It seems that OpenBSD's Stop the Blob message is getting more recognition: http://www.fsdaily.com/stop-blob As the article points out, better late than never. Though OpenBSD had been on my list of things to look at for years, it was the Stop-the-Blob campaign that provided for me the final nudge. Regards -Lars
GPL'd drivers don't help much; some argue that they are part of the problem. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/index.html Best Martin
this is good stuff, but... why'd u even mention GPL? I dont see any mention of GPL in there. -jf -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: "It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help." -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:57:24 +0200 I hadn't seen this, http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/mgp00020.html when I wrote this: `` One significant motive of proprietary concerns that is cronically missed in these debates is that a lot of proprietary work is just plain shakey shit glossed over with extensive test and after-code marchitecture. Exposing shitty source code is just plain embarrasing, not to mention an unbounded legal, and therefore financial, liability. '' but the point stands. The number one reason for secrecy is to provide cover for incompetence and or failure of due dilligence.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Lars Noodin <email@example.com> sorry - the final nudge to do what exactly? Stop the blob? Everybody should listened a long time ago. I suppose it's good that the message has finally come out now from the linux developers, but man... havent they let those blobby fools (and we all know the most famous example) entrench themselves already? -jf this has been my signature for like the longest time now... --> -- In the meantime, here is your PSA: "It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help." -- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
Get off my backside and try working with OpenBSD. -Lars
it will always be unpopular to have the right opinion at first, especially when it invalidates the work of others. the cattle only go 'm00000000!!!!!!!!!!' after they've been branded. serves them right. if you build it wrong they will come... hold on, that doesn't sound right... cheers,
Sorrym but your are misguided. GNU and the Linux kernel hackers have protested often over all the years. One thing that has holded them back is that firstly Linus does not seem to care very much about the GNU principles (but he cared so much to chose GNU license) - another thing seems to be that many Linux kernel hackers work for companies that understand their mission as to provide the customers with what they want. And also, as you all know, open documentation has gone a long way till today. For long years on many hardware parts free software was not available. Richard Stallman protested openly in 2006 more visible than OpenBSD did: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html You are right that OpenBSD and Theo did make reoccuring demands over many years and one could truely say that OpenBSD has always been more determined and clear. If Linus would have been an advocate for free software I am sure things would have been gone in a different direction. Personally I believe all free operating systems have worked on the change of the situation. The popularity of Linux has helped to create a market that has better and more open documentation - and machines that are made to work perfect with Linux (like eeepc) are more easily made to work perfectly for OpenBSD and other free OSes. There are different paths that are walked, but I remember there have been a lot of quarrels with hardware vendors from the Linux kernel hackers and often some hackers tried to establish a more strict policy. My guess is that more Linux hackers today think that they have enough drivers to push things forward and to use the power to indeed force hardware vendors to comply. In the past users were more used to beg for support and documentation and everything that was given - and if it only where NVIDIA binary drivers where applauded as a great gift. But now times are changing - maybe some hackers always thought like that but did not believe in a possible success - but now they do. Linus could ...
I hope that nothing I ever say holds back our developers or community from doing what is right. I did not realize that the GNU and Linux I -- and many of our team -- don't give a rats as about the GNU principles This other thing is actually the ONLY problem. It is just business as usual for the Linux wanna-be-monopoly. It is that those people work at companies that sign NDAs to get them documentation, and then noone else gets the documentation. Yes, they are already people of a "higher class", and then why would they spend even a second of their time making the docs more free. They feel so special and empowered to be in the inner clique; so they don't fight a fucked up system. If you see a fucked up system, do you want to fight it? Or do you want to defend the people who don't fight it? I think you are an No. Open documentation has NOT gone a long way at all. Do you have full Broadcom 100mb / gigabit ethernet documentation? Do you have Intel 100mb / gigabit ethernet chipset programming documentation? Do you have documentation for ANY wireless chipsets except the two or three that we pressured to be free? If you don't have documentation for those, what do you have? What is a long way for you? Perhaps a He cried, and nothing happened. He cried, and then did no reverse engineering. He cried, and the only people who listened and agreed are those who do nothing. You all think this is all about 2 kinds of video cards. Video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards... cry cry cry. what about all the rest of the Personally I believe that all the other free operating systems added Where do you come up with this load of crap? The eeepc has an UNDOCUMENTED ethernet chip and an UNDOCUMENTED wireless chip. Of course it works in Linux, because the ethernet vendor gave an undocumented source code driver to the Linux vendors, and the wireless vendor gave an undocumented BINARY driver to the Linux ...
