they're still telling you what you can do.. they're ALL restrictive in some way. if you must complain about the gpl then you must also complain about nvidia's.
1. as opposed to proprietary morons at nvidia who hide their secret bits in the driver of all places where they can be teased out by anyone with a debugger and binutils?
2. the world decided that microkernel performance impacts aren't worth the benefits a long time ago. give it up already.. All modern os's have graphics card components in the kernel. X11 does not suck any worse than the rest.
3. at least you have the source for your sticks. if you choose you can fix it. you can also port it to whatever system you have later on. can't say the same for binaries..
4. infinite stability brings progress stagnation. it's nvidia who needs to step up to the plate. they don't even need to hire any developers, just give docs to nouveau.
5. people like you seem to love high latency. The reason most of that is in the kernel is to cut down on that. userland drivers are sloooow.
no, but if I had to choose between hearing 'fuck' a lot mixed with direct statements of intent and purpose, I'd take that over the unbelievably passive aggressive and cowardly behavior typical of today's adult interaction. The swearing would be a refreshing breeze in a stifling heat where suddenly everyone's allowed to say what they're thinking without being fired by insecure management. Insecurity is the mother of passive aggression..
..or you know, since nvidia wants to take advantage of the efforts of the devs, they could follow the damn license the code is under in the first place and progress sucking things like ABIs for internal structures wouldn't be needed. Also, they would not save you if the kernel was ported. A blob targeted at x86 will not run on arm..
1. proprietary licenses are no less political than the gpl. they're all about control.
2. it would be vastly shittier if the kernel couldn't be properly ported or debugged because it was riddled with countless blobs from one-shot vendors whose products have support lifecycles of 1 year or less.. if the developers cave to nvidia, they'll have to cave to everyone. this is FAR worse than losing one vendor..
3. they were given a 'fuck you' because nvidia's been giving the community a 'fuck you' for the last decade. they won't even help the nouveau project with documentation! They don't 'have' to open their own driver, but they could offer an olive branch with docs and some suggestions.. but no, they don't. so here we are.. Now, they are asking for even more access to kernel internals (this happened with nvidia before), which if broken by nvidia, will cause more strife for them when distros forward user complaints about crashes. Really, the secret bits should be in the silicon or the gpu firmware and not in the driver.
4. People running linux on CAD and graphics workstations asked for it. That's the target market. nvidia has interests here. the driver was not some altruistic gift at all. linux has amd and intel for gpu vendors. they don't need nvidia. nvidia needs linux if it wants to retain access to that market.
5. I agree. nvidia's gpus are far better than intels, but from a development perspective, I would not want to have to debug around and hack shims for dozens of blobs either.
It's not tainting third party software any more than binary only blobs taint gpl software. It neuters the users' ability to debug and port which are fundamental rights under the gpl. A lot of devices are sold now that say 'open source firmware' on the box, but what they aren't telling you is that the binary only drivers basically require the firmware as shipped and make it impossible to truly repurpose the hardware.
You can't have a stable abi when your kernel runs on a dozen archs.. This would also retard kernel progress. There really is no need for a stable driver ABI when the drivers are supposed to be gpld in the first place.. If you want a stable ABI, choose a kernel version, gcc version, and libc version, and stick with them. there's no reason the kernel devs should prop up your control freak wet dream..
that is EXACTLY what a license does. It pushes a set of restrictions onto the user as a condition for using the software. ALL licenses do this so they are all ideologically driven. The only exception would be public domain..
No, this happened awhile ago too.. The kernel devs locked off a piece of the kernel code behind the GPL that the nvidia module was using, breaking it. This tussle is more of the same, over a new kernel feature this time.
That's what the kernel devs have done.. If your module is gpl2, it gets full source access as it can be debugged and ported as linux is debugged and ported. If it's closed, you get a subset so that any breakage in your module does not cause headaches for them or impede the value of linux. makes sense to me.
