* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-16 22:20 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-17 16:54 ` Francois Romieu
2001-02-16 22:31 ` Dan Hollis
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-02-16 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.
Of course your keenness to let people write alternative free drivers for
your etinc pci card is extremely well known. Fortunately despite your best
efforts there is now a choice in 2.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:20 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-02-17 16:54 ` Francois Romieu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Francois Romieu @ 2001-02-17 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: linux-kernel
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> écrit :
[...]
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
>
> Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
> eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.
>
> Of course your keenness to let people write alternative free drivers for
> your etinc pci card is extremely well known. Fortunately despite your best
> efforts there is now a choice in 2.4
Some words from the Ural mountains...
I wouldn't suggest to use my code in a production environment today (that's
why it's labelled 'EXPERIMENTAL' :o) ):
- I'm bad at handling Receive Data Overflow events. Here I suffer
from the lack of ability to trigger it. Now that I'm sharing my flat
with a (decent) traffic analyzer, I should be able to fix that.
- there are issues with the upper layers (I must do some more test
and document the whole).
- the current way to handle the 'DSCC4 sometime forgets events' failure is
really gross and sub-optimal.
I've found time to buy a brand new computer and it should *really* help for
these two points.
So far, my driver hasn't the required reliability that one expects to
build a 4 ports router. Etinc's one may be better at this now*.
Well, I'll fix it. No need to be a genius.
Dennis, thanks to your closed source vision, I found an opportunity to
fill a gap. Now, some people are willing to make $$$ with me.
*but it's not that difficult to find a way to crash it. A "Don't do that"
section on Etincs site would nicely replace the "Mine is bigger than yours"
pages.
--
Ueimor
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
2001-02-16 22:20 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-02-16 22:31 ` Dan Hollis
2001-02-16 22:51 ` David D.W. Downey
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dan Hollis @ 2001-02-16 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
So I take it you support M$ on the legislation bit also...
-Dan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
2001-02-16 22:20 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-16 22:31 ` Dan Hollis
@ 2001-02-16 22:51 ` David D.W. Downey
2001-02-16 23:07 ` Mike A. Harris
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: David D.W. Downey @ 2001-02-16 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
ROTFL, man this guy is funny.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> > >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> > >>
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> > >> g=ltnc
> > >
> > >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> > >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> > >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> > >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> > >describe what he is.
> > >
> > >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> > >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> > >Perhaps it costs too much?
>
> objective, arent we?
>
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
>
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
>
> DB
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
David D.W. Downey - RHCE
Consulting Engineer
Ensim Corporation - Sunnyvale, CA
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-16 22:51 ` David D.W. Downey
@ 2001-02-16 23:07 ` Mike A. Harris
2001-02-16 23:45 ` Matt D. Robinson
2001-02-17 12:41 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-17 0:01 ` Alan Olsen
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 2 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Mike A. Harris @ 2001-02-16 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Linux Kernel mailing list
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
>when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
>run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
>innovate will stay away.
Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
realize the importance of open source.
Seriously, get a copy of Eric S. Raymond's book, "The Cathedral
and the Bazaar" (or view it online at http://www.opensource.org),
and read through it. It is very well written and covers all
aspects of what you are fearing - in a positive way.
Linux is one of the most stable operating systems ever written.
That's not just advocacy, that is fact. Drivers marked
experimental are not just experimental - some are, but a lot are
not, they just have not had anyone send in loud positive
feedback, and so the maintainers left them that way.
If you think the various crud commercial OS's out there are
stable and have no experimental code in them, and that drivers do
not crash or have bugs, you haven't been computing for long.
At any rate, nobody has a gun to your head - go use something
else that works for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Free Software advocate
This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved.
Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Press every key to continue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 23:07 ` Mike A. Harris
@ 2001-02-16 23:45 ` Matt D. Robinson
2001-02-16 23:46 ` Mike A. Harris
2001-02-17 12:41 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Matt D. Robinson @ 2001-02-16 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike A. Harris; +Cc: Dennis, Linux Kernel mailing list
The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels. I'm not saying they
aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
hardly what I would call a progressive movement. It's simply long,
drawn-out evolution at best.
I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
hardware. But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
kernel. Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
progression.
Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...
--Matt
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> >The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> >bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> >"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> >when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> >run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> >innovate will stay away.
>
> Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
> SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
> realize the importance of open source.
>
> Seriously, get a copy of Eric S. Raymond's book, "The Cathedral
> and the Bazaar" (or view it online at http://www.opensource.org),
> and read through it. It is very well written and covers all
> aspects of what you are fearing - in a positive way.
>
> Linux is one of the most stable operating systems ever written.
> That's not just advocacy, that is fact. Drivers marked
> experimental are not just experimental - some are, but a lot are
> not, they just have not had anyone send in loud positive
> feedback, and so the maintainers left them that way.
>
> If you think the various crud commercial OS's out there are
> stable and have no experimental code in them, and that drivers do
> not crash or have bugs, you haven't been computing for long.
>
> At any rate, nobody has a gun to your head - go use something
> else that works for you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 23:45 ` Matt D. Robinson
@ 2001-02-16 23:46 ` Mike A. Harris
2001-02-17 0:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Mike A. Harris @ 2001-02-16 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt D. Robinson; +Cc: Dennis, Linux Kernel mailing list
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
>The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
>day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
>now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
>accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels. I'm not saying they
>aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
>hardly what I would call a progressive movement. It's simply long,
>drawn-out evolution at best.
>
>I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
>by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
>hardware. But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
>about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
>kernel. Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
>progression.
>
>Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...
Basically it boils down to this.. By continuing this thread here,
I'm preaching to the choir, and I'd rather not waste my time on
those with no clue of the open source movement. The other
alterative is to stick up for open source, and debate you until
I'm blue in the face - and you wont change your mind anyways,
and considering you're the minority here.. who cares?
Thread == dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Free Software advocate
This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved.
Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat Linux: http://www.redhat.com
Download for free: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/redhat-6.2/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 23:46 ` Mike A. Harris
@ 2001-02-17 0:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
2001-02-17 0:34 ` Werner Almesberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Matt D. Robinson @ 2001-02-17 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike A. Harris; +Cc: Dennis, Linux Kernel mailing list
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
>
> >The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
> >day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
> >now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
> >accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels. I'm not saying they
> >aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
> >hardly what I would call a progressive movement. It's simply long,
> >drawn-out evolution at best.
> >
> >I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
> >by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
> >hardware. But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
> >about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
> >kernel. Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
> >progression.
> >
> >Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...
>
> Basically it boils down to this.. By continuing this thread here,
> I'm preaching to the choir, and I'd rather not waste my time on
> those with no clue of the open source movement. The other
> alterative is to stick up for open source, and debate you until
> I'm blue in the face - and you wont change your mind anyways,
> and considering you're the minority here.. who cares?
>
> Thread == dead.
Mike, next time, read someone's post before responding, okay?
If you think I don't care about open source, perhaps you weren't
paying enough attention. I'd like to see open source evolve even
faster than it does now. If you somehow missed that, then go back
and read what I wrote again. And I'm sure you can find much
more positive ways to defend open source than responding in the
way you just did -- your tone projects the kind of animosity that
causes these closed vs. open source debates in the first place.
My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.). I'm sure
it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
of kernel functionality and features in the long run. And that's
simply a different view than you have. It's certainly not one
that is against the open source movement (as you've implied).
