What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
51 Comments
- Roger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+91Inaccurate. The patch was withdrawn and Linus never supported it.
Read the Slashdot article (and comments) for more info:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/12/14/1328249.shtml - btmiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28If you look at the LKML archives (linked from Greg KH's site) there's a post from Linus Torvalds basically saying that he disagrees with this course of action. Therefore, in my mind the title here is inaccurate because it doesn't sound like this is anywhere near totally definite yet, particularly with Linus seemingly in opposition. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
My guess is if by some chance this comes to pass, we'll see a lot more binary firmware blobs (e.g. like the firmware for Intel wireless chipsets). This possibility is also mentioned on the LKML thread. - tearmeapart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I do not think people are paying attention. People continue to digg this (it was at 40 diggs 5 minutes ago, now at 57).
BURY THIS STORY BECAUSE IT IS INACCURATE.
Greg apology for his inaccuracy/mistake can be found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63 .
Linus' wtf were you thinking when you posted this is here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 .
Other people have posted the slashdot article and other links. C'mon. Digg is supposed to be faster than slashdot. - nukem996, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Here is a link to what Linus said about it
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475654/focus=475824 - kunalthakar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Not true. This patch has been reverted by Greg KH. This patch actually does not uphold the spirit of GPL since GPL applies only to distribution (non-free software cannot be bundled with free software) and not to usage (a user can choose to do anything with free software, including patching it with non-free stuff).
Here is Greg KH's apology in the same thread
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475890
EDIT: Beaten to it twice :(. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26buried, inaccurate..
smooth move linux guys, you just gave MS more fud ammo.. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Linus already shot this patch down and it was quickly removed and apologized for. Nothing to see here.
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Wrong, and wrong. Bury this false story.
- Xenogis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I don't think it is going to happen since Linus doesn't agree, which makes me happy. If it happens I don't get my madwifi drivers!
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This is FUD, it's not going to happen.
- Simkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Inaccurate
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7its not going to happen
linus said no, and called them out on it being a stupid political agenda and the ones behind the idea apologized - Hiedran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Inaccurate.
Linus's reply on the mailing list.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370
"...I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your
political agendas, please.
Linus" - avram2002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5GKH has already withdrawn the patch that would have enabled this
- r121, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11This could be interesting... on one hand it could persuade hardware manufacturers to open their drivers, which would be a huge benefit. On the other, those companies may just decide to leave us without drivers at all. The latter seems more likely, unfortunately, especially the graphics card makers who have said that they themselves don't own all the IP to their technologies and thus can't open source the drivers.
- sdub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What would stop me from writing a GPL-d patch that undoes this, and lets me load non-GPL modules?
Nothing.... unless the code that disallows non-GPL modules isn't GPL'd itself. Now that would be ironic. - CuCullin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ratteler: Its *not* news. Its inaccurate. If you notice, thats one of the options under "Bury".
Bury this: Inaccurate. - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@tearmeapart: Digg cannot be faster than Slashdot because it relies on the ratio of "buries" versus "diggs" (plus some secret algorithm). Slashdot "editors" (and I use the term _very_ loosely) control their content and can (if they choose) react immediately.
- aguilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From Linus' post:
"[...] and everybody has their opinion set in stone."
I'm sure Linus is including himself in this statement; he seems to be pretty stubborn. Not a bad thing, just an observation. - MikeDawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Obviously you're not familiar with your blanketed *BSD. What is OpenBSD's policy on binary, or non-open source drivers (drivers that they call blobs)?
- Trumpi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree.
For those who didn't follow this advice, go to your profile page where you can undigg this article. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I suggest we find the weakest link, and support the hell out of it.
Intel has their own crappy graphic set and ATI is now owned by AMD.
I'm pretty sure Intel has opened up their drivers to GPL, so make that the default processor and push it like the old C64 demo scene pushed the VIC.
If we can make the crappy Intel chips run circles around the DX10 supported ones, the Big 2 will come to our comminuty begging for support.
We can also just do away with them entirely!
Support the Open Graphics Project.
Nothing better than an true open source project to make graphic hardware out of FPGA's and other well documented standards for Hardware.
That will also get the big boys running. Do to them what Linux is doing to Windows. Chip away at their low end market until they open up, or die. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry, but I call ***** on all accounts.
The Intel chips probably do suck compared to what's available from the competitors, but the fact is, no one even tries to bang the hardware these days. The Commodore Vic chip and the Amiga's custom chips got pushed until they straited burning out. No one even attempts to do that with to days graphic hardware. You either write to the API your given, or wait.
Push the limits of the one who is giving you support, and tell them where you need improvements. If you start helping Intel become a real contender in the graphic race, the others will come around like birds looking for breadcrumbs.
On the other side, if you can do it on an Intel chip, you should be able to do it quicker, faster, and easier on more powerful hardware.
It's all about punishment and reward. Reward those who open up, and just ignore those who don't. THat is their punishment, you make them figure it all out which is what they are sticking you with anyway. You don't exclude them, but don't reward them with extra effort if they don't want to play nice.
Why limit Open Source to software? The great thing about an OpenSource Hardware Graphic card is that you get to design your dream card, and ATI, nVidia, Intel, et all get to produce it as well as any intrepid start ups.
