Re: Binary Drivers

"Scott Preece" <sepreece@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Which is more rude:
(a) "Thank you for requesting a driver to support our hardware on
Linux. Unfortunately, we don't have time either to provide such a
driver or write the documentation that would allow you do so. The
Linux market is not big enough to justify the work, and as a result we
cannot offer you any support.", or

(b) "Thank you for requesting a driver to support our hardware on
Linux. Unfortunately, we don't have time either to provide such a
driver or write the documentation that would allow you do so. The
Linux market is not big enough to justify the legal and technical
expense involved. However, we can provide you with this binary driver
that we believe will allow you to use the hardware in your system,
just as we provide binary drivers for other hardware platforms."

But as it happens that driver does not work for a large segment
percentage of linux users who potentially could place the card in
their system. Did that driver support all 23 architectures?

You say "It's rude to not play by our rules". They say "It's rude of
you to expect us to change our business model to support your niche
market differently from the way we support everyone else." Neither is
wrong...

Every market is different, and you have to different things in
different markets. It is close to incompetent not to acknowledge
the fact that rules are different in different markets and different
places. That is one of the reasons why people try to harmonize laws
so there is not too much of this going on.

Usually it is also the case that binary vs source release does nothing
to a hardware manufacturers business model they sell hardware after
all, and usually having a helping hand in writing the necessary
software and making it work (the source release) is a plus for the
hardware manufacturer.

The difference is that we don't expect the hardware manufactures to do
anything we only hope they will support linux. Once they support
linux we do expect they will play well with others and if they don't
then it is rude.

Please none of this amoral Neither is wrong crap.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • NMI watchdog doesnt know what hardware to touch
    ... NMI watchdog doesn't know what hardware to touch ... Linux 2.6.24-rc5-g4af75653 on x86_64 ... # SCSI support type ... # Input Device Drivers ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: 2.6.16-rc2-mm1: crash on suspend
    ... I've got a kernel crash when trying to suspend to disk. ... Mandriva Linux release 2006.1 for i586, ... # ACPI Support ... # Generic Driver Options ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Adaptec ATA RAID 1200A under Linux
    ... >with it an Adaptec ATA RAID 1200A as it seemed to do ... >Linux", yet they have all the Windows drivers. ... They claim to support 2400A because they wrote an open source linux ... The driver is now in the main line linux kernel. ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Adaptec ATA RAID 1200A under Linux
    ... >with it an Adaptec ATA RAID 1200A as it seemed to do ... >Linux", yet they have all the Windows drivers. ... They claim to support 2400A because they wrote an open source linux ... The driver is now in the main line linux kernel. ...
    (RedHat)
  • Fibre Channel state of the union
    ... support than any currently available operating system. ... remote port management and its integration into SAM and the Linux ... This reduces the burden of writing and maintaining an FC HBA driver ...
    (Linux-Kernel)