What is Digg?22 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12And I'd go even further, look at all the ATI driver frustrations in the Ubuntu support forums. ATI hardware IS supported officially, yet there are so many problems with the drivers that people are switching to Intel or Nvidia purely out of spite.
- sekyuritei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Try using any hardware not directly supported in the kernel in Debian/Ubuntu, and you'll see that the BSD guys aren't the only people taking a hardline stance on free drivers.
- devin_mm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This issue here is OpenBSD wants to be one of the most secure operating systems in the world and that is difficult (read: impossible) to do if you don't know what is going on with your own hardware drivers. Just look at the whole wifi driver debacle do you think that would have happened with drivers that anyone could review. OpenBSD has been fighting this fight for a while the theme of their 3.9 release was all about that issue http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39.
- artis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@zigamorph
Thank you for completely missing the point and spreading this nonsense FUD.
> The problem is that these little drivers and interfaces take money to invent.
True. Release the API documentation and developers will write drivers.
Devices sold = Income = Profit. Why it is so hard to understand? Moreover, if you have bought the peace of hardware, you have rights to use it for its intended purpose.
> So inorder for them to protect their investment from compeditors, they have to keep their interfaces secret.
No, not interfaces. Go and read the TFA, will you? Developers do not need to know how the device was built, they need to know how to interact with it, how to program it. Releasing documentation does not mean releasing your well kept business secret.
> I think OpenBSD is taking too hard of a stance on binary drivers.
Surely you must be joking. OpenBSD is doing you all a favor by protection *your* rights to use the said hardware for years to come. Binary blobs (read drivers) operate as a typical black-box. What will you do when a flaw is found but the company has gone bankrupt? And please ... distinguish the difference between firmwares and drivers. Drivers interact with your operating system thus potentially affecting everything you do on that system. Firmwares on the other hand are intended for devices only. They could well not be released public and burned in factory maid EPROMs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They have taken many opportunities to ensure a lot of their hardware is compatible with OSS. Although it'll be interesting to see if their partnership w/ Cisco changes any of that.
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You're missing the point. Reverse engineering it results in a Free Software driver that is illegal in many parts of the world and so still can't be distributed with most Linux distributions.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As usual, most people forget that open sourcing the specifications for interfacing hardware benefits everyone - Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, *BSD, ...
For example, I think it was Toshiba sold a laptop with a proprietary infrared remote control. Six months later, after Windows XP SP1 was released, the remote control no longer worked. The company that made the hardware and driver was not interested in updating the software. Had the specification been open, not only would Linux and *BSD users have had the functionality, but Windows users could have continued to use the hardware they paid for.
This isn't a Windows vs. Linux/*BSD issue, this is everyone's issue. - ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I will agree that it sucks to have a binary blob in part of the device driver. That means that it will a bitch to port to other system architectures. When the binary blob is only the firmware, then it doesn't matter what architecture your system is as long as you can send the firmware to the device as required (PCI bus in this case).
- Janizary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3babbling said:
> You're missing the point. Reverse engineering it results in a Free Software driver that is illegal in many parts of the world and so still can't be distributed with most Linux distributions.
That is not something that OpenBSD cares about, reverse engineering is legal in most of the world and OpenBSD consistantly reverse engineers drivers. Besides, this is about a firmware's licence more than anything, not a driver - OpenBSD already reverse engineered the driver, they'd like some documentation to make the drivers better, but the firmware is what they're really irritated about. - ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And I can think of a few GPLed device drivers included in Linux that were created by reverse engineering binary blobs. PWC is an example. If that was illegal, and Linux didn't include illegal device drivers, then how did they get in Linux?
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I use OpenBSD at home, I use it with at least a fifth of my clients.
- ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What countries are reverse engineering illegal in? I can't think of any of the top of my head.
- akinder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely nothing. If Intel wants to keep their trade secrets a secret, then they can. They don't have to release anything just because a bunch of Linux zealots think they should.
You'll probably get answered with the typical OSS ***** about "Its about freedom!!" Freedom, unless you are a certain group ( nonMilitary clause ), or Freedom, only if you adhere to our GPL and give all your code back to us for free.
The whole Open Source mire is just laughable, I can't wait until the buzz dies down and everyone remembers that they have bills to pay. - trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This is not meant as a troll, but as a serious question.
Could someone please point to where having every tiny bit of the code completely opened has done something wonderful for everyone? I'm really curious as to what the big deal is of it not being open other than people not being able to get something for little/no investment (people = end users, not development) - drivingmenuts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0> but Windows users could have continued to use the hardware they paid for.
I'm sorry, but that's blind conjecture without a shred of proof to back it up. - shuffle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Theo is an egomaniac and has a reputation as such, it's a pitty that this couldn't have been written with a little more 'class'.
- doughardison, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I think everyone would probably take OpenBSD more seriously if Theo the Rat wasn't such an ass.
- Mooseknuckle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4For those of you who didn't believe that BSD was dying, this just in:
*BSD Obituary
*BSD, 27, of Berkeley, CA died Monday, Oct. 2, 2006. Born July 3, 1976, it was the creation of a cluster of pot-smoking hippies who went to Illinois and came home with a reel of tape. Rather than smoke the tape, they uploaded it and hacked on it a little.
*BSD was known for its C shell and early TCP/IP implementation. After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue. Soon, the project had splintered into 12 different Balkanized projects. Until its death, there was almost constant fighting in and amongst these groups, sometimes degenerating into out-and-out fistfights.
*BSD is survived by its superior, Linux, as well as several commercial unix implementations. It may be missed by some who knew it, although most of them are said to be mere OS dilettante dabblers.
A funeral will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 5, at the Berkeley Chapel on the UC campus, with interment to follow via the burning of the original *BSD tapes and scattering of the ashes over the San Francisco Bay. The Rev. Lou "Buddy" Stubbs will officiate.
The family will receive friends from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 4, at the funeral home. - ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1At least most of the driver is GPLed C. Shouldn't be to hard to reverse engineer the rest.
- zigamorph, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3The problem is that these little drivers and interfaces take money to invent. This is even more true when it is hardware and has a specific manufacturing cost with it. So inorder for them to protect their investment from compeditors, they have to keep their interfaces secret.
I think OpenBSD is taking too hard of a stance on binary drivers. The truth is that Intel releases indepth documentation on anything that is considered non-consumer class products. The wireless chipset, at the heart of all of this, would never be implimented in a server, and really has only a limited use in the desktop/laptop market. - pufuwozu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Intel has already done a lot concerning open video cards. My only concern is Intel thinking that it went unappreciated when reading the letter.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is