From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751828AbXA3Wea (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:34:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751865AbXA3We3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:34:29 -0500 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51153 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751828AbXA3We3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:34:29 -0500 Message-ID: <45BFC7F2.7090209@garzik.org> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:34:26 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland Dreier CC: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Free Linux Driver Development! References: <20070130012904.GA9617@kroah.com> <20070130191020.GF20642@kroah.com> <20070130195445.GE22022@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.7 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Roland Dreier wrote: > I disagree -- Linux today gets drivers not just from volunteers > writing drivers from specs, but also from vendors writing drivers and > volunteers writing drivers via reverse engineering. And many of those > drivers don't work on every platform and aren't supported by > enterprise distros. And when the community loses interest, drivers > are left to bitrot. Which of these actively maintained and supported drivers work on only one platform[1], and are excluded from enterprise distros? Can we truly count them as "many", as you repeatedly claim? Jeff [1] obviously excluding drivers for hardware where its only possible to occur on one platform, like SoC devices