is a tool. The easier it is to use the better.
This is a position that many people take, and I can accept that.
But there are also complicated tools that the easier it is to fix, the better.
Operating Systems and drivers are in my opinion like this later case.
Good points on all of this. Thanks for not being a dick. I'm always happy to have arguments on slashdot that don't end with "NO YOU SHUT UP!".
So, yeah, you're right on all of that. Linus doesn't object to them on an ideological basis, but many other people probably do. They both support each other's position.
I'm sorry you're having trouble with these drivers.
I'm certain that Windows has drivers that work sufficiently for your needs, and are easy to install, and work.
At least then you wouldn't have to complain on slashdot how Linux's driver system is pissing you off.
Today I was thinking about this stuff. And I realized, the next time someone tells you that evolution is just a theory, then tell them that gravity is just a theory, then drop something and say "yep, still true."
Does he really want people to recode each release to get their driver to work?
No, he wants you to fold your driver in to the main kernel, and then other people will support it for you.
Also, most kernel patches are source compatible for a long period of time. It's the binary compatibility that usually isn't guarenteed.
And no, Linus hasn't shot himself in the foot. And as much as you like to think that Linux is no longer his hobby OS, it is. Just because it's all mainstream, doesn't mean that he somehow magically has some requirement to appease anyone but himself.
Same as CmdrTaco and slashdot. It's his personal blog, and if you don't like what's showing up here, you're not being forced to read it.
Likewise, no one is forcing you to use Linux, it's one of many Operating Systems out there, and is no more so the only Free Operating System out there. If you don't want the GPL, GNU politics, or you don't like how Linus is managing the kernel, then go use FreeBSD.
I would imagine that there's nothing there that would keep them from supporting binary drivers... funny though that it doesn't have any better driver support than Linux...
What does freedom have anything to do with any of that? There are a lot of free programs (uppercase or lowercase F) that are easy to install and use; why isn't ivtv?
So fix it. That's what Freedom has to do with it.
That way the next person who comes along isn't as hopping mad as you are.
If you didn't have the Freedom that the Linux kernel gives you, then this ivtv problem would be a big black box you couldn't fix, or do anything with. Your only choice would be to kludge it to work, or throw the thing out.
Yeah, BSD is definitely more Free (as in speech)
The position of the GPL zealots though is that the world isn't ready to play fairly in the BSD world.
Of course, in the "perfect Free software" world, the GPL and BSD would be essentially equivalent, because everyone would be using Free software and contributing back.
Of course, this sort of utopia could never exist.
I lose freedom when I have unsupported hardware.
No, you get annoyed and frustrated that you can't use that hardware, but you don't lose any "freedom" over it. You lose a choice, but no freedom.
I lose freedom when linux is buggy.
No, you get annoyed and frustrated. You have all the same Freedoms to go in there and fix the problem, which you don't have with Windows, and which you wouldn't have if the bug were in a binary driver.
Businesses lose freedom if they can't port their apps and drivers because of constant changes.
No, they lose money, or they drop a target market.
I lose my freedom to run the software I want because windows has more consistant api's for developers to use.
You don't have a Right to run the software you want. At this point, you're just whining that your software doesn't work for you. Sorry that happens, but we're not taking away your Freedom. Unfortunately, those other companies are taking away your choice by not supporting your desired operating system. Nothing about GNU/Linux says "you can't support me", it says "support me if you want to be Free".
This is the same deal with Microsoft campaigning in MA against Open Document. It's like, HELLO! No one said anything about you not being able to use the format, too!
These issues you raise are not Rights nor Freedoms. The Right to look inside and see what's going on with your software is however one that is granted by the GPL to everyone who uses it. And we don't make you give up that Right when things don't start to look so happy pretty and sunny.
This is like not being allowed to put a custom engine in your car unless it's approved by your auto maker according to their standards.
http://lkml.org/lkml/1999/2/8/13
Linus's frank point is that having to support binary drivers ties his hands.
I can argue till I'm blue in the face that it's all about ideology, because it is for me and those crazy "wackos" who wrote the GPL, and push the F/OSS community towards Freedom.
Many consumers of Linux just care about the free as in beer, and not about the Free as in speech. I personally find that sad.
Trouble is that many of these non-profit organizations are the schools who are teaching our children to use Windows and Windows only.
So make it so the beggars can be choosers. Donate time, support, and money to them so that they can use Linux. Otherwise you're just talking.
I personally don't care about what any particular person or group is using or not using. As long as Linux has its Freedom, then that's alright by me.
