LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vincent C Jones <>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
	Linux Kernel list <>
Subject: Re: protecting source code in 2.6
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:56:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1085268253.9234.14.camel@gaston>

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:24:14AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Arguments tend to loose a lot of their impact when based on religion
> > rather than realism.
> OK, then please, provide us with a strong & valid argument justifying
> the interest in keeping a driver closed.
> Oh, and ATI or nVidia aren't good examples, just grep for the amount of
> crashes caused by the later for example, look some of the backtraces
> and see the horror...
> Ben.

OK... Calm down... Take a deep breath... Take another one... Now go back
and read the comment I was responding to...

I was not and am not claiming that closed source is a "good thing."
Rather, I was merely pointing out that there are huge numbers of people
who WILL buy/use closed source, despite its disadvantages, if they
think it is the most cost effective way to solve THEIR problem. The
lack of quality in nVidia drivers reinforces, rather than negates,
my comment.  That people will use junk if they feel they have no option
(look at the number of Windows ME users out there).

Telling the original poster that he won't sell any hardware if he
ships a closed driver is a blatant lie (look at wintel PCs and nVidia
graphics cards) and does nothing to promote the cause. It only makes
the Linux community look like a bunch of raving idiots who lack the
common sense to drive a car less than 20 years old or heat their lunch
in a microwave oven (a couple of very common applications which come
to mind which are only available with closed software).

I don't know about you, but even when I chose a piece of software to
run on my personal computer, what I really care about is whether or
not it solves MY problems at a price I can afford (which includes
the total cost throughout the life of the projects I base on it).
Whether the code I use is open or closed is only one of a wide range
of considerations in determining the cost and effectiveness.

Given the choice, I will choose open source over closed, but that
was not even a consideration when I abandoned Microsoft years ago,
(FWIW, moving to OS/2 for several years until Linux became a viable
alternative). Nor was it a consideration when I moved from CP/M to DOS
or from DOS to Windows...

But I'm not interested in a flame war or even a prolonged discussion of
the merits of open vs. closed software, and would prefer to discourage
either. What I would like to see is more thinking before posting to
keep discussions on target (solving problems that prevent or delay
the support of Linux on the platforms and with the peripherals and
applications which I want). Encouraging the original poster to keep
his software open is one thing, but assuming he is a blithering idiot
because he does not share your ideals is another. Fortunately, there
was one, lonely soul who had the common sense to give him a few hints
of where to look to find the rules for doing it with minimum damage.

Dr. Vincent C. Jones, PE              Expert advice and a helping hand
Computer Network Consultant           for those who want to manage and
Networking Unlimited, Inc.            control their networking destiny
14 Dogwood Lane, Tenafly, NJ 07670  +1 201 568-7810  Fax: +1 201 568-7269 

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-23  0:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
     [not found] ` <>
2004-05-22 14:54   ` Vincent C Jones
2004-05-22 23:24     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-05-23  0:56       ` Vincent C Jones [this message]
2004-05-20 13:21 Jinu M.
2004-05-20 14:08 ` Sam Ravnborg
2004-05-20 14:08 ` Giuliano Pochini
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-20 13:18 Jinu M.
2004-05-20 13:44 ` John Bradford
2004-05-20 14:05 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2004-05-20 15:43 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-05-21  8:29 ` Matthias Andree
2004-05-21 16:05 ` Rik van Riel
2004-05-21 19:49 ` Bill Davidsen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: protecting source code in 2.6' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).