|
|
| Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:12 AM EST
|
Greg Kroah-Hartman has posted an offer on his blog and also sent it by email to companies -- the Linux kernel guys will write their drivers for them for free. What a creative solution to the binary-only driver problem. Information Week describes the offer: According to his blog, hardware vendors that submit their specifications will receive "a complete and working Linux driver that is added to the main Linux kernel source tree. The driver will be written by some of the members of the Linux kernel developer community (over 1,500 strong and growing). This driver will then be automatically included in all Linux distributions, including the 'enterprise' ones." Greg addresses the NDA issue too, and here are more details about the offer from his blog: Yes, that's right, the Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development. No longer do you have to suffer through all of the different examples in the Linux Device Driver Kit, or pick through the thousands of example drivers in the Linux kernel source tree trying to determine which one is the closest to what you need to do.
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. A few sample devices might be good to have so that debugging doesn't have to be done by email, but if necessary, that can be done.
In return, you will receive a complete and working Linux driver that is added to the main Linux kernel source tree. The driver will be written by some of the members of the Linux kernel developer community (over 1500 strong and growing). This driver will then be automatically included in all Linux distributions, including the "enterprise" ones. It will be automatically kept up to date and working through all Linux kernel API changes. This driver will work with all of the different CPU types supported by Linux, the largest number of CPU types supported by any operating system ever before in the history of computing.
As for support, the driver will be supported through email by the original developers, when they can help out, and by the "enterprise" Linux distributors as part of their service agreements with their customers.
If your company is worried about NDA issues surrounding your device's specifications, we have arranged a program with OSDL/TLF's Tech Board to provide the legal framework where a company can interact with a member of the kernel community 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.
This offer is in effect for all different types of devices, from USB toys to PCI video devices to high-speed networking cards. If you manufacture it, we can get Linux drivers working for it. OK, *now* why can't you do it?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:28 AM EST |
| It looks like a good deal for all concerned. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:33 AM EST |
If needed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alvah on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:36 AM EST |
Sweet, A much needed service.
Thanks to the Linux Kernel development team
Alvah[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:40 AM EST |
For all things off topic. Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:41 AM EST |
the largest number of CPU types supported by any operating system
ever before in the history of computing.
Really? I think that claim
more rightfully goes to NetBSD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:52 AM EST |
How would NDA with community development work?
How does NVIDIA ensure their holy IP is not disclosed while driver developers
remain free develop drivers as a community effort, without NVIDIA fearing their
competitors will have 1500 developers with little or no loyalty to NVIDIA to
bribe for leaking specifcations?
Seems to me NDA's are too impractical for community development. What we need is
to convince hardware vendors they are better off sharing interface
specifications openly and letting community develop drivers regardless of how
much it shortens competitors reverse engineering time.
Also seems to me that hardware vendors too, have difficulty distinguishing
between design specifications and interface specifications.
<tinfoil>
Then again they may have been "pursuaded" by "someone" not
to play nice with Linux or risk access to OS API specifications for a certain OS
becoming delayed. If that someone can pursuade Dell not to play with Linux, I
suspect their may wield similar bargaining power towards other hardware
vendors.
</tinfoil>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer - Authored by: bap on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:05 AM EST
- Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer - Authored by: mitchlinguist on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:11 AM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:13 AM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: goz on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 12:28 PM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 02:43 PM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 12:32 PM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: Toon Moene on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 04:55 PM EST
- NDAs - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 01:42 AM EST
- Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:18 AM EST
- On hardware and 'opening' the interface spec - Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:33 AM EST
- - the Kernel Guys NDA - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:37 AM EST
- Interface vs design specs - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 10:40 AM EST
- Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer - Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 03:48 AM EST
- Free Linux Driver Development - the Kernel Guys Make Companies an Offer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 09:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: AlanMilnes on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 08:58 AM EST |
| Wow - now there is innovation at work! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:07 AM EST |
Hey, everybody!
If it weren't for the fact that there is no payment, this would get filed under
"Putting your money where your mouth is."
What are the chances some legacy hardware (Visioneer scanners), popular but
neglected peripherals (Logitech's low end web cam), and current devices the
companies can't seem to find the time for (ATI) will get on this?