...and if they let nvidia have their way, dozens of other vendors will demand the same and linux will end up as riddled with blobs and thus as undebuggable and unportable as android. Thus alan and co lose anyway. Better to fight..
if 'linux people' don't stand up for the reasons behind their licensing structure, they lose anyway as their project gets riddled with more and more blobs that cripple portability and debugging. better to stand up and fail than not to.
1. high end routers are all proprietary anyway, making the bsd licensing of some components irrelevant to the issue between proprietary and gpl.
2. android is also a fucking mess as a result. It's riddled with binary blobs that break, making upgrading devices to current versions nearly impossible. I'ts like building a house with toothpicks. I can see why the kernel devs want none of that in the kernel.
3. I'll bet the reason for it was that, at the time, linux was more easily portable to broadcom than any of the bsds, so linksys used it for the original wrt line. like it, there are plenty of modern home routers that suffer from blob disease, nullifying the point of open source in the first place.
..and this would be the point where you lose the high ground. You're now stooping to the behavior you've accused the kernel devs of taking part in. In your example, the kernel is their ball and the driver is yours, and each side is now telling the other to take it or leave it with passive aggressive behavior. Even if the kernel devs allowed nvidia full access, what happens to the kernel when they allow dozens of other vendors the same? The result will be riddled with dozens of blobs, making debugging and portability impossible. It's what happened to android, and that thing's a mess.
Perhaps the answer is to move the secret bits to the silicon and/or silicon specific firmware?
1. KDE isn't much different than windows. Same with XFCE. As far as the end user goes today, that IS the OS. If people are willing to tolerate lack of hardware support in OSX, they can surely handle it in linux as it supports a lot more peripheral hw than OSX ever will. If you want custom/esoteric peripheral support, there are only two os's likely to have support: windows and linux.
2. It survives because a lot of people all over the world, individuals and corporates, contribute, and this is because it gives them value to do so. You are obviously wrong here.
3. Actually, the most awesome things in life are usually not the most popular. Innovation rarely comes from the bottom barrel feeder whose interests you defend so strongly here. To me, mainstream software made in the last 10 years is almost unusable dreck, designed for mouth breathing idiots who are far less capable than the average user it claims to target. I'm glad there are still OS's out there meant to empower users instead of making assumptions about the needs of the bottom barrel. While your favorite OS (windows I assume) is having more and more of its useful guts stripped out and replaced with eye candy and clunky interfaces meant for other platforms grafted onto it, I still have something useful to use. There was a time when I thought windows really had the best overall useful interface (win2k), but that time has passed unfortunately.
Why should the kernel devs have to take on the added load of debugging around binary blobs? If you want to make binary blobs for the kernel, well this is allowed, but the onus is on you to maintain compatibility as internal structures change. The API for non gpl code is limited so that 'damage' caused by buggy binaries can be traced back to them easily and not waste too much kernel dev time. If your driver is gpl2, it can be folded into the kernel tree and given incremental changes along with the rest of the kernel. If not, it can't. Nor can it be debugged. Obviously, this touches on the ABI argument, but like many have said, the lack of one enables faster development of new features and new hardware platform support. You can't expect a kernel module compiled for x86 to work on ARM.. If you want a stable ABI, stick with one kernel revision, gcc toolchain, and libc. A lot of guys do this, but unfortunately, they mislabel their products as 'open source' on the box only for the consumer to find out that they can't really load anything else other than the shipped firmware because of all the binary blobs.. Even microsoft's ABIs change periodically, causing grief when consumers can't get their shipped binaries to work with the new os making their peripherals useless.
Hardware vendors really need to start hiding their secret bits in the silicon itself if they must. The os driver should just act as an interface. I realize these days a lot of drivers offload functionality into the driver, but these companies need to reconsider whether they're hardware or software producers and use an appropriate model. If it's more complex than a simple interface (contains custom algorithms/proprietary designs and the like), perhaps it should be moved to userspace (which does have a stable ABI) or kept in the silicon (or even platform agnostic firmware).
