Free Linux Kernel Driver Development FAQ 84
schwaang writes "The recent announcement by Linux Kernel Developer Greg Kroah-Hartman that 'the Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development' seems to have stirred up some interest as well as some questions — see the Slashdot discussion about the announcement. Greg K-H addresses some of the questions raised here, and raises a few more, in a new Free Linux Driver Development FAQ on his blog. An excerpt: 'Q: Are companies really going to do this? A: Yes, already we have received a number of serious queries from companies about producing Linux drivers for their devices. More information will be available later when details are firmed up."
Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Cirrus Logic doesn't appreciate help (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.freelists.org/archives/linux-cirrus/02
Looks like the in house coding team was bummed that Lennert Buytenhek did a better job on the port then their whole team. Ridiculous response!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I know for sure I'd be much more likely to buy good new brand hardware if I knew it would Just Work with Linux.
Right now I only grab the older stuff I need from ebay (used) or other stores.
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux users are definitely consumers. Believing that having the basic functionality of operating your computer for free isn't about exiting the market as a consumer. It's along the lines of how you should be able to operate your television for free. You don't need cable, satellite, or any product separate from the equipment itself for your TV to function. You can buy a TV, watch DVDs, tapes, home videos, set it up as a security monitor, or use it just as speakers for an audio tape player, whatever you want to do with it.
Up until Linux, if you bought computer hardware, it was a dead box unless you also paid for an operating system, of which the only real choice was Windows. You couldn't use the hardware you had bought. You had a computer that couldn't compute anything. No matter how small your needs were, even if the only thing you ever needed to do was create plain text files, you had to pay $90+. With Windows XP Professional, it should burn any purchasing manager to think about paying $300 for a pinball game and another half dozen games, movie maker, media player, and various libraries and functions to support those applications, when the reason the computer is needed may not ever involve any of those. Whether or not those applications are needed you must pay for them. Enter Linux.
It's a misnomer that Linux users are cheapskates. Linux users will pay just as much cold, hard cash as the next guy for applications and products that fill his needs, they're just not willing to pay for peripheral garbage that has no value to them. As a Linux user, I've personally paid $4500 for an IDE/toolkit.
There are many Linux users who want to be consumers, and would gladly pay for things like 3D Studio Max, Photoshop CS2, etc. but those things aren't being offered to Linux users. Linux users are consumers lacking producers. We might have money but, for some reason, a lot of companies don't think a Linux user's money spends like the other kind, which is a shame because companies like Google have a lot of Linux money to throw around.
Basement-bound Linux users are no different, eventually they become purchasing managers, company owners, or hobbyists who build up some cash and want to spend it on something. If someone makes a decent offer, they'll fork over the cash just like anyone else.
Re: (Score:1)
More, its the general market for software which is stuck in the same old ways. Generally speaking, something thats free is lesser quality than something that costs. In the normal product world, you might go out looking for an oven. Companies sell them so they can make a certain profit, while making the price attractive to a consumer. The consumers know that, so a mo
Can users sign up for this? (Score:3, Funny)
Sure you can (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you done missed the point completely, son. The FAQ is 100% correct. The people involved with THIS project will not be reverse-engineering anything as part of this project, whose point is more or less the converse of this desire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody pleasexplain what this all is about (Score:1)
Re:Somebody please explain what this all is about (Score:5, Informative)
Not entirely true either (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, some manufacturer will be approaching the kernel team and offering the specs. The kernel team will probably pick an active developer who wishes to do it. Interestingly, manufacturers will be more likely to bring in alpha (or beta) hardware to have the drivers built BEFORE going to market. Once they figure out the sales potential from Linux, then they will be more likely to develop the drivers in-house.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The understanding I get is that this is so manufacturers can include the Linux drivers with the devices when they are purchased. After purchasing and installing most devices now-a-days the users generally have the option of registering their purchase with the manufacturer for warranty purposes (and which is probably also used by marketing types as well... which is good in this case). The manufacturers registration web pages often ask what operating system it is being used with... As long as Linux users ma
Re:Somebody pleasexplain what this all is about (Score:5, Informative)
From the FAQ
Q: This is a lame publicity stunt, Linux development has always been done this way.
A: Well, the NDA program that we have set up with The Linux Foundation is new. But yes, other than that, this is exactly how Linux kernel development has been done. But it is good to point out exactly how it all works for those who are not familiar with how it works.
BBH
Yes it's always done like that mostly, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but... Who told the hardware vendors about that? :-p
Someone finally did, explained the benefits, and got an amazing number of responses :-)
We take much for granted. When you meet a Linux newbie you'll notice how much "hidden knowledge" we have. Who the community is, that the FSF / GPL is, how the OS is layered in tools and front ends, what "compiling" does, how communication is done, how to find answers for problems. Linux newbies are not aware of this. The same can be said about hardware vendors.