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:15 AM EST |
I expect Microsoft to respond by declining to write or debug the Windows drivers
for any manufacturers who accept this offer.
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Benanov on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:16 AM EST |
Hmm. No, not quite.
Distributions that are quite picky about their freedom (say, gNewSense) have
removed a lot of drivers from the kernel and userland that load some sort of
proprietary firmware.
For example, the ATi Rage 128 DRI drivers, which many considered
"free," have some initialization 'firmware' in the GPL code. That's
not "the preferred form for editing", unless you believe that everyone
at ATi is a masochist.
Depending on how a new driver is written under the NDA, the programmer of the
driver may have to obfuscate the code, which makes it no longer the preferred
form for editing, which by the strictest interpretation of the GPL, means that
it's not in compliance. gNewSense will probably remove it, and the folks Debian
may decide it's not DFSG-free.
I'm really becoming interested in that sort of driver work, and having to stare
at a blob of initialization firmware, GPL code or not, means I can't figure
something out about the device I'm working with. Maybe I need to know that,
maybe I don't. It's just sloppy.
I'd have to sign an NDA to get the information used to write the driver if I
wanted to rewrite portions of it, because comments usually don't survive
obfuscation.
This effort is wonderful--don't get me wrong. It's good to support hardware that
would not otherwise be supported.
Just please remember that it's not the optimal way. Open specifications and
freely-available interface information are much more valuable.
---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:46 AM EST |
Of course, we already know the reason why many manufacturers won't be
interested. Divulging interface specifications would mean giving away their
precious Eye Pea. Many refuse to do so on principle, no matter how dumb that is.
It is still a fantastic offer though.
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:50 AM EST |
If you had to sign an NDA to get a device's interface specification, how could
you release a free software driver for it without thus disclosing the details of
the interface?
---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:50 AM EST |
Um..., because we are Microsoft partners, and it is costly to hire an outside
firm to bolt down our office chairs like at some fast food joints.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 09:57 AM EST |
Amazingly to me, I can't even install Windows 2003 Enterprise Server on the very
average servers with SATA hard drives; because apparently Windows has no SATA
driver - so instead I have to go get a driver on a floppy from the vendor.
And at home I have far too many devices that are Win95-Win98 only and won't run
on XP; or devices that seem to be WinNT and Win2000 only and won't run on
Win98. I shudder to think how many devices won't work on Vista or will be
Vista only.
Debian, of course, includes all the drivers for all the devices at work and at
home.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 10:21 AM EST |
Those who take advantage of this open themselves up to a new revenue stream.
Congratulations.
Those who do and are 'sanctioned' by you-know-who, should
be able to complain to DoJ/EU that someone is up to their old tricks again,
since their device worked in The Other OS before, but now, suddenly doesn't.
Think coffin nails.
Those who don't from fear of retaliation and/or
because they have been infected with the IP-bug, will make a strategic mistake,
since the market rewards those of their competitors who do know an opportunity
when they see one. Think roadkill.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 10:34 AM EST |
I have just posted this to the Via Linux developer forum.
Now how many others can we find to raise awareness of this.
rgds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nadams on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 11:30 AM EST |
The only thing new here is the NDA offer. The bit about offering free driver
development for companies that divulge their hardware specification is how Linux
development has always been done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stites on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 12:33 PM EST |
I once bought an IDE hard drive controller for use on a Linux system. This IDE
card had a severe design flaw. It was supposed to be able read/write to a hard
drive on each cable simultaneously. In fact if both drives were accessed
simutaneously the card would fail.
The manufacturer had worked around the problem by writing a Windows driver that
single threaded access to the hard drives so that only one could be accessed at
a time. By doing so the IDE card's maximum data throughput was ony half the
rated speed advertised on the box. Linux used a generic IDE driver for the card
and thus failed every time I tried to access two hard drives simultaneously.
I complained to the manufacturer. Over time I sent them 13 emails and letters.
Their response was that the card worked on Windows and was not supported on
Linux. I pointed out that on Windows the card did not perform to
specifications. The company removed the maximum speed claim on their box and
their online advertising. I eventually threw the card away.