Actually, neither the right to privacy (unless you count 'secure in your person' in the 4th amendment) nor the right to not get spam are defined.. given a choice, I'd rather get spam than lose my privacy..and if marketing was opt in in the first place, spam would hardly be a problem in the first place.
Just because most people think something is true doesn't mean that it is. Those parents are welcome to follow the advice. Just because some don't, doesn't mean the state should enforce blanket laws that cannot ever possibly take into account individual situations (without a ton of bureaucratic overhead that costs everyone even more money). The state is not us. The state is a collection of people who, when at work, are now in a group with value-added powers. This combination of group mentality and power creates slavish worship of various ideologies which are then forced on the rest of us under the guise of 'safety' (or 'freedom' when they're feeling especially bold). They might be 'us' when they're home as individuals, but comparing the state to the latter is dead wrong.
I find the ivory tower vacuum huffers to be just as suspect as the uneducated citizen. Like their college classmates in the government, they also suffer from drinking too much koolaid.. I am VERY suspicious of any 'studies' on politically hot topics these days.
More like pro darwin. Why should my life choices be restricted to legislated white lists because someone else is stupid? The limitations on my existence at this point are mostly defined by pointless legislation and a general whitewashing/dumbing down of my choices..
yeah you know what? the day I need to use biometrics or some other bullshit involuntarily used to 'authorize' me to my devices and the vendor strings that pull them, is the day I quit using tech altogether.
It matters because the concept of empower the user is being replaced by trapping the user into a platform. It's not just about the form factor, it's about the concept that spawned the PC. This is what really separates all those other gadgets from it.
Slashdot Mirror
they're still telling you what you can do.. they're ALL restrictive in some way. if you must complain about the gpl then you must also complain about nvidia's.
1. as opposed to proprietary morons at nvidia who hide their secret bits in the driver of all places where they can be teased out by anyone with a debugger and binutils?
2. the world decided that microkernel performance impacts aren't worth the benefits a long time ago. give it up already.. All modern os's have graphics card components in the kernel. X11 does not suck any worse than the rest.
3. at least you have the source for your sticks. if you choose you can fix it. you can also port it to whatever system you have later on. can't say the same for binaries..
4. infinite stability brings progress stagnation. it's nvidia who needs to step up to the plate. they don't even need to hire any developers, just give docs to nouveau.
5. people like you seem to love high latency. The reason most of that is in the kernel is to cut down on that. userland drivers are sloooow.
no, but if I had to choose between hearing 'fuck' a lot mixed with direct statements of intent and purpose, I'd take that over the unbelievably passive aggressive and cowardly behavior typical of today's adult interaction. The swearing would be a refreshing breeze in a stifling heat where suddenly everyone's allowed to say what they're thinking without being fired by insecure management. Insecurity is the mother of passive aggression..
..or you know, since nvidia wants to take advantage of the efforts of the devs, they could follow the damn license the code is under in the first place and progress sucking things like ABIs for internal structures wouldn't be needed. Also, they would not save you if the kernel was ported. A blob targeted at x86 will not run on arm..
1. proprietary licenses are no less political than the gpl. they're all about control.
2. it would be vastly shittier if the kernel couldn't be properly ported or debugged because it was riddled with countless blobs from one-shot vendors whose products have support lifecycles of 1 year or less.. if the developers cave to nvidia, they'll have to cave to everyone. this is FAR worse than losing one vendor..
3. they were given a 'fuck you' because nvidia's been giving the community a 'fuck you' for the last decade. they won't even help the nouveau project with documentation! They don't 'have' to open their own driver, but they could offer an olive branch with docs and some suggestions.. but no, they don't. so here we are.. Now, they are asking for even more access to kernel internals (this happened with nvidia before), which if broken by nvidia, will cause more strife for them when distros forward user complaints about crashes. Really, the secret bits should be in the silicon or the gpu firmware and not in the driver.