"What a load of crap. You don't know what you are talking about. Everything else you said is exactly the same blathering; you are trying to say happy Linux things but there are no facts to support that the Linux crew or FSF has done ANYTHING which has gotten documentation for hardware out there. They have failed to use their dominant position to anyone else, and they have done a damn poor job of even supporting themselves." That was my thought when reading his missive. Not enough people in the Linux community are concerned with anything other than popularity at this point, popularity that is gained by catering to the masses with stuff that supports their hardware whether it's secure and reliable or in most cases not. Greg -- Support the Lo Desert Protosites: http://lodesertprotosites.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Theo de Raadt schrieb: Many people see me rather as an open source dogmatist. Personally I am I only know that no hardware I used had been supported and there was no documentation for it when I started running Linux - and that now many companies share their information, from companies who did not even know about FLOSS back then or would have declined to open source anything or share any information. So, sure there is still also a long way to go, but to say nothing has happened is also wrong and it would also mean I cited that because it was falsely stated that Linux hackers have never tried to change the situation and would do so now for the first time. They sure havent done enough, or focused too much on only a few Actually I have to admit that I just assumed that that would be the Just for the records: Does this mean that you either count documentation releases like AMDs, as in fact NOTHING or SOMETHING but has only happened because of OpenBSD? ACK It wasnt my intention to anger anybody, but obviously I did. As it turns out this is seen by some as not only a matter of truth but also something very emotional. What I basically was trying to say is that from my recognition this is not the first time Linux hackers have spoken up. I cant make any prove against the cases you have made because I have not investigated the matters in depth and it would take quite some time. Regards, Thilo PS: Although I got a full rant from you I want to say that I have always liked your standpoint against proprietary drivers and for open documentation, which was one of the reasons to partly switch to OpenBSD, because I also felt that Linux hackers did not do and say enough. Anyway.
No my friend it is the other way around. GNU makes developers slaves to their users. In my world I develop code for me; if you like it good for you; if you don't equally good for you. I don't owe you anything. Capitalism can only be enabled by the proper amount of freedom (actual freedom, not what GNU calls freedom). You are talking about people that think there is morality in big words without living up to their side of You are what I would call an OS "intelligent design" or creationist. It is true; the best they have done is say, "hey man can you guys please help?", "oh where do I sign?". It is like most things GNU, lip service Exactly, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! See you fit right in with the other GNU fanboys that believe their spiritual leader: blah That is it should be! Why are you giving cookies to companies that do what they are supposed to do? And how long did it take for AMD to free up docs? And why? Answer those questions and suddenly you'll see it wasn't out of the They pretend to speak up followed by no action. In fact GNU fanboys come to the rescue of closed source companies saying "you should be nice to them", "you can't expect to get anything done unless you suck up" etc etc It was projects like OpenBSD that showed what bold faced liars they were for them to change their ways. It was action of the unfriendly kind They haven't and that so called petition is a complete farce; nothing will come out of it as usual. If Linux has a pair he would prohibit module loading as they do today. That would turn some heads and get someone's attention.