I think that this IDE card is an example where the kernel developers could write
an open source driver and also live up to a NDA agreement. The driver developer
could sign the NDA and write an open source driver which single threaded access
to the hard drives on the card without revealing the "secret" that the
card did not meet its own specifications.
-------------
Steve Stites[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 12:40 PM EST |
...as he works for Novell...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST |
I don't know if I'm the ony one on here who sees this development in a negative
way. My point of view is, admittedly, self-interested.
While it has indeed always been the case that Linux drivers were developed by
the FOSS community for free (when they could get enough technical assistance),
this mechanism has only ever operated in terms of consumer-upgradable
components. That may no longer be the case, and that would be a problem for me
and for others like me.
Let me expand on that. Joe Public goes into PC World, or he logs onto some
internet box shifter - no difference, the end result is that he is able to
change the configuration of his PC, potentially any peripheral including the
motherboard and its own grab-bag of devices. No problem, that is a consumer
mass-market which gets Linux support where possible out of the box, sometimes
through the vendor, more often through the community.
My problem is in a different market. I'm an embedded systems specialist. Device
driver development skills are a major part of what I sell, because this is the
infrastructure, not the end-user marketplace. Joe Public can't buy a new onboard
peripheral for his mobile phone, or his DVD player - and some of the products I
work on are never seen by consumers at all, they are chunks of infrastructure
such as SDH multiplexors.
The take-up of Linux among the embedded systems community has been and continues
to be strong. I used to win projects on the basis of rarified RTOS skills, but
increasingly I have found my Linux skills being the most marketable in my
profile. Fortunate then that I have both Unix and Linux kernel experience.
Now, however, a major chunk of my shop window is being *given away* by the FOSS
community. If they truly mean they will provide this free service to *any*
company, then I foresee a sudden major drop in the market value of my skillset.
If people out there are thinking *huh, he's trying to make money out of free
software, serves him right* I would point out that it is held by all the movers
and shakers of FOSS that making money out of free software is perfectly
legitimate - it is not *free as in free beer* but *free as in freedom*. But the
kernel community are now making device drivers *free as in free beer* which to
my mind is *wrong*.
By analogy, I used to follow motorcycle road racing avidly, and as a keen
amateur photographer I naturally did my best to cover the races pictorially. I
got an offer from one of the circuit managers - he was writing a book on bike
racing, and if I would send him pictures he would include them in his book. How
much was in it for me? "Oh, there's no money - if you don't want to do it
for free, I can find a dozen other cameramen out there who will be only too glad
to take up the offer". If people will do, for *free as in free beer*
something which previously had a commercial value, that value will surely fall
away.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 01:37 PM EST |
IS the problem here. There's pretty fierce competition in the graphics chip
business, and lots of proprietary speedup tricks in use that sort of can't be
patented or otherwise protected. Yet another indication of how messed up IP law
is, and the troubles it causes by being messed up.
To hold costs and heat down, not everything is done on the graphics chip, some
of the work is done on the host cpu. Which things are done where are different
company by company and chip by chip. And of course I'm sure ATI thinks they
know tricks other companies don't, and vice versa, which is the competitive
advantage they think they have.
The stuff that is done (maybe needs to be done, or is simply faster or cheaper
there than on the specialized hardware on the graphics chip) on the host cpu
gives away quite a lot of information about what's in the chip, for example.
Since most of this stuff is more or less "trade secret" (eg
unprotectable once out) you can see why companies don't want to give it away. I
have seen companies get anal about far less important things, like the exact
desgn of a serial port in a microchip, but this is real deal stuff we're talking
about here.
If the open source stuff leaves out the proprietary tricks, and as a result
doesn't perform as well, gee, that's not very good, is it? So we do have an
actual problem here, and it's not likely to go away without legal changes.