4. People running linux on CAD and graphics workstations asked for it. That's the target market. nvidia has interests here. the driver was not some altruistic gift at all. linux has amd and intel for gpu vendors. they don't need nvidia. nvidia needs linux if it wants to retain access to that market.
5. I agree. nvidia's gpus are far better than intels, but from a development perspective, I would not want to have to debug around and hack shims for dozens of blobs either.
It's not tainting third party software any more than binary only blobs taint gpl software. It neuters the users' ability to debug and port which are fundamental rights under the gpl. A lot of devices are sold now that say 'open source firmware' on the box, but what they aren't telling you is that the binary only drivers basically require the firmware as shipped and make it impossible to truly repurpose the hardware.
You can't have a stable abi when your kernel runs on a dozen archs.. This would also retard kernel progress. There really is no need for a stable driver ABI when the drivers are supposed to be gpld in the first place.. If you want a stable ABI, choose a kernel version, gcc version, and libc version, and stick with them. there's no reason the kernel devs should prop up your control freak wet dream..
well hey they were the dumbasses who put those secret bits into the driver instead of into the silicon where it belongs!
that is EXACTLY what a license does. It pushes a set of restrictions onto the user as a condition for using the software. ALL licenses do this so they are all ideologically driven. The only exception would be public domain..
this is typical FUD. ALL license use must be tracked this way..
No, this happened awhile ago too.. The kernel devs locked off a piece of the kernel code behind the GPL that the nvidia module was using, breaking it. This tussle is more of the same, over a new kernel feature this time.
That's what the kernel devs have done.. If your module is gpl2, it gets full source access as it can be debugged and ported as linux is debugged and ported. If it's closed, you get a subset so that any breakage in your module does not cause headaches for them or impede the value of linux. makes sense to me.
...and if they let nvidia have their way, dozens of other vendors will demand the same and linux will end up as riddled with blobs and thus as undebuggable and unportable as android. Thus alan and co lose anyway. Better to fight..
if 'linux people' don't stand up for the reasons behind their licensing structure, they lose anyway as their project gets riddled with more and more blobs that cripple portability and debugging. better to stand up and fail than not to.
1. high end routers are all proprietary anyway, making the bsd licensing of some components irrelevant to the issue between proprietary and gpl.
2. android is also a fucking mess as a result. It's riddled with binary blobs that break, making upgrading devices to current versions nearly impossible. I'ts like building a house with toothpicks. I can see why the kernel devs want none of that in the kernel.
3. I'll bet the reason for it was that, at the time, linux was more easily portable to broadcom than any of the bsds, so linksys used it for the original wrt line. like it, there are plenty of modern home routers that suffer from blob disease, nullifying the point of open source in the first place.
fallacy. It's possible to be a major player and not be prioprietary. Linux has done this, just not on the desktop.
..and this would be the point where you lose the high ground. You're now stooping to the behavior you've accused the kernel devs of taking part in. In your example, the kernel is their ball and the driver is yours, and each side is now telling the other to take it or leave it with passive aggressive behavior. Even if the kernel devs allowed nvidia full access, what happens to the kernel when they allow dozens of other vendors the same? The result will be riddled with dozens of blobs, making debugging and portability impossible. It's what happened to android, and that thing's a mess.
Perhaps the answer is to move the secret bits to the silicon and/or silicon specific firmware?
What back door?
1. KDE isn't much different than windows. Same with XFCE. As far as the end user goes today, that IS the OS. If people are willing to tolerate lack of hardware support in OSX, they can surely handle it in linux as it supports a lot more peripheral hw than OSX ever will. If you want custom/esoteric peripheral support, there are only two os's likely to have support: windows and linux.