--Matt (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/lkcd)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 0:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
@ 2001-02-17 0:34 ` Werner Almesberger
2001-02-17 0:54 ` Matt D. Robinson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Werner Almesberger @ 2001-02-17 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt D. Robinson; +Cc: Linux Kernel mailing list
Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.). I'm sure
> it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> of kernel functionality and features in the long run.
"enterprise" XOR security ? I think you understand the problem with
your approach well ;-)
Linux scales well from PDAs to large clusters. This is quite an
achievement. Other operating systems are not able to match this.
So why do you think that Linux should try to mimic their flaws ?
Out of pity ?
BTW, parallel development does happen all the time. The point of
convergence in a single "mainstream" kernel is that you benefit
from all the work that's been going on while you did the stuff
you care most about.
- Werner (having pity with the hungry looking trolls)
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 0:34 ` Werner Almesberger
@ 2001-02-17 0:54 ` Matt D. Robinson
2001-02-17 1:58 ` Werner Almesberger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Matt D. Robinson @ 2001-02-17 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Werner Almesberger; +Cc: Linux Kernel mailing list, yakker
Werner Almesberger wrote:
>
> Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> > My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> > different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.). I'm sure
> > it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> > of kernel functionality and features in the long run.
>
> "enterprise" XOR security ? I think you understand the problem with
> your approach well ;-)
Actually I do. Perhaps I should define enterprise as "big iron". In
that way, enterprise kernels would be far more innovative than a
secure kernel (which cares less about performance gains and large
features and more about just being "secure"). Unless you meant
something else and I'm misinterpreting what you've stated. :)
> Linux scales well from PDAs to large clusters. This is quite an
> achievement. Other operating systems are not able to match this.
> So why do you think that Linux should try to mimic their flaws ?
> Out of pity ?
I always considered SGI's kernels, from the low-end system up to
the large server configurations, to scale well. Certainly it didn't
work on PDAs. :) If you consider it a flaw for vendors to be able
to create their own Linux kernels based on optimizations
for their hardware and their customers, then that's a horrible
perspective on overall open source progression. In fact, I think
if some of these vendors created their own kernel trees, it would
inevitably lead to inclusion of the best features into the primary
kernel tree. Where's the harm in that?
> BTW, parallel development does happen all the time. The point of
> convergence in a single "mainstream" kernel is that you benefit
> from all the work that's been going on while you did the stuff
> you care most about.
Agreed. It's great to have a "primary" kernel. I'd like to see
more splintered kernels (not smaller project efforts), that's all.
And I don't think that convergence happens quickly or efficiently
enough, despite all the great work Linus and Alan do.
> - Werner (having pity with the hungry looking trolls)
--Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 0:54 ` Matt D. Robinson
@ 2001-02-17 1:58 ` Werner Almesberger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Werner Almesberger @ 2001-02-17 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt D. Robinson; +Cc: Linux Kernel mailing list
Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> Actually I do. Perhaps I should define enterprise as "big iron". In
> that way, enterprise kernels would be far more innovative than a
> secure kernel (which cares less about performance gains and large
> features and more about just being "secure").
Hmm, and if you want a secure "big iron" ? Do you then start another
branch merging from both lines, or try to merge all the "enterprise"
enhancements into the "secure" system or vice versa ? If the latter
is easy, why was the split needed in the first place ? If it isn't
easy, will you succeed ? After all, you're facing the integration of
a large portion of code, and you only have a probably small "special
interest" group of people for it.
> In fact, I think
> if some of these vendors created their own kernel trees, it would
> inevitably lead to inclusion of the best features into the primary
> kernel tree. Where's the harm in that?
Temporary splits or "private" add-ons are not a problem. In fact,
this happens all the time. If there are more fundamental and
permanent splits, I would expect it to become increasingly difficult
to maintain compatibility for components. This should affect drivers
first, then deeper regions of the kernel (e.g. networking, then MM).
Actually, there is a live experiment of this nature going on: with
BSD, you have several specialized lines. I'm not following their
development, but maybe somebody who does could comment on how they
compare in terms of compatibility among themselves, and in terms of
features/drivers with Linux.
Also, code that is supposed to run on multiple platforms easily
degenerates into a wild collection of #ifdefs, or requires the
addition of further abstraction layers. (*) Again, the quality of BSD
drivers (both in readability and efficiency) should be indicative for
whether my assumption is true.
(* Further abstraction layers can sometimes be very efficient, e.g.
the UP/SMP support in Linux. The hard part is to put them at the
right place. If your kernels are sufficiently different, you may
end up with translation modules at fairly deep layers, e.g.
instead of, say, VFS in all kernels providing the same set of
functions, you'd translate between VFS variants in your file
system driver, which is probably less efficient, and much more
likely to result in bugs.)
In my personal experience, it's already painful enough to maintain
a piece of software that should run in 2.2 and 2.3 kernels, despite
rather good compatibility support.
> And I don't think that convergence happens quickly or efficiently
> enough, despite all the great work Linus and Alan do.
One of the largest obstacles to covergence that I've seen so far is
that some groups isolate their work too much. Rapid convergence is
only possible if all relevant parties understand what's going on, at
least at the point of what happens at interfaces. This means that
large projects should be done openly, with occasional announcements
on linux-kernel. Building that killer subsystem in-house until
perfection is reached, and then submitting a multi-megabyte patch
isn't going to make anybody happy.
- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch /
/_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 23:07 ` Mike A. Harris
2001-02-16 23:45 ` Matt D. Robinson
@ 2001-02-17 12:41 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-17 17:51 ` Robert Read
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010217145415.31128A-100000@orion.hq.dalalu.fr>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2001-02-17 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
mharris@opensourceadvocate.org (Mike A. Harris) writes:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
>>when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
>>run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
>>innovate will stay away.
>Try telling that to IBM, Intel, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Dell,
>SGI, and a handful of other _major_ computer companies that now
>realize the importance of open source.
No. They spent some small money on it and wait and see how it works
out. If it doesnt't, well, life goes on.
If IBM, Intel, Compaq, HP, Dell, SGI and other companies would
wholeheartedly drop their Windows support in favour of Linux, that I
would call "a move". If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
move".
Everything else is just "Keeping our options open".
In this market, there are IMHO only two companies that have themselves
openly and clearly committed: SUN and Microsoft.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 12:41 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
@ 2001-02-17 17:51 ` Robert Read
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010217145415.31128A-100000@orion.hq.dalalu.fr>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Robert Read @ 2001-02-17 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:41:57PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> ....
> If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
> buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
> move".
Have you seen this: http://hp.sourceforge.net/
I certainly don't know what the percentage is (or care), but I'd call
that "a move."
robert
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010217145415.31128A-100000@orion.hq.dalalu.fr>]
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010217145415.31128A-100000@orion.hq.dalalu.fr>
@ 2001-02-17 18:40 ` Henning P . Schmiedehausen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Henning P . Schmiedehausen @ 2001-02-17 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Francois Micouleau; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > If IBM, Intel, Compaq, HP, Dell, SGI and other companies would
> > wholeheartedly drop their Windows support in favour of Linux, that I
> > would call "a move". If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
> > buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
> > move".
>
> I'm wondering if the $600 000 HP gave to VA linux and myself last year is
> only 5% of their driver budget.
> Henning, HP is supporting linux and the open source movement. They are
> paying people to port linux to the ia64 platform and the hp-pa risc.
Yes. They want to sell the IA64 and the HP-PA hardware. So it is
logically for them to fund people and companies that port the kernel
or build OS software for their hardware.
> They are supporting the open source movement by paying people like me to
> improve Samba.
