From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 6 07:47:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1C816A4E1 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:47:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from timo.schoeler@riscworks.net) Received: from aldebaran.riscworks.net (aldebaran.riscworks.net [217.13.197.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7467D43D46 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:47:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from timo.schoeler@riscworks.net) Received: from aldebaran.riscworks.net (localhost.riscworks.net [127.0.0.1]) by aldebaran.riscworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1283F452; Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.100.102] (dslb-088-073-021-014.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.73.21.14]) by aldebaran.riscworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026E03F441; Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:47:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44FE7D14.4060909@riscworks.net> Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:47:32 +0200 From: Timo Schoeler Organization: RISCworks User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Macintosh/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jadacuma@ched.gov.ph References: <20060831110112.J82634@hub.org> <20060831184715.B82634@hub.org> <44F7619B.8010609@evilkittens.org> <20060831192632.T82634@hub.org> <20060831225719.GG25515@ribeyre.gentiane.org> <20060831200228.B82634@hub.org> <20060831230642.GH25515@ribeyre.gentiane.org> <20060831201338.F82634@hub.org> <20060905070219.GC13764@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20060905141802.GB5021@peereboom.us> <64617.61.9.41.179.1157518242.squirrel@co-mail.ched.gov.ph> In-Reply-To: <64617.61.9.41.179.1157518242.squirrel@co-mail.ched.gov.ph> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: freshly checked on Wed Sep 6 09:47:35 2006 +0200 (CEST) by RISCworks eMail Suite Cc: Marco Peereboom , miros-discuss@mirbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org Subject: Re: The future of NetBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:47:38 -0000 thus Joseph A. Dacuma spake: >>> I don't think that binary only drivers are well enough. >>> Surely better than nothing but ... >> No fucking way. No support is FAR FAR better than a blob. Yes, really! >> >>> Don't forget that an open source team sometimes makes api changes >>> that might break a "binary only" driver. And companies sometimes >>> are slow in fixing. >> A.K.A. Never. And when they try it usually doesn't work right. Worst of >> all >> *you* have no clue how they kludged a so called fix together. Vendor code >> is >> usually pretty darn bad and I wonder why people never revolt against that. >> >>> Or the vendor did some mistakes in his own driver. >>> First the paying customers are served. All the other folks >>> (open source ..) surely will come last. >> Open source users paid for the hardware didn't they? Or because they use >> an >> alternative OS now they stole the hardware? This argument is retarded. >> >>> For some smaller corps supporting open source developers is >>> simply a burden that costs time and so money. >> Docs are part of the development process. If they are not than you don't >> want >> that hardware. >> >>> I know this from a medium sized german company producing nice >>> audio recording cards. >>> >>> It was impossible to get a card and documentation from them for >>> a FreeBSD developers. And after weeks and months of asking via >>> e-mail they decided finally to tell the truth that they don't >>> want to support open source developers anymore, it makes too much >>> work. They are unable to spend so much time answering open source >>> developers questions although they got documentation. This experience >>> they made with Linux developers. >> I call horseshit on this one too. Vendors do not have to support shit if >> they >> free their docs. NOTHING because the OS developers will do it for FREE >> for >> them. This argument is a steaming pile of shit with peanuts in it. >> >> It is this attitude that is killing Linux and FreeBSD. They will allow >> anyone >> to shit and piss in their sandbox and say "GREAT THANKS!" >> >> You people need to get through your heads that blobs are killing your >> operating >> system that you pretend to care so much about. Allowing blobs is the >> equivalent of eating fast food; it is convenient now but 10 years from now >> your >> ass wont fit through the door. >> >> A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights. >> -- Napoleon Bonaparte >> >>> Andreas /// >>> >>> -- >>> Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 6 >>> Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/ >>> > > Hi All! > > I agree totally with Mr. Peereboom. IMHO, BLOBS are not sustainable in the > long run. If a manufacturer decides to retire a particular model (driver > support included) while OS keeps on releasing newer versions (which > include changes in the design and/or how things are implemented) one will > be facing two scenarios: stasis or an unstable system. Both I believe is > distasteful. definitely. but on the other hand there's 15 minutes of fame if you support a device (using a blob) today -- as others won't support it. > I'd rather purchase hardware that will enable me to (ab)use it until it no > longer works (MBTF deadend) using either NetBSD or OpenBSD :). true, but NetBSD allows blobs. > Joseph A. Dacuma timo