2. It survives because a lot of people all over the world, individuals and corporates, contribute, and this is because it gives them value to do so. You are obviously wrong here.
3. Actually, the most awesome things in life are usually not the most popular. Innovation rarely comes from the bottom barrel feeder whose interests you defend so strongly here. To me, mainstream software made in the last 10 years is almost unusable dreck, designed for mouth breathing idiots who are far less capable than the average user it claims to target. I'm glad there are still OS's out there meant to empower users instead of making assumptions about the needs of the bottom barrel. While your favorite OS (windows I assume) is having more and more of its useful guts stripped out and replaced with eye candy and clunky interfaces meant for other platforms grafted onto it, I still have something useful to use. There was a time when I thought windows really had the best overall useful interface (win2k), but that time has passed unfortunately.
Why should the kernel devs have to take on the added load of debugging around binary blobs? If you want to make binary blobs for the kernel, well this is allowed, but the onus is on you to maintain compatibility as internal structures change. The API for non gpl code is limited so that 'damage' caused by buggy binaries can be traced back to them easily and not waste too much kernel dev time. If your driver is gpl2, it can be folded into the kernel tree and given incremental changes along with the rest of the kernel. If not, it can't. Nor can it be debugged. Obviously, this touches on the ABI argument, but like many have said, the lack of one enables faster development of new features and new hardware platform support. You can't expect a kernel module compiled for x86 to work on ARM.. If you want a stable ABI, stick with one kernel revision, gcc toolchain, and libc. A lot of guys do this, but unfortunately, they mislabel their products as 'open source' on the box only for the consumer to find out that they can't really load anything else other than the shipped firmware because of all the binary blobs.. Even microsoft's ABIs change periodically, causing grief when consumers can't get their shipped binaries to work with the new os making their peripherals useless.
Hardware vendors really need to start hiding their secret bits in the silicon itself if they must. The os driver should just act as an interface. I realize these days a lot of drivers offload functionality into the driver, but these companies need to reconsider whether they're hardware or software producers and use an appropriate model. If it's more complex than a simple interface (contains custom algorithms/proprietary designs and the like), perhaps it should be moved to userspace (which does have a stable ABI) or kept in the silicon (or even platform agnostic firmware).
Actually, neither the right to privacy (unless you count 'secure in your person' in the 4th amendment) nor the right to not get spam are defined.. given a choice, I'd rather get spam than lose my privacy..and if marketing was opt in in the first place, spam would hardly be a problem in the first place.
Actually, if you read it carefully you'll see it's not a utopia.. there are nods to freedom lost, and a general sense of powerlessness.
Just because most people think something is true doesn't mean that it is. Those parents are welcome to follow the advice. Just because some don't, doesn't mean the state should enforce blanket laws that cannot ever possibly take into account individual situations (without a ton of bureaucratic overhead that costs everyone even more money). The state is not us. The state is a collection of people who, when at work, are now in a group with value-added powers. This combination of group mentality and power creates slavish worship of various ideologies which are then forced on the rest of us under the guise of 'safety' (or 'freedom' when they're feeling especially bold). They might be 'us' when they're home as individuals, but comparing the state to the latter is dead wrong.
I find the ivory tower vacuum huffers to be just as suspect as the uneducated citizen. Like their college classmates in the government, they also suffer from drinking too much koolaid.. I am VERY suspicious of any 'studies' on politically hot topics these days.
More like pro darwin. Why should my life choices be restricted to legislated white lists because someone else is stupid? The limitations on my existence at this point are mostly defined by pointless legislation and a general whitewashing/dumbing down of my choices..
yeah you know what? the day I need to use biometrics or some other bullshit involuntarily used to 'authorize' me to my devices and the vendor strings that pull them, is the day I quit using tech altogether.
It matters because the concept of empower the user is being replaced by trapping the user into a platform. It's not just about the form factor, it's about the concept that spawned the PC. This is what really separates all those other gadgets from it.