Even if a vendor jumped in a random channel, the average response is "Open Source it". We understand the meaning and advantages of that approach. They only think "help, I must give away my code". It was about time someone stepped up to shed some light on these matters.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Is it really that shocking that hardware manufacturers are interested in having drivers developed for free that would enable them to reach additional consumers?
Oh.. wait. It's Linux. So that means it's news. Yeah, right.
1. You must be new here.
2. As stated in the FFAQ:
Q: This is a lame publicity stunt, Linux development has always been done this way.
A: Well, the NDA program that we have set up with The Linux Foundation is new. But yes, other than that, this is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The NDAs that Grek K-H talked about were of the kind that would keep details about the release of products secret until a specific date (e.g., product launch). I don't think he was talking about the kind
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Zero (Score:2, Funny)
A: Yes, the initial response to this was amazing, a measurable number of new Linux drivers will be created thanks to this program.
As per a Simpson's episode [tv.com], I'm reminded that zero is a number. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well yes, but arguably not a measurable one.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"An infinite number of Linux drivers were created this week."
--- SER
Re:Zero (Score:4, Funny)
If only we had an infinite number of monkeys...
(Gotta love preview. I just noticed the original article is on the Linux Kernel Monkey Log. Maybe we DO have more monkeys than I realize.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no.. that's how MS does it's driver development.
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy:
#!/usr/bin/perl
sub createDriver {
$h = sprintf "%lx",$_[0];
$h = "0$h" if (length($h)%2!=0);
open(D, ">$_[0].driver");
for($i=0; $i<length($h)/2; $i++) {
printf D "%c",hex(substr($h,$i*2,2));
}
}
$d = 0;
while(1) {createDriver($d++);}
(Determining which output files are useful Linux drivers is left as an exercise for the re
how do these developers get paid? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. Or the contrary. The whole "kernel community" is supposed to help to get those drivers, who knows if some of those people will be paid or not. I think that everybody, paid or not, should help to finish this project succesfully.
Re:how do these developers get paid? (Score:4, Interesting)
You may also be able to get some short-term work from companies wanting to switch existing infrastructure to Linux and needing drivers for existing hardware, although this is likely to be contingent on your acquiring the device specs first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you have to try and find yourself a job where they let you do kernel development, if your good enough then all you have to do is shout for a new job and someone will pick you up.
Unless your really good and dedicated your going to have a hard time getting paid for developing kernel drivers.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some are paid to work on Linux as employees of Linux distros like Red Hat or Novel, or work for hardware or system vendors who want their products to work with Linux (HP, Intel, Dell, etc.).
Some are in job positions in corporations where they use Linux, and need/want a particular piece of third-party hardware to work for their application (be it a
What we really need (Score:2, Informative)
It's also a "critical mass" sort of thing. Once all hardware companies provide full support for Linux, then Linux will be in a position to truly be a mainstream replacement for Windows.
I'm sure their reasons have to do with perceived user base. But, how do we get them to support us without that "critical mass" of users? It's like the chicke
Re:What we really need (Score:4, Insightful)
What we want - and what this process does - is to get them to release enough information that a driver can be written and incorporated upstream into the kernel so that Linux supports their hardware out-of-the-box. This bypasses all the "critical mass" problems because they don't have to pay for the development costs, and negates the need to supply drivers with the hardware. How can they lose?
Re: (Score:1)
Distrbutions decide which drivers to include as default, however yes, the idea is that the kernel supports your hardware, no matter what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is more scalable that way! You know why? Because a big chunk of what kernel developers do is re-organize the code to create better abstractions and reduce duplication. If every bit of hardware had it's own separate driver you'd have a huge mess (like on Windows) as opposed to the managed mess we have now.
Besides, the only really scalable solution would
Don't knock it. (Score:2)
Sure, there
Ah, it's in misc now. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
o_O Do I even want to know what that thing's used for?
Oh, it is. It is. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is expensive to create hardware. If you publish your hardware register set, internal bus mappings, and the meanings of all the magic numbers so prevalent in hardware level code, it makes it easier (and cheaper) to reverse engineer hardware. Most companies that do real hardware development spend a lot of money up front doing design and prot
Re:What we really need (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding yourself - I have used, and continue to use - a number of closed source binary Linux device drivers acquired from 3rd party manufacturers. The real reasons you don't see Linux device drivers shipping with hardware are:
It's worth noting that in many cases Microsoft produces or buys drivers for hardware. thereby obviating the [percieved] need for the manufacturer to spend much effort on any OS drivers, let alone one as arcane as a *nix driver with some hippie "licensing" scheme...
Also, if a device is designed to an existing h/w spec utilitized by M$, again - no driver needs to be produced by the h/w manufacturer.
It's all about margins, market share, ignorance, and prejudice. The relative openness of the Linux systems has nothing to do with it, nor does your imagined inability of Systems other than "Solaris and Windows" to dynamically link a loaded binary module. Futhermore, I am unaware of any consumer-grade h/w device which has Solaris OS driver support, which does not also have support under Linux.
