Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:58:11 +0100 From: "Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs.muc.de" <jhs@jhs.muc.de> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: Boris <koester@x-itec.de>, Murray Stokely <murray@osd.bsdi.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <200012200059.eBK0wCN02480@jhs.muc.de> In-Reply-To: Message from Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:43:17 EST." <5.0.0.25.0.20001219111044.020739e0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dennis wrote to Boris et all: > > >Device Drivers > >-------------- > >I donīt like binary only device drivers. The code of an operating > >system is more complex than a driver. if a company does not want to > >publish the sourcecode, the should go away. > > You've lost all credibility here. Well supported device drivers should not > require source. I'd prefer a commercial (preferably the manufacters) > support other than some guy in the ural mountains who fixes things IF he > can get a card with a problem and IF he can duplicate the problem and IF > hes a good enough coder to get it done. > "hacker mentality" is not mainstream. 98% of people dont have a clue what `Mainstream' is a target some seek to avoid. Micro$oft exemplifies mainstream. > to do with source code. They want products that just work. Your > recommendation, if you make such a recommendation regarding "source over > binary", suits your own requirements and not that of your client or readers > and shows very poor judgement. `Best Judgement' depends on perspective, consider different perspectives: A) Hardware vendor who provides no driver sources, to avoid giving competition insight into hardware, &/or to lock in customers. B) Hardware vendor who provides sources, pleases hackers, & gets free positive publicity from those hackers. C) Leisure hacker: "I'm here to hack sources, binaries are boring" D) Leisure users: `make' of sources pleases them even if not programming. E) System installers, installing binary systems at dependent customers. F) Consultants willing to hack customer user's delivered source if paid. G) Dependent customers: "just want it to work, forever, at minimum cost" H) CDROM vendors, income raises with OS popularity. I) True `power users', ie programmers using sourced OS to maintain businesses. J) etc, ... other perspectives possible too. Your `judgement' is dependent on your perspective. I don't trust _any_ company not to cease support, by bankrupcy, being taken over, losing focus or key staff transfer/promotion etc. Customers receiving source code have the security that if a problem later arises, they can use money as an incentive to get some consultant to fix it, even if the original manufacturer/vendor has lost interest. If 2 competing FreeBSD drivers are ever available for one piece of hardware, one binary & professionaly supported, & one sourced & amateur support, I expect FreeBSD will provide hooks for both, & let users decide themselves, as is done with MATH_EMULATE & GPL_MATH_EMULATE. Julian - Julian Stacey Unix Consultant - Munich Germany http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/ Considering Linux ? Try FreeBSD with its 4000 packages ! Ihr Rauchen => mein allergischer Kopfschmerz ! Kau/Schnupftabak probieren ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012200059.eBK0wCN02480>