Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:06:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:06:18 -0500 Received: from wire.cadcamlab.org ([156.26.20.181]:524 "EHLO wire.cadcamlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:06:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:06:00 -0600 To: jacob@chaos2.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... Message-ID: <20010217190600.D28785@cadcamlab.org> In-Reply-To: <200102171337.f1HDbwh13232@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: ; from kernel@gnifty.net on Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:20:23AM -0800 From: Peter Samuelson Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Jacob Luna Lundberg] > Just out of curiosity, why can't the specification be along the lines > of a vendor data file saying ``if you want the printer to do x then > say y'' and ``if the printer says x then it means y''. That ought to > add a lot of functionality right there. Think about it. A spec based on what you say would be quite easy to reverse-compile, no? In which case, obviously the company's IP, such as it is, is not protected. In which case, why not just do an open source driver and be done with it? The concept of architecture-independent device drivers goes back to Open Firmware. But in that case, there is a practical consideration: the drivers couldn't be compiled down to machine language since they had to be accessible as-is at boot time. Peter - 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/