Linux Kernel Devs Offer Free Driver Development 348
schwaang writes "Linux Kernel hacker Greg Kroah-Hartman, author of Linux Kernel in a Nutshell has posted an epic announcement on his blog. This could portend increased device compatibility for Linux users, higher-quality drivers, and fewer non-free binary blobs." From the announcement: "[T]he Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development... All that is needed is some kind of specification that describes how your device works, or the email address of an engineer that is willing to answer questions every once in a while. If your company is worried about NDA issues surrounding your device's specifications, we have arranged a program... in order to properly assure that all needed NDA requirements are fulfilled. Now your developers will have more time to work on drivers for all of the other operating systems out there, and you can add 'supported on Linux' to your product's marketing material."
How many (Score:5, Insightful)
seems like a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dedicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Peter
This is needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:seems like a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
It might give the device manufacturers an out but, more importantly, won't it equally give the Linux family an 'in'?
The point isn't, so far as I can see, to make any profit from the scheme other than to spread the word of Linux and increase the potential compatibilities/reduce the incompatibilities.
Plus, as a bonus for the device driver writers, it's an impressive CV when you consider the varieties of hardware that are supported by the various Linux distros and the work, and potential elegance, that goes into solving the various demands.
It seems win-win for everyone, really. And a good, and generous, idea.
How's this different than OpenBSD? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Infact Linux supports more devices that any other operating system ever... and thats one of the advantages of open-source kernel drivers... they are maintained with the Kernel, so they remain usable through kernel architecture changes with zero effort from the original contributer of the device-driver. I am sure Microsoft would love to do this with windows, but of course they cannot, as they don't have the source code to the drivers they did not write themselves.
How will the NDA work ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many (Score:3, Insightful)
NDAs == wasted effort (Score:1, Insightful)
This is definitley new (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this really is something new, and quite an announcement. It was never the case before that any old random driver would get created by the open source community. The way OSS development generally works is there has to be a strong need, strong backing, or a high fun factor, for things to get done.
Prior to this announcement it's not like there was a group of people dedicated to writing drivers -- just waiting for companies to release new hardware, then they'd scurry to reverse engineer it and write a driver. Nor do companies (generally) release hardware specs in the hopes that others will provide a driver for their product.
A significant portion of initial open source driver development comes from the device manufacturers themselves, and smaller companies without the resources to spearhead these developments simply don't have the ability to have Linux support.
Your conception that "The community already writes free drivers for vendors who provide specs and loan some hardware" isn't true in the vast majority of cases.
This really is a big change, because now anyone can create a hardware device and actually have formal linux support, and have this printed on the box. This creates a formal avenue for companies to easily, reliably, and cheaply have Linux support for their products.
Re:seems like a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
In case nobody has noticed, most companies don't do support all that well even under windows. Hey, at the end of the day, as long as the drivers are open sourced, it's better than having binaries that may never see an update.
I say three cheers to a great and honest effort!
Re:seems like a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The point isn't, so far as I can see, to make any profit from the scheme other than to spread the word of Linux and increase the potential compatibilities/reduce the incompatibilities.
In fact, this is how it's always worked --- people have been asking companies for device information for years. (I did, once; I wanted the specs for a SIM reader device so I could do a Linux driver. Did I get a response? Did I hell.) The only difference is that this announcement rephrases things in a rather more marketspeak and official manner. Instead of the companies doing us a favour, by providing hardware specs, we are now doing them a favour, by writing their drivers for them.
It's a rather neat bit of lateral thinking.
Re:Wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about Vista's new requirement that all hardware mustn't be compromised by hackers or else the drivers will be remotely disabled? Might a company which produced hardware which is part of the DRM stack risk being more likely to be seen as compromised if it has collaborated with the OSS community?
Re:Standard Driver Model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:seems like a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way of looking at it would be as formalising the rule that "if you give us specifications, the driver will get written". A lot of the problems with free software drivers is lack of information on how a device works; if this makes it better known that all they have to do is provide some specification, it might encourage companies to submit more of them, and encourage customers to ask people to submit more of them.
Re:How many (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Standard Driver Model? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry if I sound pedantic, but we are already "able" to specify a standard driver model. I can specify one right now: the Linux driver model. It's pretty well-documented; just check out "Linux Kernel In a Nutshell" or "Linux Device Drivers" or the Linux kernel source.
Specifying one is not a problem. It's getting OS developers to adopt it that's a problem. Microsoft obviously isn't going to adopt Linux' driver model since they have so much invested in their own. Linux can't adopt Microsoft's because it's proprietary. Most of the reasons are political.