I'm not going to to pay $500-$1000 for a nVidia gard what will be bottom of the line in 2 years, but an FPGA reprogramable graphic card with a good FOSS backing.... hell yeah!!! Becuse even when it's out of date it will still be supported to the limit of it's capablility.
It just seems to me that if we wait around and keep begging for support from the disinterested, we're not going to go anywhere. - Trumpi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If this wasn't inaccurate, then I would forecast a fork in the kernel.
Yum. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If they follow this course, then use of drivers outside the kernel should be made easier. I doubt this will help the efficiency and safety of the system, but it may be a workaround for desktop (non-server, non-critical) systems. What I am imagining is a setup similar to ndiswrapper, but for more subsystems in the computer.
I suspect above all, the biggest issue here would be the graphics drivers... - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually I could have been talking about Sony too heh.
The important thing is that this was just one guy, so it's not really Linux as a whole. Linus already smacked him down on the mailing thread. - felderado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2why is MikeDawg being dugg down? It's ***** true. OpenBSD does NOT allow binary blobs in its kernel. Guess what? It hasn't changed the fact that it's the most secure BSD in existence and they keep on innovating and growing. Businesses still use OpenBSD.
- jon1012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An answer that says it all: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475824
If Linus doesn't support it, I doubt it will pass.
Marked as inaccurate. - ChrisZhong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3incorrect information: a patch was created for the kernel but later removed
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a good thing Linus squashed this - it would have killed Linux adoption stone dead. 'We want you to use our operating system, but...er... you can't have graphics. ok?'. Driver support in Linux is crappy enough as it is.
- 47f0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4At point here is the concept by some Linux developers that they are violating GPL by even permitting non GPL drivers into kernel-space.
Which seems an extraordinary stretch - what's next - we're violating GPL by allowing DRM CDs to play on a Linux machine? Down that path lies the flip side of the control madness that plagues all the DMCA and DRM folks.
Linux was always about choice - and always should be. - Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I don't mean to sound, well, mean, but I think that you're living in a dream world. Your idea won't get the big boys running...it would just make them ignore Linux. And that would be the beginning of the end.
Fortunately for us, in this case pragmatism carried the day: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475654/focus=475721 - nofrak1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is why I read slashdot, too. BURIED.
- dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nope, no worries....
The beautiful thing about Linux is that it's GPL'ed, which means it can be forked. People out there who know this is a stupid decision will pick it up and keep it going, allowing the use of non-GPL modules to continue. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If you could make intel graphics run better than dx10 compatible cards, you would be god.
its *physically* impossible. - dr-steve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I always thought reasonable market-development strategy was, develop market share, then make proprietary-interest-focused demands upon the hardware suppliers. (Worked for Microsoft. Worked for Apple.) The suppliers would need to comply out of fear of losing market share.
This approach? Make the demands without the market-share to back it up. No wonder it is a no-brainer.
(On a side note, a question: What is the percentage of Linux boxes running as headless servers, for which such issues would be meaningless?)
-Steve - tfinniga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, I think you could either just recompile the kernel differently, use an older kernel, or whatever. I don't think the GPL says anything about removing code, it's just that you have to make available the code to binaries that you distribute.
You could probably come up with another license which prohibited that kind of thing, but it wouldn't be the GPL.
Plus Linus doesn't like it, and it was retracted, so it's rather academic at this point. - thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's really moronic and embarrassing is the way some of you people wrap your lips around Torvalds' knob, calling him by his first name and drueling on his every word. Bunch of shut-in zealots.
- akinder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Oh bloody BRILLIANT. Who is that company that bullies and pushes vendors around to comply with their idea of standards? Hmm.. you know the one, the one that digg users love to bash mindlessly?
Looks like Greg is hoping to side Linux up with them. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It wouldn't be legal in the kernel then. Much of the code in the kernel doesn't actually belong to the current kernel devs. There are thousands of contributors out there who would all have to be consulted and give consent to write an exception in the license for this section.
- kuchdawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"Heh, good point.
An updated version is below.
Oh, and for those who have asked me how we would enforce this after this
date if this decision is made, I'd like to go on record that I will be
glad to take whatever legal means necessary to stop people from
violating this.
Someone also mentioned that we could just put a nice poem into the
kernel module image in order to be able to enforce our copyright license
in any court of law.
Full bellies of fish
Penguins sleep under the moon
Dream of wings that fly
thanks,
greg k-h" from http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475654/focus=475796 - tenderstorm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5More "innovations" like this and next decade would be for Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris and *BSD only...
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The Intel chips are rubbish. They have no on board ram which forces them to choke the same data paths as normal system ram.
I'm sorry but no amount of good software can make a piece of junk outperform a useful tool. It's like expecting a modded Mini to outperform a Piagani Zonda. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Free system? I think not.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Digg and undigg is not a mark of approval, it's a mark of INTEREST. I digg articles where I completely disagree because it's news.
The reason we have a comment system is to add our voice to the article.
Stop thinking so linear. A Digg is not positive or negative, only a marker of that you found it interesting. - gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I said the same thing but was buried. Must be because I mentioned the offensive company by name.
- gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7So the Linux people are bullying others to conform to their whim.
Sounds like Microsoft. - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14personally i think if linux doesn't want to play nice in the real world large companies are just going to take their ball and go home, and i'll be going with them.... *sigh*
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5*BAM*
That is the sound of Linux shooting itself in the foot. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is