Yes. They want to sell products which use this special piece of software.
I don't see HP supporting software authors to write CD-ROM burning
software for all CDROM writers just to be able to bundle Linux
software with their CDROM writers [just watching an HP commercial on
TV].
IMHO, this is no "basic change in company policy". HP and many other
companies understood that they have two ways to conduct their business
in the future: Being dependent on a company that dictates how to write
software, being forced to live with the way that company wants future
products to be and the fact that this company will always have an edge
over their competitors. Or the will support open _protocols_ like
CORBA, TCP/IP, XML and the like to keep their closed source products
working on many (especially their own) platforms and avoid the
strangle hold of a single company.
Linux is ideal for them because no company has "a grip" on the OS.
This is good!
But is it "commitment to open source"? Or just "keeping all options
open"? Because these companies still support their products on M$.
Most of the programs are in newer, larger and more mature versions for
Windows. Why? Did you ever try to write a non-web based GUI program
for Linux? For which Linux? Which desktop (besides using statically
linked motif applications or bare metal X11)? Which version of the
desktop? What tools do you get? How mature are the tools, especially
GUI builders and IDEs? Most developers in bigger companies are not
kernel wizards but just average run-of-the-mill-have-a-grip-on-c++
developers who code after specs.
Most companies simply use Java and leave the details to the VM. If you
write for Windows, you have an ugly and complicated API with lots of
bugs, but the API itself is stable since six (!) years. You can write
programs that run on 95/98/ME/NT/2000 unchanged. Writing them sucks
but it is possible. For Linux to do so, you must use almost bare X11.
Don't get me wrong. I am _happy_ that there are big companies
recognizing, funding and supporting Linux. But then it is for Linux to
grow mature and recognize that these companies don't do it because
they think "Linux is cool". They do it because they think "Linux is
business. Linux is profit. Linux helps us to avoid the strangle hold
of M$" No news here. No basic direction change here. They do Windows
and anything else for exactly the same reasons.
And they don't do desktop applications besides java applications and
Web stuff.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-16 23:07 ` Mike A. Harris
@ 2001-02-17 0:01 ` Alan Olsen
2001-02-17 0:10 ` rjd
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Olsen @ 2001-02-17 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> objective, arent we?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
Strange. I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
the open source community. (Citeing "IP issues".)
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
You must be looking at a different kernel.
I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked". There have been
some things put in to test if they were good ideas. That is far different
than half-baked. Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel. Linus or
Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
source solutions".
Hmmmm...
Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS? Could it be that
IIS is a piece of crap?
Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange. (Even if it has config files
that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
Since when?
I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
things! I cannot say the same for Windows. I leave that running (same
hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
But your argument is even more bogus than that.
It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
programmers. They just have a different motivation.
Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
people from finding out what they did wrong.
I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
was.
But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
it are quite telling.
If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
fix it. Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
attached.
My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
company. If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for. (Usually
having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.) In some
cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
industry as a whole. (Especially since the closed source software
industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
"In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 0:01 ` Alan Olsen
@ 2001-02-17 0:10 ` rjd
2001-02-17 1:34 ` Neal Dias
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: rjd @ 2001-02-17 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
Dennis wrote:
...
> objective, arent we?
Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
... Rant deleted
I had a problem with eepro100.
It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
When companys with less than a dozen people think it's worth while paying
someone like me to develop code exclusivly for Linux we've got to have a
chance. Source to binary ratio is probably 70/30 mainly because of code
tied up in previous companys but they are trying.
The project they're funding now is more like 90% GPL. Of course I could be
producing crap code. 20 years kernel hacking and a cybernetics degree can't
mean as much as being an MSCE.
ps. This is definately a message from home and a bottom of a glass of whisky.
--
Bob Dunlop rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* RE: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 0:10 ` rjd
@ 2001-02-17 1:34 ` Neal Dias
2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Neal Dias @ 2001-02-17 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
Neal Dias
UNIX Systems Administrator, Sunglass Hut International, MIS Dept.
office: (305) 648-6479 wk. email:NDias@sunglasshut.com
mobile: (786) 368-5742 pvt. email:emperor.1@netzero.net
**********************************************************************
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also
looks into you. -Nietzsche
Any opinions expressed above or below are entirely my own and may not
reflect those of my employers. The information contained in this
e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the receipt and use
of the individual(s) or entity(s) named above. If the reader of this
email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for its delivery to the intended and or addressed
recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited
except at the express consent of its author.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOo3VDsUVRGLQ1PaaEQKnWwCcCb+J3BbV/AQLCB20mzLn/1e8HmkAoK+u
zXoDl5pPc5Z1uihfhOMrQy+I
=wE+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 1:34 ` Neal Dias
@ 2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
2001-02-17 12:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
` (2 more replies)
2001-02-17 7:20 ` Mike Pontillo
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 3 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Augustin Vidovic @ 2001-02-17 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:27:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
2- in that case, it's not the software, but the hardware which
was locking up under load
In addition, it would have been impossible to fix the problem if the code
was not GPL.
--
Augustin Vidovic http://www.vidovic.org/augustin/
"Nous sommes tous quelque chose de naissance, musicien ou assassin,
mais il faut apprendre le maniement de la harpe ou du couteau."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
@ 2001-02-17 12:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-17 13:13 ` Roeland Th. Jansen
2001-02-21 23:00 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
2001-02-22 0:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2001-02-17 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
vido@ldh.org (Augustin Vidovic) writes:
>1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
No. A license doesn't automatically make good code.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
2001-02-17 12:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
@ 2001-02-21 23:00 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
2001-02-21 23:17 ` Augustin Vidovic
2001-02-22 0:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson @ 2001-02-21 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Augustin Vidovic; +Cc: Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use, as a
matter of fact.
Software is only as 'good' as the effort the programmer who wrote it put
into it. Spend an hour writing a device driver while watching TV, eating
food, and after a couple dozen beers, and release it under the GPL. Is it
good code? probably not. :p
This isn't, however, to say that I think commercial code is better than
GPL code... They both have their merits and deficiencies, so I value both
equally based upon this (although all software *should* be free...)
Just my .02.
Kelsey Hudson khudson@ctica.com
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-21 23:00 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
@ 2001-02-21 23:17 ` Augustin Vidovic
2001-02-22 1:08 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Augustin Vidovic @ 2001-02-21 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. Kelsey Hudson; +Cc: Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
> > 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
> By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not forget
why these pieces of code are 'good' : because everybody have access to the
source code and may debug or improve it as needed.
To the contrary, the commercially distributed closed software may be
nicely coded (sometimes), but how can you know ? You don't have acess to
the source code. All you can do if you want to modify it is to disassemble
it. In some countries this solution is even illegal.
That's why a GPLed piece of code, whatever ugly it may look, is far better,
because you have the _liberty_ to modify it. That's the exact contrary of
crap, because there is no reason to throw it into the trashcan. A GPLed
code has the potential of living as long asd there exists a need to ru it.
A closed code can live only on one architecture, and thus is doomed to
the dumpster.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-21 23:17 ` Augustin Vidovic
@ 2001-02-22 1:08 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson @ 2001-02-22 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> > By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> > the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
>
> If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not forget
> why these pieces of code are 'good' : because everybody have access to the
> source code and may debug or improve it as needed.