That's why "they still can't do it".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Eye Pee - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST
- Eye Pee - Authored by: tinkerghost on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 03:05 PM EST
- Eye Pee - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 06:07 AM EST
- No problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 05:43 PM EST
- No problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 10:14 AM EST
- Not really a problem... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 06:28 PM EST
- Binary Blobs - Authored by: CustomDesigned on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 07:16 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 04:52 PM EST |
My guess is that quite a few vendors will try it. The worst
that can happen is that some will be unable to work out a
mutually beneficial agreement and give up. I suspect that
many will work out. H/W vendors really do have quite
a bit to gain if their H/W is fully supported by Linux.
There certainly would be no loss in trying to take up the
offer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 04:58 PM EST |
"the Linux kernel guys will write their drivers for them for free. What a
creative solution to the binary-only driver problem."
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't get it. How do you expect this to be a
solution to the binary-only driver problem? The reason companies release
binary-only drivers is because they don't want people to see the source. If
they wanted people to see the source, they would release the source code with
the driver. So how will this help? Either they'll make sure that the kernel
guys only release binary drivers, or they won't partake in this. The end result
is the same as it is now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 07:41 PM EST |
What good does it do to develop a driver under a non-disclosure agreement when
the source code is released under the GPL? Perhaps someone could explain to me
how the HW vendor's IP remains a Secret Family Recipe under those conditions.
Isn't the source code *itself* a violation of the NDA?
Unless, of course, you can legally release uncommented (or poorly commented)
assembly language source code under the GPL (and boy would *that* open a can of
worms) and put it in the kernel.
---
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the
exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 11:00 PM EST |
The contentious debate over the proper role of non-free and/or binary software
components within the Linux kernel has been going on for a long time.
Understanding the reasons for why there are very strongly held differences of
opinion, and why positions are so passionately defended, requires viewing the
issue from the standpoint of different participants, parties driven by often
incompatible self-interests.
One group could be defined as people who
are strong advocates for free (as in liberty) software, placing its advancement
above almost all other concerns. The free software advocates draw support from a
sizable pool of software developers and users. A second group could be defined
as people (again including both developers and users) who support many of the
goals of free software, but who may place a higher priority on enabling software
that is high-quality, widely available, helpful, and usable by many people. Yet
a third group could be defined as people who do not care much about free
software, but who care primarily about developing or using software that does
what they want it to. Finally, add into the mix the product vendors who supply
much of the add-on hardware that goes into today's computer systems. Their
primary concerns are related to generating business and making
profits.
The problem can perhaps best be illustrated by looking at two
specific real-world examples: the removal from the Linux kernel of a driver for
Phillips-based webcams (PWC), and free software issues with the One Laptop Per
Child (OLPC) project.
Information about events concerning PWC can be found
at http://kerneltrap.org/node/3729,
along with a response from PWC's original author at http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/.
Information about the free software issues with OLPC can be found at http://www.thejemrepo
rt.com/mambo/content/view/286/ and http://www.linuxwo
rld.com/news/2006/101706-kernel.html. The second article, entitled "Kernel
space: Device drivers and non-disclosure agreements", actually talks generally
about a number of issues related to NDA's and kernel drivers in free operating
systems.
My own opinion is that the example cases illustrate what
happens when people begin to value promoting a "cause" more than paying
attention to the overall impact of their actions upon a wider community. In the
case of the PWC driver, the USB maintainer removed a necessary function in the
PWC driver because it conflicted with his personal belief in free software (and
apparent corresponding distain for non-free software). However, in reality, the
affected code did not pose any of the often stated hazards posed by binary
kernel modules. It posed no danger of corrupting normal kernel operations or
making the kernel unstable, since it served only to provide a codec for
uncompressing data from the Phillips chip. It's presence did not present any
problems with future kernel maintainability, since changes to the kernel would
not affect codec functionality and vice versa. Crippling of the driver
functionality was not done for any worthwhile technical merit, but rather for
maintaining a personally held principle. In the case of the OLPC project, free
software advocates criticize OLPC project leaders for making decisions which
place a higher priority on succeeding in producing a viable product than on
being an advocate for free software to hardware vendors. Despite OLPC's
documented efforts to make the product as free as was technically feasible at
the time, free software advocates would rather draw more attention to a few
perceived shortcomings than to many positive accomplishments towards what are
admittedly lofty goals.