You funny, so there is only two options: Eitehr be a fanbox or if you arent thats the proof you are? How can somebody not be a fanboy then? I dont really get the "intelligent design" relation. Your reasoning sounds to me like the ones from conspiracy theorists that say that the denial I suppose it took so long because AMD is paranoid like many companies. The interesting question in this thread would be why they did open up more at all. Because OpenBSD pushed them to do it? Please share your In which cases? Regards, Thilo -- Thilo Pfennig - PfennigSolutions IT-Beratung- Wiki-Systeme Sandkrug 28 - 24143 Kiel (Germany) http://www.pfennigsolutions.de/ XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Thilo_Pfennig - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tpfennig
Thilo Pfennig wrote: >The popularity of Linux has helped to create a >market that has better and more open documentation - and machines that >are made to work perfect with Linux (like eeepc) are more easily made to >work perfectly for OpenBSD and other free OSes. Hehe, thanks for the good laugh ! Thilo you already look like a fool. Please do yourself a favor and get some education before spreading bullshits on this list. It's clear you don't know what you are talking about. Regards, Mark.
On the contrary, Mark, right now I personally have a higher regard for Thilo, who actually posted an opinion. All you've done is posted a typical Perhaps you would do well to heed your own advice... -Andre
Dear Andre, We are not at a popularity contest so it's not about having a "higher regard" for someone, but about technical facts ( --> eepc, documentation). Nor is it only about having an opinion but about acts. Acts speak more than words ( --> NDA's). Do not only listen to what they preach. Look at what they do. The topic is the fight against blobs. Please Andre if you are so eager to come to the rescue of ignorant people, can you enlighten us on the merits of the eepc and the signing of NDA's in the fight against blobs ? > All you've done is posted a typical fanboi response to Theo's reply to > Thilo. Who are you trying to impress? You are entitled to your own opinion. I am not trying to impress anyone, I am actually trying to not participate in the spreading of lies and to not stay silent when it occurs. That's why I always let know vendors why I *DID NOT* buy their products and tell them who got the money. If more people would do that, to let companies know why they didn't get the money, things would change. Instead people prefer to spread bullshits on mailing lists, but that's their right too. Acts or *stronger* than opinions Andre. Stop the blob. Do your part. Regards, Mark.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Thilo Pfennig <firstname.lastname@example.org> You will have to do some research, but it's in misc's archives. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
|FUJITA Tomonori||Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel|
|Rafael J. Wysocki||[Bug #11287] Regression in 2.6.27-rc2 in acpi_processor_init()|
|Ingo Molnar||Re: [GIT PULL] time.c - respin|
|Ingo Molnar||Re: [PATCH] x86: silence section mismatch warning - uv_cpu_init|
|Alexander van Heukelum||Re: [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions|
|Mark Junker||git on MacOSX and files with decomposed utf-8 file names|
|Junio C Hamano||Re: git-svnimport|
|Junio C Hamano||Re: [PATCH] Detached HEAD (experimental)|
|Johannes Schindelin||Re: [PATCH] Fix approxidate("never") to always return 0|
|A Large Angry SCM||Re: [RFC] origin link for cherry-pick and revert|
|Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo||Re: [PATCH 06/37] dccp: Limit feature negotiation to connection setup phase|
|Gerrit Renker||[PATCH 1/5] dccp: Initialisation framework for feature negotiation|
|Daniel Lezcano||getsockopt(TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT) value change|
|David Miller||Re: 22.214.171.124: bnx2/tg3: BUG: "scheduling while atomic" trying to ifenslave a seco...|
|Gerrit Renker||[PATCH 37/37] dccp: Debugging functions for feature negotiation|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||ath9k_htc: Allocate URBs properly|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||timer: Try to survive timer callback preempt_count leak|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||powerpc/kexec: Add support for FSL-BookE|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||V4L/DVB (8976): af9015: Add USB ID for AVerMedia A309|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||ARM: 5670/1: bcmring: add default configuration for bcmring arch|
|Stephen J. Bevan||GRE over IPsec|
|Christophe Rioux||Implementation example of snmp|
|Nick Holland||Re: booting openbsd on eee without cd-rom|
|Cabillot Julien||Re: OpenBSD isakmpd and pf vs Cisco PIX or ASA|
|Guido Tschakert||Re: what exactly is enc0?|