'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
Kelsey Hudson khudson@ctica.com
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
2001-02-17 12:46 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-21 23:00 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
@ 2001-02-22 0:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-02-22 0:21 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-23 12:14 ` Wakko Warner
2 siblings, 2 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Morton @ 2001-02-22 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dr. Kelsey Hudson, Augustin Vidovic
Cc: Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
At 11:00 pm +0000 21/2/2001, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
>> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
>By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
>the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
>where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use, as a
>matter of fact.
>
>Software is only as 'good' as the effort the programmer who wrote it put
>into it. Spend an hour writing a device driver while watching TV, eating
>food, and after a couple dozen beers, and release it under the GPL. Is it
>good code? probably not. :p
>
>This isn't, however, to say that I think commercial code is better than
>GPL code... They both have their merits and deficiencies, so I value both
>equally based upon this (although all software *should* be free...)
I was going to stay out of this after a few days back, but I'll put in one
last point in favour of this:
I have seen good commercial software and extremely bad GPL software. Here
are some examples:
Good commercialware:
- CorelXARA, by Computer Concepts, which totally blew CorelDRAW out of the
water on release (but then Corel failed to market it and instead nabbed all
the good ideas, tsk tsk)
- the assembler/programmer/emulator for my Motorola 68HC08 microcontroller
Both of these were developed by relatively small companies which don't have
to kowtow to shareholders every 5 minutes.
Terrible GPLware:
- VNC Server for Macintosh, AT&T version 3.3.2 (I tried to debug this and
eventually gave up and rewrote it from scratch)
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
In the former case, I was able to take the few useful pieces of code and
re-use them in the replacement - which I was *paid* to write, but is still
GPL'ed in the spirit of the VNC project. In the latter case, people can
see and experience the problem, and get on with fixing it as and when they
need to and/or get time to. This is somewhat different in nature to, say,
WinNT which dumped the Alpha platform overnight...
I'll shut up now, especially as this isn't exactly the right place for this
discussion...
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi@cyberspace.org (not for attachments)
big-mail: chromatix@penguinpowered.com
uni-mail: j.d.morton@lancaster.ac.uk
The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS
PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r- y+
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-22 0:09 ` Jonathan Morton
@ 2001-02-22 0:21 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-23 12:14 ` Wakko Warner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-02-22 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Morton
Cc: Dr. Kelsey Hudson, Augustin Vidovic, Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott,
linux-kernel
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
Yes it compiles beautifully. Just remember to get it from the ppc tree
because its not merged yet
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-22 0:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2001-02-22 0:21 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-02-23 12:14 ` Wakko Warner
2001-02-23 12:31 ` David Weinehall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Wakko Warner @ 2001-02-23 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Morton
Cc: Dr. Kelsey Hudson, Augustin Vidovic, Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott,
linux-kernel
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
oopsed on loading the network driver.
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-23 12:14 ` Wakko Warner
@ 2001-02-23 12:31 ` David Weinehall
2001-02-27 8:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: David Weinehall @ 2001-02-23 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wakko Warner
Cc: Jonathan Morton, Dr. Kelsey Hudson, Augustin Vidovic, Dennis,
jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
>
> Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
> m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
> oopsed on loading the network driver.
Have you submitted patches to Alan (for v2.2.x) or Linus (for v2.4.x)
to fix this?!
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-23 12:31 ` David Weinehall
@ 2001-02-27 8:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2001-02-27 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Weinehall
Cc: Wakko Warner, Jonathan Morton, Dr. Kelsey Hudson,
Augustin Vidovic, Dennis, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > > 2.4.<whatever> besides me?)
> >
> > Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
> > m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for 2.2 didn't work, kernel
> > oopsed on loading the network driver.
>
> Have you submitted patches to Alan (for v2.2.x) or Linus (for v2.4.x)
> to fix this?!
Linux/m68k 2.4.x runs on some platforms. Also note that Linux/m68k is not 100%
merged with Linus/Alan yet. The mac-specific patches in the m68k tree that
weren't merged are on hold until all issues are sorted out[*], cfr. the
linux-m68k list.
Note to Wakko: feel free to join the project! As usual, we can use the
manpower!!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
[*] This includes, but is not limited to:
- reports that they work
- reports that they work after applying patch foo
- drivers shared with the PPC folks must be sorted out with them first
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 2:05 ` Augustin Vidovic
@ 2001-02-17 7:20 ` Mike Pontillo
2001-02-17 7:39 ` Vesselin Atanasov
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Mike Pontillo @ 2001-02-17 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market
is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out of
myself and my company -- that does not mean that I have to release my work
for free under the GPL. Of course, the *nice* thing to do would be to
release it under the GPL even if I was only using the fix internally -- but
I am under no obligation to do that, if, say, I just wanted to keep ahead of
my competitors. Maybe I was planning to wait awhile so I could get ahead in
my market. Maybe I'm just an IP freak and I want to keep my code to myself.
Whatever. My understanding is that the only restrictions I have is that I
can't sell or distribute the darned thing. If, say for example I needed to
fix that driver so that it would work on my new WhizBang 2001 Corporate
Server that is about to hit the market, then I would be making money on the
hardware, and as an added bonus my company looks good because it has an
"open" driver for its server. (no matter that it "had" to under the GPL)
Mike Pontillo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 7:20 ` Mike Pontillo
@ 2001-02-17 7:39 ` Vesselin Atanasov
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Vesselin Atanasov @ 2001-02-17 7:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
Hahahaha.
Dennis, the only linux network drivers that I have had serious problems
with were yours. They caused kernel panic on 2.0.30+ every 6 hours. Of
course I did not have the source to fix them. In comparision eepro100
works rock solid on all of my machines that use it.
Will I use some binary only drivers again? No thanks!
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> > >> repeated exposition to Linux...
> > >>
> > http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> > >> g=ltnc
> > >
> > >That's about as self-serving a statement as I've ever seen. If this
> > >'Jim Alchin' actually believes what he's saying, he's got to be one
> > >of the worlds biggest fools, and if he doesn't believe what he's
> > >saying, well there aren't too many words that would accurately
> > >describe what he is.
> > >
> > >It's pretty funny in some ways, e.g. "We can build a better product
> > >than Linux...", which begs the question, "Well, why don't you?".
> > >Perhaps it costs too much?
>
> objective, arent we?
>
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
> too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
> Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
> 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
>
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> innovate will stay away.
>
> DB
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 7:39 ` Vesselin Atanasov
@ 2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque
` (2 more replies)
2001-02-17 19:11 ` Dennis
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 3 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
At 05:20 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
>
>Umm I find the driver very reliable. And actually I have choice of two
>eepro100 drivers eepro100.c and e100.c so you cant even pick an example.
both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
it is problematic.
Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it
doesnt perform. Note that the DO sell the drivers for other platforms, and
they support them, a win for the other platforms.
DB
Emerging Technologies, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.etinc.com
ISA and PCI T1/T3/V35/HSSI Cards for FreeBSD and LINUX
Multiport T1 and HSSI/T3 UNIX-based Routers
Bandwidth Management Standalone Systems
Bandwidth Management software for LINUX and FreeBSD
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 19:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque
2001-02-17 20:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-24 21:11 ` Dennis
2 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Mohammad A. Haque @ 2001-02-17 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Cox, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
I'm using these drivers just fine on a couple of streaming servers that
get hit pretty hard.
Dennis wrote:
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
mhaque@haque.net
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
batmanppc@themes.org
=====================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque
@ 2001-02-17 20:47 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-24 21:11 ` Dennis
2 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-02-17 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Cox, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.
I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
insignificant loads and no eepro100 driver problems. For that matter there
are porn sites using eepro100 drivers.
> Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it
Your information is wrong. But then it usually is. If you are large corporation
and would care to talk to Intel they will be happy to discuss it further.
Of course the single biggest problem with the eepro100 is closedness, and people
in Intel with attitudes like yours who refuse to release full documentation.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque
2001-02-17 20:47 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-02-24 21:11 ` Dennis
2001-02-24 21:06 ` Alan Cox
2 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-24 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Alan Cox, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
At 03:47 PM 02/17/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> > they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> > it is problematic.
>
>I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
>insignificant loads and no eepro100 driver problems. For that matter there
>are porn sites using eepro100 drivers.
>
> > Intel doesnt sell the e100.o driver, so they couldnt give a rats ass if it
>
>Your information is wrong. But then it usually is. If you are large
>corporation
>and would care to talk to Intel they will be happy to discuss it further.
I can lock both of them up in 10 seconds with a simple test.
Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you
to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL
for commercial vendors.
There have been ongoing complaints and discussions over eepro100 problems
on many of the lists that I know you monitor, so why are you in denial
about it?
>Of course the single biggest problem with the eepro100 is closedness, and
>people
>in Intel with attitudes like yours who refuse to release full documentation.
LINUX has no formal documentation, so are you guilty of "closedness" also?
(ie "where is the 2.4 device driver spec?"), You have source to the e100
driver (which handles initialization properly, unlike the eepro driver),
so what more documentation do you need? it seems that intel is being as
"open" as the LInux camp, actually more so. At least with the eepro you can
get the docs under non-disclosure. Under LInux you have no chance unless
someone feels like helping you.
DB
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-24 21:11 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-24 21:06 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-02-24 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Cox, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
> Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you
> to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL
> for commercial vendors.
Because if you bother to talk to Intel about your problems Im sure they will
give you a quote to work on it
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 19:08 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 19:11 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:36 ` Francois Romieu
2001-02-17 20:48 ` Alan Cox
2001-02-17 19:24 ` Dennis
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 2 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
>
>Fortunately despite your best efforts there is now a choice in 2.4
When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
drivers if they want to.
db
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:11 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 19:36 ` Francois Romieu
2001-02-17 20:48 ` Alan Cox
1 sibling, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Francois Romieu @ 2001-02-17 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: linux-kernel
Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> écrit :
[...]
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
> drivers if they want to.
May be said vendors should give a look at l-k between 2.2 and 2.4 instead
of spending their time ranting at low quality of source code on l-k,
FreeBSD-hackers and elsewhere, shouldn't they ?
--
Ueimor
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:11 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:36 ` Francois Romieu
@ 2001-02-17 20:48 ` Alan Cox
1 sibling, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-02-17 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Cox, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
> drivers if they want to.
Its called the source code, which includes example driver skeletons. WHere
is the documentation for writing your own etinc drivers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 19:11 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 19:24 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 19:38 ` Dennis
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Hollis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
At 05:31 PM 02/16/2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > innovate will stay away.
>
>So I take it you support M$ on the legislation bit also...
No. You conveniently snipped the part where I said that Microsoft is not
one to talk. They "stifle the market" in other ways, like not completely
documenting the OS for their own advantage.
DB
>-Dan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* RE: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 19:24 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 19:38 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:01 ` Michael Bacarella
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ndias, linux-kernel
At 08:34 PM 02/16/2001, Neal Dias wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
>Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
>misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
>unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
>it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
>doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
>ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise,
to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give
away your investment and then anyone can use it equally. Secondly, the
"open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never
misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation
that is "worthwhile".
Dennis
>Neal Dias
>UNIX Systems Administrator, Sunglass Hut International, MIS Dept.
>office: (305) 648-6479 wk. email:NDias@sunglasshut.com
>mobile: (786) 368-5742 pvt. email:emperor.1@netzero.net
>**********************************************************************
>Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
>not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also
>looks into you. -Nietzsche
>
>Any opinions expressed above or below are entirely my own and may not
>reflect those of my employers. The information contained in this
>e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the receipt and use
>of the individual(s) or entity(s) named above. If the reader of this
>email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
>responsible for its delivery to the intended and or addressed
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited
>except at the express consent of its author.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBOo3VDsUVRGLQ1PaaEQKnWwCcCb+J3BbV/AQLCB20mzLn/1e8HmkAoK+u
>zXoDl5pPc5Z1uihfhOMrQy+I
>=wE+Z
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 19:38 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 20:01 ` Michael Bacarella
2001-02-17 20:11 ` James A. Sutherland
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Michael Bacarella @ 2001-02-17 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> >unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
> >it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
> >doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
> >ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
> Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise,
> to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give
> away your investment and then anyone can use it equally.
Untrue.
Ogg Vorbis is a perfect example of free software innovation. It is one
of the most advanced audio codecs available to date. The libraries are
LGPL'd and the specifications are now and forever public. An audio
codec is only the beginning.
The fact that it's freely available and patent unencumbered can only
be good for it's investors, who happen to be hardware vendors and
content providers (among others).
Funding free software innovation is only a bad idea if the principle way you
plan to make money with it is by controlling it's use (such as MP3).
> Secondly, the
> "open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never
> misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation
> that is "worthwhile".
As they should. Binary distributions are always inferior. I'm glad to
have a binary instead of nothing, but I really should've had the
foresight to buy better supported hardware.
--
Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net>
Technical Staff / System Development,
New York Connect.Net, Ltd.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:01 ` Michael Bacarella
@ 2001-02-17 20:11 ` James A. Sutherland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: James A. Sutherland @ 2001-02-17 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Bacarella; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> > >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> > >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> > >unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to steal", well,
> > >it may not be "American", but it's for sure been part of the way of
> > >doing business in this country for years. It's not right, it's not
> > >ideal, but it IS the way it's done in too many cases.
>
> > Its not a "stealing" issue. Its about whether its worthwhile, dollar-wise,
> > to finance innovation. With free source, its not, because you have to give
> > away your investment and then anyone can use it equally.
>
> Untrue.
>
> Ogg Vorbis is a perfect example of free software innovation. It is one
> of the most advanced audio codecs available to date. The libraries are
> LGPL'd and the specifications are now and forever public. An audio
> codec is only the beginning.
Yes, Ogg Vorbis is an excellent example.
> The fact that it's freely available and patent unencumbered can only
> be good for it's investors, who happen to be hardware vendors and
> content providers (among others).
It's a shame those investors didn't invest in a WWW site for it: it was
being run on someone's DSL line at home. Their ISP has now folded, leaving
them offline without a site to host www.vorbis.com on...
> Funding free software innovation is only a bad idea if the principle way you
> plan to make money with it is by controlling it's use (such as MP3).
Yes. The people who "developed" CSS had to keep it proprietary because
that was all they had: if they were able and willing to make money by
selling real products for a reasonable price, they wouldn't need
"security" through obscurity and court cases.
> > Secondly, the
> > "open-source" community openly shuns binary distributions (A. Cox never
> > misses an opportunity), so there is no avenue for commercial innovation
> > that is "worthwhile".
>
> As they should. Binary distributions are always inferior.
Not really. Souce availability does not automatically make a piece of
software good, nor does a lack of source make it bad. Having the source
code is a good thing, but it doesn't affect the quality of the software
itself.
> I'm glad to have a binary instead of nothing, but I really should've
> had the foresight to buy better supported hardware.
Yes. I just wish it were a bit easier to determine which hardware that
is...
James.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 19:38 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:05 ` James A. Sutherland
` (3 more replies)
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-18 0:51 ` Peter Samuelson
16 siblings, 4 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Olsen; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > to comment on it as such.