But there are also technical reasons. With a common driver model, you would force every OS to adopt a layer of abstraction or API which they might not want to have. Every layer of API inserted into a system adds overhead and degrades performance. No other OS would have a chance of kicking the ass of any other OS, performance-wise. In fact the performance advantage would go to the OS which the standard was most closely based on. Therefore, no OS wants to adopt any other OS' native model - they would only do a worse job of it by comparison.
Re:Dedicated (Score:3, Insightful)
putting words into peoples mouths and basically calling anyone that doesn't use linux a "dumb slave"(while maybe not in those words, the insinuation is there)
Oh the irony. He didn't 'call' you anything. He said that the only commitment that Apple and Microsoft can match against the effort put in by Linux coders is the time they spend trying to control their customers and limit their choices. A pointed argument that strikes right to the heart of the current DRM situation that mainstream computing in heading for (Apple and Microsoft being both enthusiastic proponents of Trusted Computing DRM), but this is certainly open to discussion. You, though, invented an entire subtext... and imagined him saying vast tracts of stuff about how you, personally, are a slave.
He didn't say anything of the sort. I, on the other hand, have no problem at all in calling you a fucking moron who can't read.
Re:How many (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies worried about IP issues should ask themselves if they are in the hardware business or the software business. If their objective is to sell more gizzmos, then opening the API to developers is an excellent way to sell more product.
If a company is concerned about the number of questions they'll be asked by the developers, then (a) they don't know the software business, and (b) they should take a long, hard look at the quality of their documentation.
The biggest problem is that many companies are already making so much from selling their gizzmos to Windows users not to need to sell them to Mac or Linux users as well, even though it takes no significant effort to do so. The extra profit, even at virtually 100% per unit) simply isn't attractive.
Re:Standard Driver Model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Xen implements something like this for block and network devices, and the USB and Bluetooth specifications do something similar for a few categories of device. The problem comes with things like GPUs where each new generation provides some extra functionality that the last one didn't; you'd need to constantly update your driver model to work with the new functionality. It's not impossible, but it does require a standards body that can quickly specify interfaces to the new functionality, which is quite improbably.
Re:Wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, working with a competitor to Microsoft may not be a wise strategic decision.
"Hi, good to see you again. I heard about how you were working with those Linux guys on giving away free drivers for your new card. That's a great move. But that has nothing to do with what I wanted to tell you, which was that there was an accident in the Vista certification lab and we lost the drivers you sent us. Until we can get a fix pushed out for this that means that everybody who buys your product from now on will be told that it has absolutely no support and that even if they download something directly from you it will be flagged as foreign code and won't run. The guys in the lab are really broken up about it and can't figure out how that kind of mistake could happen. Don't worry though, we'll get everything straightened out in the next big service pack. Honest."
Re:How many (Score:5, Insightful)
things I want done rather than supporting some lame hardware
vendor's attempt to save 5 cents on some bit of hardware.
Intellegence in peripherals should be expanding outwards
rather than shrinking. The former aids parallelism and the
latter sabotages it.
Re:How many (Score:3, Insightful)
That just tells you how Linux users compare
to the vast wasteland of lumps that may not
necessarily buy anything ever again once
they've gotten their low priced Dell bundle.
For many classes of hardware, 3D cards even,
diluting the Mac or Linux market share numbers
by adding Joe Sixpack gives you a rather
misleading impression.
The "upgrade" market is certainly going to be
incorrectly skewed by this effect.
different: "supported-by" commitment + NDA (Score:1, Insightful)
Hopefully we'll see a corresponding announcement by TLF to clear up any doubt.
Re:How many (Score:4, Insightful)
If a peripheral is taxing the host CPU enough that upgrading the CPU will increase the performance on that peripheral, it's already taking up too much of the host CPUs time.
Re:Extortion (Score:3, Insightful)
YOU GET MODDED 5 FOR "FUNNY"!!!
No wonder the DOJ gets laughed off...
Users need software freedom for all their software (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe this kind of thing happens [digitalcitizen.info] more than others know, particularly as GNU/Linux distributors that distribute proprietary software make it easier for users to acquire proprietary software (as I understand Ubuntu is working on). Users shouldn't be left without their software freedom, nor should they have to choose between updating their system kernel and using their video card.
Making users helpless and keeping them separate is no way to live. Users need software freedom now.
Re:How many (Score:3, Insightful)
Be serious.