Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:22:47 -0500
From: "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw@wittsend.com>
To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Cc: rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk, jesse@cats-chateau.net, A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux stifles innovation...
Message-ID: <20010217152247.F26627@alcove.wittsend.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, rjd@xyzzy.clara.co.uk,
	jesse@cats-chateau.net, A.J.Scott@casdn.neu.edu,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010216170349.01efc030@mail.etinc.com> <200102170010.f1H0Aqa26773@xyzzy.clara.co.uk> <5.0.0.25.0.20010217150612.0390d950@mail.etinc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.2i
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010217150612.0390d950@mail.etinc.com>; from dennis@etinc.com on Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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!

-
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/