>
>What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not
innovation.
Designing something differently to make it better is innovation. I suppose
you could argue that redesigning linux every few years is innovation, but
unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very
innovative.
DB
>I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
>except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the
> market is
> > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
>
>Strange. I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
>issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
>the open source community. (Citeing "IP issues".)
>
> > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code.
> The
> > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence
> of that.
>
>You must be looking at a different kernel.
>
>I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked". There have been
>some things put in to test if they were good ideas. That is far different
>than half-baked. Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel. Linus or
>Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
>
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > innovate will stay away.
>
>You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
>source solutions".
>
>Hmmmm...
>
>Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS? Could it be that
>IIS is a piece of crap?
>
>Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
>
>Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange. (Even if it has config files
>that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
>not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
>are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
>
>As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
>
>Since when?
>
>I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
>things! I cannot say the same for Windows. I leave that running (same
>hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
>
>But your argument is even more bogus than that.
>
>It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
>
>"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
>
>"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
>
>Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
>programmers. They just have a different motivation.
>
>Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
>others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
>people from finding out what they did wrong.
>
>I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
>It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
>purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
>was.
>
>But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
>it are quite telling.
>
>If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
>fix it. Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
>programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
>attached.
>
>My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
>
>In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
>company. If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
>it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for. (Usually
>having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.) In some
>cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
>relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
>
>I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
>"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
>
>I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
>object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
>industry as a whole. (Especially since the closed source software
>industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
>Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
>
>I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
>
>alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
>Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
> "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 20:05 ` James A. Sutherland
2001-02-17 20:14 ` Michael H. Warfield
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: James A. Sutherland @ 2001-02-17 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Olsen, jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
>
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation".
Not necessarily: both exist in open source projects.
> If there is only 1 choice, thats not innovation.
You are confusing "innovation" with "competition".
> Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not innovation.
Correct. Having the idea in the first place is innovation.
> Designing something differently to make it better is innovation. I suppose
> you could argue that redesigning linux every few years is innovation, but
Not really. Changing Linux to take advantage of some new concept would be
innovation. Adding a new feature would be innovation.
> unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very
> innovative.
There is no need for innovation to involve different/new PEOPLE, just new
IDEAS.
James.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:05 ` James A. Sutherland
@ 2001-02-17 20:14 ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-02-18 10:57 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-17 20:28 ` Alan Olsen
2001-02-17 22:07 ` Felix von Leitner
3 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Michael H. Warfield @ 2001-02-17 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: Alan Olsen, jesse, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:05:36PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not
> innovation.
I think you are obviously the one who is confused. You are right.
If there is only 1 choice, that's not innovation. And that's what closed
source is. Open source is typically castigated because it HAS SO MANY
choices. We are often overwhelmed by choices. Sometimes, those choices
narrow through natural selection and evolution, and that's a good thing too.
Close source is the mono-choice. You take what the vendor gives you and
that's it. If it doesn't work, tough, wait for the next release cycle
and pay us again to fix our bugs. That's real innovative.
> Designing something differently to make it better is innovation. I suppose
> you could argue that redesigning linux every few years is innovation, but
> unfortunately its the same cast of characters doing it, so its not very
> innovative.
I think I agree with the comment that I've seen more innovation in
the open source movement than anything that has come out of closed source.
One could very safely argue that the entire Internet grew out of a form
of Open Source movement. Closed source gave us things like EDI and SNA
and SDLC and a host of other proprietary ideas and networks that have been
buried by the Internet. "Profs" (IBM's idea of E-Mail) was swamped by SMTP.
The Web originated in Open Source. Entire markets have sprung up where
there was none before out of Open Source.
No... Close Source and proprietary protocols are then anthema to
BOTH progress and innovation. When innovation is done in a close arena, it
gets done for closed limited ideas and tightly restricted to what profits
the inventors and nothing more. It's when it becomes more open that the
real innovation occurs and things are created that the original inventors
never envisioned.
Without Open Source and it's predecessors, we would not have the
Internet as we know it today. Companies back then (and I worked for
some of them) could not envision a network as we know it now. Several
of them saw no future what so ever in the "Internet". One of them even
went so far as to proclaim that Novell was the be all and end all of
networking and nothing would ever amount to anything on this petty worthless
Internet thing.
History has proved them wrong and history has proved that Open
Source is the provider of choices not the limiter of choices.
> DB
> >I don't see how having the source open removes "intelectual property",
> >except by showing that huge portions of the concept are flawed.
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > > crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
> > > corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
> > > free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
> > > use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the
> > market is
> > > too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
> > > themselves", most of whom cant of course.
> >
> >Strange. I have not heard of any problems with that driver, except for
> >issues where the original hardware vendor kept implimentation details from
> >the open source community. (Citeing "IP issues".)
> >
> > > Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
> > > because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code.
> > The
> > > 50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence
> > of that.
> >
> >You must be looking at a different kernel.
> >
> >I have seen little in the kernel that was "half baked". There have been
> >some things put in to test if they were good ideas. That is far different
> >than half-baked. Most of the bad ideas never get to the kernel. Linus or
> >Alan kick them out before they ever get that far.
> >
> > > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> > > when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
> > > run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
> > > innovate will stay away.
> >
> >You claim that "open source solutions are wholely inferior to closed
> >source solutions".
> >
> >Hmmmm...
> >
> >Then why does everyone run with Apache instead of IIS? Could it be that
> >IIS is a piece of crap?
> >
> >Feature for feature I would rather use PHP 4 over ColdFusion any day.
> >
> >Sendmail is MUCH more stable than Exchange. (Even if it has config files
> >that look like they were designed by Carlos Castanada on a bad day.) If
> >not Sendmail, there are a couple of other Open Source mail programs that
> >are much superior in quality than the closed source counterparts.
> >
> >As for the Linux kernel being "shoddy"...
> >
> >Since when?
> >
> >I can leave my Linux box running over night and actually have it do
> >things! I cannot say the same for Windows. I leave that running (same
> >hardware, different OS) and it is usually dead by dawn.
> >
> >But your argument is even more bogus than that.
> >
> >It seems that you argument boils down to a couple of thing...
> >
> >"Closed source is better because you pay money for it."
> >
> >"Closed source is superior because we have a company name and you don't."
> >
> >Sorry, but most of the people who develop Open Source are profesional
> >programmers. They just have a different motivation.
> >
> >Open Source is motivated by pride in what you can do and a desire to help
> >others by sharing that. They don't hide behind a wall of lawyers to keep
> >people from finding out what they did wrong.
> >
> >I found out a long time ago that most "Trade Secret" claims were bogus.
> >It was either a common technique that had been adapted to a particular
> >purpose or it was being used as an excuse to hide how bad the code really
> >was.
> >
> >But my experiences with Open Source, as well as the others I know who use
> >it are quite telling.
> >
> >If I have a problem with an Open Source program I can look at the code and
> >fix it. Or I can report the bug and it will get fixed soon after. The
> >programmers involved put the effort into it because their name is
> >attached.
> >
> >My experiences with closed source companies are not as good.
> >
> >In many cases, I was ignored because I did not represent a fortune 500
> >company. If the problem got fixed at all, it would be months before I saw
> >it and usually in a later release that I would have to pay for. (Usually
> >having features added that I neither wanted or would ever use.) In some
> >cases (like Microsoft security bugs) it would be treated like a public
> >relations problem instead of a software and quality issue.