It's hard to imagine that at one point the US wasn't this massive super-power, and that all of these monarchial governments were looking at us and laughing saying we were a bunch of nut jobs... and we were! because we dared to place Freedom above efficiency of government.
Now, many of the same countries that laughed at us, now stand in positions relatively similar to ours, and hold to Freedom above all else. Some better, some worse, but they all see a fundamental need for Freedom as priority number one.
If the majority of people vote for terrible leaders, then how does having the right to cast a vote which doesn't have any effect make me more free than under a dictator?
Because every dictator starts off nice, but then they change, and by the time they change, it's too late to change your mind. Democracies don't work like that. You may not like what Bush is doing now, but he'll be out of office in 3~4 years, and then you don't have to worry about him ever again.
It doesn't make the minority any more free
That's been explicitly the goal of the United States, to protect the minority from the will of the majority. This is the whole idea of rights, that the decisions of the majority don't have the unequivocable force that a dictator has. In a dictatorship, the minority have absolutely no protection, but in a democracy they have a chance for a voice, and in most cases a way to defend their rights from an unjust government.
In a dictatorship-- and more generically-- in an autocracy, one person decides, and you have no reprive from that choice.
So in response to your hypothetical, I would rather be ruled by a fair dictator than a corrupt but popular democratic government. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that who cares it it's Free, free, open or whatever if it sucks?
People thought Pol Pot was a fair dictator when he started. Then he drove his country literally back to the agricultural age, and killed a significant percentage of his population.
Dictators are *never* just. That's why the US government's power is split amoung its parts. Because a benevolent dictator has empirically been shown to be an oxymoron.
There are things that make life easier that are not good things.
Having someone tell you how to vote makes life easier. But then it leads to things that you might not agree with, then you maybe realize, "maybe I shouldn't have voted for this guy, he's a jerk." or "maybe I shouldn't have voted for this proposition, man, if only I had made my life mroe complicated by actually learning about the issue rather than just taking someone else's word for it."
Easier != Good...
oh wait, unless you only care about Linux being free as in beer.
This is why binary drivers are worse from the kernel developer's point of view than open source drivers.
You can't do this. You can refuse to give additional updates to that code, but you're code is free for all under the GPL, you licensed it that way, and we have every right to use it as such. The only way this can be violated is if it came to light that the contributing person was encumbered, and not allowed to give that code in the first place. At which point it would be removed, and replaced in short order.
See the early SCO complaints, and why they won't tell everyone what's wrong with the Linux kernel right now. Because if they do, then we fix, and it becomes very hard to get a finding with no further infringement.
If SCO doesn't tell us what is theirs, then we can't fix it, and it stays there, and they can say that we've not taken due diligence to identify the code, and the fact that it's still there is an indication of the failure of the Linux coders to identify potentially infringing code.
If they tell us about it, then we can fix it, and it shows the courts that the community is ready and willing to not infringe on their copyrights.
It's a double-edged sword, so they're being extra careful to point it in the right direction.
But the point still remains, once you GPL code, everyone has a right to use that code so long as it remains compatible with the GPL. In the Open Source Software world, you can't take your marbles and go home, the marbles are everyone's. You can however make better marbles and refuse to share. But then you look like an idiot.
Off searching for the other respondants post:
Ok, Linus's goals may not be the same fundamental ideology that I'm advancing, but they're still the same fundamental goal: Binary drivers bad.
I thought Linux was about choice?
Linux is covered under the GPL. If it were about choice, it would be a BSD license.
GPL is about enacting measures to bring Freedom for all.
BSD is about Freedom for all now.
What irks me is that people use the GPL, then wonder why these fanatics want to muck with it or something. They kind of make this argument like: "Where did these zealots come from?"
The short answer: They were here before you, they're the ones that set it up. If you're wondering why the GPL is being preached by a bunch of "wackos" and zealots, it's because THEY WROTE IT.
Everyone else who isn't a zealot is generally just coattailing on the GPL name.
I'm sorry Freedom is making your life hard. In the next elections, I'll be happy to tell you how to vote, so you don't have to worry about reading all those silly laws, and actually determining who would be a better candidate.
One Word: Freedom
Why not Open Source Hardware? I'm up for it? What makes that even WRONG?
Seriously, what about Freedom in Hardware makes it wrong? Why would I *not* want open source hardware? What is *wrong* with open source hardware? Is there some magical physical phenomena that says that I should stop wanting Freedom just because it's a physical object?
I personally don't believe that way.