The fact that you and/or your shop have never so much as looked at the Linux OS to a degree sufficient to producing a device driver for it is obvious from your posting, so please: Sit down, and STFU until such time as you have poked around a bit and actually know someting about what you're talking about - you've forced me to waste an unacceptable amount of bitwidth trying to clear the smoke you've blowing in front of the mirrors...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yeah - right - and your bringing up non-sensical, unrelated arguments from your own sordid past why? No one cares - none of tha addresses the point, and none of it says anything about why any company may or may not produce a Linux driver...
Fuck you - you're a stupid twit, and stupid twits drive away a lot more business than zealots do - you nned to breathe deep and take a look at the Big Picture, for a change - sounds lik
Re: (Score:2)
The OP "wondered for years why most [companies] don't [provide Linux drivers]". How, exactly is an explanation of why one specific company was reluctant to do so "non-sensical or unrelated"? I'm sorry if you don't grok the point of view, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
Unless things have changed noticably in the last 4 years, Linux is the easiest system I know of to write
Re: (Score:2)
Grow up. Please? You are taking yourself - and apparenlty me - way too seriously. If you really, really truly think you know what you're talking about, and I don't guess what? Unless you can offer me some new information that might modify my opinion, I just don't give a crap - not even enough to try to convince you - far, far easier to just toss out some ad hominum tweaks, sit back, and laugh...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably is true that the Linux kernel's intentional lack of ABI compatibility has been a hurdle for some vendors who would otherwise produce a proprietary kernel driver for their ha
Re: (Score:2)
When the driver is provided with the hardware, they also need to provide instructions on how to make that driver work on any given Linux system, or at least some popular distribution. In addition to that, they will need to provide some level of support, at least for the installation process. Linux's distribution-fracture nature makes that harder so many companies pick one distribution (hint: it isn't Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware).
Ideally, we should get the drivers into the distributed kernel tree as soon
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't. It's much simpler for users if the drivers are in the kernel. I don't need Windows driver hell recreated in Linux.
I've wondered for years why most of them don't do that.
The kernel ABI is not stable, so the drivers (or at least some glue layer) would need to be recompiled
Published unencumbered specs, not software. (Score:2)
What we need are accurate published specs for all hardware. These specs should be published for all to see, with no legal restrictions. An
Re: (Score:2)
The best devices are ones that use non-vendor-specific drivers. For example, disk controllers are increasingly "AHCI", and, so long as they
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows is pretty stable in theory and on it's own. It's not stable in practice. Why?
Because companies provide drivers on their own and delivered with their hardware. Drivers that suck. Drivers that are unstable pieces of crap. Drivers that take the OS down with them.
It's also a "critical mass" sort of thing. Once all hardware companies provide full support for Linux, then Linux will be in a position to truly be a mainstream replacement for Windows.
Could've solved broadcom (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know but I think that maybe such a system might have made the suits and lawyers with Broadcom comfortable enough to allow co-operation on a linux device driver... *sigh* would have been nice.
Re: (Score:2)
There's NDAs and then there's NDAs. The kind of NDAs this effort is willing to abide by are the kind saying "don't tell anybody the details of the hardware you're writing the driver for until after it's released." The kind of NDAs that Broadcom wants, but which are incompatible with all Free Software (including this) are the ones that say "you can't release specs EVER, so you will always be dependent on us to tell you how the hardware works (even after we've long since abandoned it)."
Wow !!! (Score:2)
liability? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
This is a tough concept for windows boys to grasp because they come from the world of "If it doesn't work we call MS/Dell/HP" etc.
Besides, is oracle liable for your data loss when you lose your oracle instance? MS when you lose your IIS website?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the real point in those situations is "if it goes wrong I can put the blame on a big company the PHB has heard of, otherwise it will be my fault".
Re:liability? (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what. Odds are, it'll still be your fault. Your fault for not getting the specs right. Your fault for not working with the major vendor to make it work. After all, they're a big company and have hundreds if not thousands of other installations working right. Thus, if they all work and yours doesn't -- it is your fault.
The ONLY way you might get away with that is if some executive MANDATED you use a specific product, overriding your objections or advise to the contrary, and he is a known asshole in the company. Even then, it is still iffy.
And finally, even if it isn't your fault and you can successfully blame someone else, you'll still get a bit of a reputation of "that guy who couldn't get it done".
Good luck!
Re: (Score:1)
No (because of the EULA) but they should be. Otherwise, why did you shell out the big bucks for Oracle or IIS? You might as well use apache.
Likewise, if you buy RHEL and apache falls over even after you installed it properly, Redhat should be liable.
but IANAL so this could be all pie in the sky when it comes to an actual lawsuit.
Cheers
Ben
RTFA actually has some meaning here (Score:3, Informative)
monkey? (Score:2, Insightful)
Should always have been like that. (Score:1)
Now, this is even better because of the NDA of the specs of not yet released products, which means support from day one!
Q: Are developers really going to do this? (Score:1)
Q: Are developers really going to do this?
indicates that you missed http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219556&