> >
> >I have also seen cases where problems were buried in development because
> >"no one will find out and if they do, we will just blame Microsoft".
> >
> >I understand your desire to make money off what you do for a living. I do
> >object to you taring what I do as somehow damaging to the software
> >industry as a whole. (Especially since the closed source software
> >industry has been poaching off the open source community for years.
> >Microsoft seeking enlightenment with WinXP is only a minor example.)
> >
> >I don't see how hiding how something works adds value to the process.
> >
> >alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
> >Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
> > "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:14 ` Michael H. Warfield
@ 2001-02-18 10:57 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2001-02-18 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
mhw@wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
> No... Close Source and proprietary protocols are then anthema to
>BOTH progress and innovation. When innovation is done in a close arena, it
These are two different things! Proprietary protocols are the death to
variety and customer choice!
I personally are perfectly happy with closed source and open
protocols. Show me a compareable product to BEA WebLogic, which is
free. But if I consider this closed source program to suck, I can
still take my application and deploy it on a free EJB container with a
free servlet engine. I don't lose with closed source here. And the
closed source vendor is forced to compete with open source
products. Which in the end gives me a better product. I'm happy with
upgrades and release cycles where I get one new release and some bug
fixes in six months. Not a new release all two days. And I'm happy
that I can call a support line or open a bug ticket with a
vendor. Yes, there are vendors which care about bug tickets and fix
bugs in their products.
The division "Open Source - all bugs are fixed in shortest time"
vs. "Close Source - no bugs are fixed at all and only updates are
sold" is IMHO plain wrong. And e.g. in Germany, where there is
something called "Gewaehrleistungsfrist" which is six months after
selling a product, vendors are held by the law (!) to fix bugs. And
again, companies like M$ try to circument this with "EULAs" which,
according to some lawyers do not uphold in court. But according to my
knowledge, noone in Germany has ever tried to sue M$ to force them to
comply to this law.
Microsoft tries to circumvent this competition with proprietary
protocols and non-interchangeablity. Why do they bash Java? Why do
they push something like C#? Because they don't want _NO_
competition. They "embrace and extend". And the patent the extensions.
Many other companies take the challenge of open source and open
protocols and try to compete with open source products. And they do it
really well! I have to see Oracle to lose a significant percentage of
their Enterprise RDBMS to free software (And please don't quote me the
"Nasa switches to MySQL" article. This is fine but then again for them,
Oracle wasn't a good choice in the first place. ;-) )
Innovation today happens with protocols. With ideas. With interoperability.
On the Internet. Open Source and Closed Source are competitors and
open source and free software _forces_ company to make better software
if they want to compete.
Microsoft tries to avoid the competition and wants to lock their
customers into the Windows - IIS - ASP - .NET - C# cycle with
proprietary protocols, languages and platforms, because then they know
that for these customers, changing into _any_ other environment (be it
the LAMP, FreeBSD-PostgreSQL-Python, Zope, Oracle, Cold Fusion or
anything _else_) is so hard, that the customers won't do.
Setting up a network of "Microsoft certified professionals" which
repeat the ideology from Redmond on and on, really helps here. It is
almost like the roman-catholic church. ;-)
Microsoft don't really care about "Open Source", "Closed Source", GNU,
Linux, BSD and all the stuff. They only care about "Competition" and
"Market share". Anything that endangers their market share is a
threat.
> Without Open Source and it's predecessors, we would not have the
>Internet as we know it today. Companies back then (and I worked for
No. Without Cisco and Sun, we wouldn't have a working internet at
all. And they do closed products with open protocols. And that's IMHO
the point.
>some of them) could not envision a network as we know it now. Several
>of them saw no future what so ever in the "Internet". One of them even
>went so far as to proclaim that Novell was the be all and end all of
>networking and nothing would ever amount to anything on this petty worthless
>Internet thing.
> History has proved them wrong and history has proved that Open
>Source is the provider of choices not the limiter of choices.
No. Open protocols and Open ideas are. Open source is just a part of
the whole picture. Every company that tries to lock their customers
into their products, are a threat to the Internet and to users and
customers. That's where Novell from your example failed. They failed
because of IPX and their inability to adjust to the emerging IP
environment.
Novell failed because they tried to push a small vertical, expensive
product (file and print serving) when a competitor started to give the
"peer-to-peer" and server network away with their baseline product
("Windows"). Not because they made a close source product.
"We give away for free, what you sell". Microsoft got Novell with
this. They got Netscape with this. They will try to get the next
competitor with this, too. They can't get Linux with this and that's
why they're afraid. And that's where such a Linux-bashing article
comes from.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:05 ` James A. Sutherland
2001-02-17 20:14 ` Michael H. Warfield
@ 2001-02-17 20:28 ` Alan Olsen
2001-02-21 23:48 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
2001-02-17 22:07 ` Felix von Leitner
3 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Alan Olsen @ 2001-02-17 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: jesse, Andrew Scott, Andrew Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
> >than I ever have in my 18+ years of being a professional programmer.
>
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not
> innovation.
"You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
means."
alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
"In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:28 ` Alan Olsen
@ 2001-02-21 23:48 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson @ 2001-02-21 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> "You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
> means."
...To quote Indigo Montoya, speaking to Vuzinni, from "The Princess
Bride" :)
One hell of a story :)
Kelsey Hudson khudson@ctica.com
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 20:28 ` Alan Olsen
@ 2001-02-17 22:07 ` Felix von Leitner
3 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Felix von Leitner @ 2001-02-17 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Thus spake Dennis (dennis@etinc.com):
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not
> innovation.
This is bizarre.
Please name one innovation in the history of mankind that could not be
seen as expanding on a different idea or even cloning an idea from
someone else (for example, nature).
Dennis, do you have a single argument or are you going to post bizarre
statements like this forever? Please just say so, so people cann
killfile you now.
Felix
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 20:05 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:22 ` Michael H. Warfield
` (3 more replies)
2001-02-18 0:51 ` Peter Samuelson
16 siblings, 4 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Dennis @ 2001-02-17 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjd; +Cc: jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>...
> > objective, arent we?
>Nope. Are you claiming to be?
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
>... Rant deleted
>
>I had a problem with eepro100.
>It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
>Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.
good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
Its as simple as that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-17 20:22 ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-02-17 20:41 ` Gregory Maxwell
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Michael H. Warfield @ 2001-02-17 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: rjd, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk wrote:
> >Dennis wrote:
> >...
> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> >... Rant deleted
> >
> >I had a problem with eepro100.
> >It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
> >Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Then good commercial drivers == blivit.
Ain't no such critter. They are always late and buggy and then
take forever to get fixed. Nature of the close source development cycle
with deadlines and project managers that say "we can afford to wait any
longer, we have to ship it now and fix the bugs after release".
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
> Its as simple as that.
Sorry but it's time to pull it out, smell the air, and buy a clue.
There are people out there right now delivering binary modules and binary
pieces for device drivers in the kernel. I'm working with one right now.
They are providing partial sources with a binary library (this is the
Lucent WaveLan wvlan2_cs drivers). Nothing is required. But binary drivers
don't get the support from the open source people that the open source
drivers get. Sounds reasonable to me. There are other binary only drivers
(to say nothing of applications) both freeware and payware out there. I've
got people working on some myself. So your arguement that "requiring that
all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation" fails on it's
premise because it's NOT REQUIRED. Just don't expect us to kiss your merry
ass and fall over backwards meeting your demands when you DO deliver a
binary only driver. If people like it, fine. If they don't, whose problem
is that? The idea that nobody will pay for OpenSource software is a myth.
