On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 23:04 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:46:01 -0500, Sean wrote: > > You haven't made a good > > case that the kernel developers should change anything about the way they > > handle these issues. > > The case I'm making revolves around Linux being an OS people can use to > get things done, rather than a work of art or a demo of open source > principles. If you think the kernel is better off as a flagship of purity > rather than a production desktop kernel then fine, I have nothing to say > about that. I think you are neglecting another possible alternate future for Linux that I believe is actually much more likely. In a similar discussion not long ago on either this list or fedora- test-list, I reminded someone of a similar mind as you the history with SCSI card vendors. It used to be like pulling teeth to get SCSI card vendors to release specs for their cards, much less GPLed drivers. But, then something happened that they didn't expect[1]: Linux started taking off (and some cases, taking *over*) in the server room. It wasn't long before SCSI vendors were falling over each other to get their GPLed drivers rolled into the mainline kernel. Xircom (now owned by Intel) comes to mind as a prime example. Fast forward to a few years in the future and I believe your earlier false dichotomy here -- On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 21:10 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote: > That's why I said "primarily useful". Obviously open source code is > good > for society in general, that's why we're all here! My point was that > it's not so directly useful to non-programmers that they'll say "Oh > well > I'll not play 3D games anymore" en-masse. Not going to happen fails to identify a common catch-22 that can, and has in the past (like in the SCSI case) been broken. There is no market for games on Linux so there is no market for Linux among gamers. As Linux desktop systems take off more and more (and that, I believe is inevitable) in business and non-gamer home use (and I know many non-gamer home users, BTW) you will start to see more demand for games on Linux. *Someone* will produce a decent graphics card on Linux and provide Free Software drivers that will end up in the stock distributions of the Linux kernel and X.org. If you think that's unrealistic, search the linux-kernel archives over the past month or so for a discussion initiated by hardware vendor engineer who was interested, and had buy-in from his management, to produce a completely open design with Linux in mind specifically. It was (is?) going to be 2D initially, but the possibility of 3D was not out of the question for the future. So eventually there may be a non-nVidia, non-ATI graphics card with 3D-acceleration on Linux supported through Free Software drivers. This will make it possible for freedom-conscious distributions to bundle these drivers making this vendor's card the only well supported 3D- accelerated card on Linux out-of-box. Any company migrating most of their desktops to Linux will suddenly see an opportunity. Some additional percentage (1-2% maybe?) of their desktops that have been held back to that *other* operating system because their sales engineers need high performance 3D graphics to do their presentations will now be able to switch to RHEL5 (or WBEL5.0, for the really cost conscious) because it 'just works' out of the box with this new 3D-accelerated card. These 1-2% need hardware upgrades, anyhow. Now that this company can save money on software licensing, due to the ability to migrate to Linux, these upgrade have become affordable. (Presuming, of course, that there are no Windows apps actually holding back these specific upgrades, just lack of out-of-box 3D-accelerated support.) And then who's to say that Sony Playstation 3 game vendors won't begin to see an opportunity as well? "Gee, we're already developing on Linux," (as the PS/3 supposedly will be based on), "Linux is now gaining popularity, and also has an out-of-box working 3D-accelerated card. So we have the Linux expertise, let's get our games working on desktop Linux!" (Yes, I know about restrictive console vendor contracts, but that could all change if the economics do.) On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 15:40 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote: > Well this is just a generalisation of "all software should be open > source". I tend to agree with that, it would be great if that were > true. > > But it's not true, and there are no signs of it suddenly becoming true > anytime soon. I'd also rather people open sourced their code due to > the > social benefits (everybody being able to fix bugs, share knowledge, > implement new system-wide optimisations etc) rather than because the > kernel made it a total pain in the ass to do otherwise. That's > coercion > not persuasion. And when this 'third' graphics card vendor I mention above *owns* the market for 3D-accelerated cards on Linux, nVidia and ATI will wake up and start to consider the benefits of releasing their code. They may not do it right away, but they will be forced consider the *economic* reality that will become evident. It's not the case now, but, paraphrasing Jon 'maddog' Hall, "it's inevitable". Nobody is coercing anyone, as you imply above. If Linux becomes wildly successful on the desktop (with or without nVidia or ATI), which I believe will happen, and you want to play, you play by the rules. That's no different than any other operating system. On Sun, November 21, 2004 1:43 pm, Mike Hearn said: > I think you need to talk to the nVidia engineers and/or Alan Cox, who > has > said in the past (I think) that he can't find a way for them to open > their > driver sources without suffering serious consequences. It's not a > simple > matter of patents and legal problems. It's a matter of economics. > > Anyway, this whole point is silly: nobody should be *forced* against > their > wishes to open source their code if they don't want to. If open source > development really is better than the old way, then rational people > will > become a part of it over time if they can. Agreed. But nobody is *forcing* anyone. The binary-only vendors have made their own beds ... let them sleep in it. And there's no reason whatsoever to make it comfortable for them to not join. Personally, I don't think ndiswrapper is good idea for that very reason. It gives network card vendors a reason to be lazy and not port their drivers and provide them to the Linux kernel developers for inclusion. When nVidia and ATI come and join us, I have no doubt it will be for economic reasons. That's fine. Provided they come with an understanding of the terms of participation ... and this is to contribute code under the appropriate licenses, not to try and change the Linux way of doing things. Code is the only currency of the meritocracy that is Free Software. And you do have to 'buy' your way in. 1. This is key. Linux keeps on achieving things that ISVs, IHVs, and pundits don't expect. It's an ingrained characteristic of Free Software in general. When the pundits say, <random-free-software-project> won't achieve <some-random-achievement> any time soon, it's obvious they are saying that they don't believe it will *ever* achieve it. The Free Software projects keep proving them wrong, but they never learn. The lesson: *expect* to be surprised. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