In the article by Jonathan Corbet, he gives this
summary of one of the important issues:
The crux of the
matter, thus, is this: if we accept that the community needs open hardware
documentation to function as it should, what is the best way to get vendors to
release that documentation? Some groups encourage ongoing engagement with these
companies, with the intent of guiding them toward open source enlightenment.
Under this line of thought, these companies will come to realize that the
community will do great things with their hardware - growing the market - given
the right information; they will see that it is in their economic interest to
make the documentation available.
The contrary argument is that this
approach has never worked well, that hardware companies will never be brought
around in this way. What is required, instead, is an intransigent insistence
that the documentation must be released from the outset, and a refusal to sign
NDAs to get it. Only when the vendors see themselves locked out of the free
software market entirely will they realize that their interest lies in openness,
not secrecy. Until that time, there is no reason to cooperate with uncooperative
vendors; the preferred approach, instead, would appear to be to attempt to shame
them publicly.
Of course this issue is like most real-world
disputes. There is no clearcut black and white distinction between right and
wrong. In Jem Matzen's article, Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD), who strongly supports
getting vendors to supply documentation for their hardware, had this to say in
one of his answers concerning Richard Stallman's approach to the
problem:
Our #1 goal is that our users be able to use the
devices they purchased. We feel that when RMS insists on things which vendors
will never give, he confuses the vendors, and the vendors back off and end up
giving us nothing at all. As a result, everyone loses -- RMS, the vendors, the
operating system suppliers, and the users.
I think this is
a reasonable position. Google's well-publicized motto has been reported as "do
no evil". That's always seemed to me to be a pretty good standard to aim for. To
complement that, I believe it is good to add a second part which reads "do some
good". Getting good documentation to allow high-quality drivers to be written is
a good thing. Even better is when those drivers can be implemented as free
software. Achieving these goals should not overshadow the imperative not to
cause unnecessary harm to others, nor the drive to help others whenever
possible. Hardware vendors will be more easily convinced by demonstrated
successes in building new markets for their products than by threats from a
small or non-existent user base. Users will gain greater benefits from being
able to choose from wider selections of supported devices than from having to
tackle persistent problems with inconsistent coverage from purely free
solutions. When considering alternatives, the concerns of the entire community
of participants should be respected IMO.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 11:40 PM EST |
| Hey, hardware guys,
Look for inventories of old hardware...
Ask for free
drivers for Linux & OLPC...
Donate old hardware to the Linux school /
OLPC world. (& dump a few thousand onto ebay),
Feel Good.
Make Press
Release.
Get tax break.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 12:48 AM EST |
The real problem with proprietary specifications for graphics chips is exposure
to patent litigation. Since the dawn of computer graphics there have been
thousands of silly patents. This problem was exacerbated when microsoft bought
most of SGI's patents in the 90's. This creates a delicate balance between MS
and the graphics chip makers. If the graphics chip makers reveal too much they
risk exposing themselves to patent litigation. Many of these patents were
written by people that now work at amd or nvidia.
This works marvelously for MS, they maintain an ongoing competitive advantage
over free software without the risk of anticompetitive behavior just by owning
the old SGI graphics patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 04:45 AM EST |
This isn't a new offer. This offer has been on the table for the past 5 years.
This is simply an extremely toung-in-cheek blog post to let companies know that
we're still here, and willing to do the development if specs are provided.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You are wrong - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 05:21 AM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 09:24 AM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 09:41 AM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 12:19 PM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 02 2007 @ 05:02 AM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 02 2007 @ 08:07 AM EST
- You are wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 03 2007 @ 12:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 05:48 AM EST |
Don't discount NDAs too quickly.
One extremly good use is to allow the linux (and hopefully other FLOSS OS)
device drivers in secret BEFORE the new widget is released. This would allow the
widget to ship with support in the curent kernel, rather than us having to wait
for several months at best.
Lets hope a load of hardware folk take up the offer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Svartalf on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 11:09 AM EST |
It's an irrational fear of IP loss or conflict- or worse yet, the silicon or
device has design flaws that the driver code steps over and hides. (I know of a
few companies that happen to be in that little camp- and it's a lot more than
you'd think...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