I buy software for Linux all the time. I buy closed source software and
I buy open source software. The only difference is the presence of the
sources. So what. Tell me how that makes those products less innovative?
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:22 ` Michael H. Warfield
@ 2001-02-17 20:41 ` Gregory Maxwell
2001-02-18 10:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-17 22:38 ` Andre Hedrick
2001-02-18 15:20 ` Stefan Smietanowski
3 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2001-02-17 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: rjd, jesse, A.J.Scott, linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
pile of garbage your company ships.
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
> Its as simple as that.
Like Microsoft you seem to confuse 'innovation' with 'being able to dictate
the terms of how I will extort money from others'.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:41 ` Gregory Maxwell
@ 2001-02-18 10:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-02-18 21:02 ` Bob Taylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen @ 2001-02-18 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
greg@linuxpower.cx (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
>when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
>pile of garbage your company ships.
"hostile behaviour of the open source community towards people that
don't agree to their ideas".
q.e.d. Thanks.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-18 10:59 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
@ 2001-02-18 21:02 ` Bob Taylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Bob Taylor @ 2001-02-18 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
In message <96o9uf$j4h$1@forge.intermeta.de>, "Henning P.
Schmiedehausen" write
s:
> greg@linuxpower.cx (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
>
> >when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
> >pile of garbage your company ships.
>
> "hostile behaviour of the open source community towards people that
> don't agree to their ideas".
As I am a member of this community and have not exhibited such
behavior to you, please include me *out* of such general
condemnation.
BTW, your conclusion is *false*
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor Email: brtaylor@inreach.com |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a |
| swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you |
| can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell |
| if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
2001-02-17 20:22 ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-02-17 20:41 ` Gregory Maxwell
@ 2001-02-17 22:38 ` Andre Hedrick
2001-02-17 23:07 ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-02-18 15:20 ` Stefan Smietanowski
3 siblings, 1 reply; 113+ messages in thread
From: Andre Hedrick @ 2001-02-17 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
>
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
> Its as simple as that.
And when your customer gets screw because you refuse to update your binary
driver because you do not know or have had the chance to follow any
evolving API, you are going to blame us in OPEN source, right.
Meanwhile the API changes may have boosted the performance factor and you
have screw yourself and customer base because you are to lame to see the
value of open source.
Some time ago I proposed CLAPI, and you are one of the venders that would
benefit from such a beast. This model would have required you to LGPL a
kernel library that would have all the functional IP (that is not IP) that
is to lame to be placed into the hardware. If your hardware is so flakey
that you have to pump/prime it for operations....well....you get the
point.
If I recall you and your company on one of the worst offenders of taking
code (GPL or not) and changing it and putting it out as binaries. I am
surprized that you have not been taken down yet. Then if someone asks for
the return of the code base and changes because they can under the terms
of the license that you removed from that code, you charge them a fee and
suggest actionable terms if any disclosure into the public form from
where it came.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 22:38 ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2001-02-17 23:07 ` Michael H. Warfield
0 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Michael H. Warfield @ 2001-02-17 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Dennis, linux-kernel
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:19PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> > that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
> > You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> > requiring that all code be distributed as source DOES stifle innovation.
> > Its as simple as that.
> And when your customer gets screw because you refuse to update your binary
> driver because you do not know or have had the chance to follow any
> evolving API, you are going to blame us in OPEN source, right.
At our office, we actually had a sysadmin suggest that the reason
we had problems with viruses propagating was because they couldn't put
everyone on Exchange (some of us use Unix/Linux) and that was causing the
problems. Of course... Operating systems which are immune to these things
are to blame for the epidemics on the ones that are suceptible. That
makes sense. Grrrr.... Of course the availablity of quality drivers with
sources are the reason for crappy closed source drivers... I can see his
reasoning (isn't that scary). <;-/=/
Actually, it does make a perverted sort of sense. If we didn't
have systems that didn't have these problems, nobody would think that
there was anything wrong. They would just think that "of course, this
is what you expect from suppliers". They would have no yardstick to
measure against, so rebooting a computer once a day or having a blue
screen would just be part of the normal experience. So we DO contribute
to his problems! We provide a standard which he can not live up to or
even pursue given the manpower and talent he may have (or not have).
How is he suppose to innovate when the Open Source community is setting
such a high standard for him? :->=>
> Meanwhile the API changes may have boosted the performance factor and you
> have screw yourself and customer base because you are to lame to see the
> value of open source.
>
> Some time ago I proposed CLAPI, and you are one of the venders that would
> benefit from such a beast. This model would have required you to LGPL a
> kernel library that would have all the functional IP (that is not IP) that
> is to lame to be placed into the hardware. If your hardware is so flakey
> that you have to pump/prime it for operations....well....you get the
> point.
>
> If I recall you and your company on one of the worst offenders of taking
> code (GPL or not) and changing it and putting it out as binaries. I am
> surprized that you have not been taken down yet. Then if someone asks for
> the return of the code base and changes because they can under the terms
> of the license that you removed from that code, you charge them a fee and
> suggest actionable terms if any disclosure into the public form from
> where it came.
Well... Yeah... Of course, Andre. Can you see how that stiffles
his innovation.
> Regards,
Later!
> Andre Hedrick
> Linux ATA Development
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 22:38 ` Andre Hedrick
@ 2001-02-18 15:20 ` Stefan Smietanowski
3 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Smietanowski @ 2001-02-18 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi.
Thought I'd toss my 0.02sek into the discussion.
> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> >... Rant deleted
> >
> >I had a problem with eepro100.
> >It was fixed same night cause I had the source.
> >Don't even try to compare with MickyS**t.
>
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Ok, tell that to my SBLive that absolutely loves jumping and jittering
on my SMP box under Win2k. Creative have been notified. Ever since they
released their first driver for it...
So if they would've had their driver out in the open I'm sure SOMEONE,
if not me, would've squashed the bug already.
So you're right, good commercial drivers don't need fixing.
Also, good open-source drivers don't need fixing.
Good drivers don't need fixing! Of course they don't!
But crap coding is crap coding no matter what license/distribution form
you put it under, be it open source, closed source or whatnot.
// Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux stifles innovation...
2001-02-16 22:27 ` Dennis
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2001-02-17 20:08 ` Dennis
@ 2001-02-18 0:51 ` Peter Samuelson
16 siblings, 0 replies; 113+ messages in thread
From: Peter Samuelson @ 2001-02-18 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dennis; +Cc: linux-kernel
[Dennis]
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed
> ethernet drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one
> to buy..perhaps with different "features" that were of value to
> you. Instead, you have crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and
> its not worth spending corporate dollars to fix it because you have
> to give away your work for free under GPL. And since there is a
> "free" driver that most people can use, its not worth building a
> better mousetrap either because the market is too small. So, the
> handful of users with problems get to "fit it themselves", most of
> whom cant of course.
You may have a point but device drivers are a piss-poor example. Say
Linux does take over the world, and eepro100 continues to lock up under
load. Who loses? Intel. People will quit buying their motherboards
and PCI cards. So for whom is it worth spending corporate dollars
fixing eepro100? Again, Intel. If word were to get out "avoid Intel
network cards, the driver is crap", you can bet they will fix it.
If this hasn't happened yet, it's because Intel doesn't see enough
market in Linux to bother. And if so, so what? There are plenty of
motherboards with pcnet32 and 3c9xx chips.
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 113+ messages in thread