Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:45:09 -0500 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001221120837.022ab0a0@mail.etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <20001221104823.6BE7C96EC@toad.stack.nl> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001220192150.01f42450@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:48 AM 12/21/2000, you wrote: >[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > At 07:58 PM 12/19/2000, Julian Stacey Jhs@jhs.muc.de wrote: > > >Dennis wrote to Boris et all: > > > > > > > > >Device Drivers > > > > >-------------- > > > > >I don_t 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. > > > > Your "mentality" has caused you to alienate yourselves from the rest of > the > > world, which serves your ego but not the FreeBSD community. Acts such as:: > >I don't agree. I think some brake on the evolution towards more binary-only >distributions is important for the continuity of FreeBSD. > >Your allegations are short sighted. True, they make life easier for users on >the shortterm. But in the long run, because of steadily rising binary parts, >FreeBSD won't controlled any more by the people who made it, but the ones >that can plug entire classes of hardware support from it, which is bad for >everyone involved. If you want freebsd to remain a cult OS for hackers you are correct. > > > 2) making statements like "if i dont get source i dont want it" > >Why would that be bad? Its similar to not buying products with a union label. That strategy is only good for the unions, not for the industry or for the country. You are eliminating choices and competition to serve a political interest. I enjoy hearing people that have rejected our product because we dont give source complain about persistent problems with public drivers. They get what they pay for. > > indicate to corporate america that you have no interest in having them > > develop significant products for Freebsd > >Not true. Indicate to coprorate America that they can work with us, but >don't control us. > > > A successful strategy is to encourage all developers to contribute > > products, binary or source, and let end users decide which products to buy > > or use. > >Short term successful only. > > > With such an inclusive strategy, customers have choices. with > > binary distributions you have competition, with source everything is > the same. > >With binary distributions you still have no competition, since the drivers >are for a specific hardware device. > > > Binary distributions are not about piracy as much as they are > maintaining a > > feature advantage over your competitors. > >No, since the features are in the hardware, and competitors are able enough >to reverse engineer them. Only the OSS community is seriously hindered, >because they can't put as many fulltime employed people on it, and are much >more endangered by legal consequences, without capital to protect them. > > > If you provide source with > > improved features, someone will port it to the cheapest hardware available > > and then you end up competing with your own technologies.on other > hardware > > and you lose your margins. > >That will still happen. There is something like "disassemblers" (try objdump >:-) > >If the feature is that important competitively, the added hassle of binary >only is no bump for the competition. Source is more of a "hassle", binary loads right up. the SNMP package is a great example. Doing it from source is a nightmare. Missing includes, wrong paths. compile failures. The package loads right up and Im running. We sold tons of cards for a long time because we were the only ones to have frame relay , and now we still have a superior implementation and allows us to get higher margins on our cards. We also dont have to deal with some weenie on the phone who balks at our price and says "oh I can get a Z80 based sangoma card for $200. that will do that". Why should developers not get dollars for their technology? If we couldnt have gotten dollars for it, we wouldnt have developed it, and the Freebsd community would have had to do without frame relay and multiport serial cards for 2-3 years until it found its way into the tree. > > There is no incentive for companies to invest resources in developing > > better software for their FreeBSD based products, because there is no > > guarantee that people have to buy their boards to utilize it (if they can > > easily be ported to others). > >1. Which, is only rarely the case (portable unique features in drivers) >2. Which, given that is such a break-through, will be reverse engineered by >the other manufacterors again. Reverse engineering is a myth. The result is so inferior to high-level language source code as to not be a concern, plus its illegal so it cant be marketed. >So, what is left ? Binary drivers are nothing but a mental phantom of some >corporate managers, which should seek help. > >They don't help anyone. They hardly hinder the competition, and majorly >hinder the OSS tree. Its a good thing you are not a lawyer, because your arguments are wrong and laughable. How does Intel's binary ethernet card driver for Win98 hurt the OS tree? how does a video driver hurt the OS tree? The FreeBSD "tree" is protected by the core team. its no in danger. a good OS provides clean hooks to accommodate add-ones and they shouldnt affect the tree at all. If Microsoft made source available to win98, the commercial vendors could still distributor binary add-ons without affecting the tree. One thing has nothing to do with the other. What "hurts" the tree is all of the crappy source and proprietory bullshit that finds it way into the "tree" netgraph, half-baked bridging, filtering stuff...these should all be add-ons with specific hooks so that users can chose between the "Free stuff" and commercially available modules. For the source weenies, they can use the "all source" solutions, while companies who want superior functionality can pay for commercially supported solutions. You obviously dont understand business, but you cant teach a fish to fly, so Its really no use. Dennis 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?5.0.0.25.0.20001221120837.022ab0a0>