Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> If the day ever comes that some hardware maker decides to write his
> own driver for Linux (say a maker of a win-modem decided to write a
> linux driver and throw the disk in the box) but did NOT license under
> the GPL, choosing to keep it propritory would that be so bad?
>
It wouldn't be bad at all, so long as it included source so that it could be
patched to accomodate newer / different versions of the Linux kernel if the
manufacturer went out of business or stopped supporting newer versions of
the Linux kernel. Even if this source couldn't be freely distributed, it
would still be better than having no source. The source is of limited use
without the device anyway, and by purchasing the device, you'd get a license
for the driver and its source.
I'd hate to be stuck running kernel 2.0.35 two years from now because I
bought some obsolecent device from a company that refuses to release a
binary driver for a newer kernel version.
> As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no
> difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux.
>
This is very different. I can run the same copy of Wordperfect under Linux
2.0.28 -> 2.0.35, as well as 2.1.125. I can't say the same for my kernel
modules, which rarely work correctly with kernel versions other than the one
I built them under.
A major problem arises when a major change comes about in the Linux kernel
that makes the module incompatible with the kernel the end user wants to run
and the user has two choices: either run an older, potentially less stable
and secure Linux kernel, or upgrade the kernel and lose the use of their
hardware device. In the case of an important device, like a SCSI controller
or a network card, there really isn't any choice at all here.
> We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which
> are NOT licensed under the GPL. You don't HAVE to buy these, unless
> you feel that they are what you need, and worth the price.
>
These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must
install a different version every time they upgrade their kernel. Sometimes
simple changes (like UP->SMP or vice-versa) break the modules, and require
yet another version to be installed. If these commercial sound drivers were
distributed with source code, the end user could simply recompile after
upgrading to a different kernel, and not have to hassle with downloading or
purchasing newer versions of the modules.
I think binary only drivers have a huge potential to greatly inconvenience
Linux users, expecially if new versions aren't made available every time a
new kernel upgrade is made available.
Consider the following scenareo: After months of hacking, the Linux kernel
developers release Linux 2.2.0. Company X decides to build 4 dozen Linux
2.2.0 boxes for their new server farm, employing Company Y's Gigabit
ethernet cards for network connectivity. Company Y offers their ethernet
cards as a binary-only kernel module.
About two weeks after the release of Linux 2.2.0, a major security hole is
posted on Bugtraq. It seems that due to a bug in the networking subsystem,
any user can remotely halt any Linux machine, often resulting in loss of
data or filesystem corruption. A minor rework of the network layer is
required, and Linux 2.2.1 is released just hours later to fix the problem.
Unfortunately, this new security fix breaks the binary-only gigabit ethernet
driver. During the time between the Linux 2.2.1 release and Company Y's
release of the updated driver, Company X has two choices: either keep their
current configuration with gigabit ethernet and risk having their machines
remotely crashed, potentially costing thousands of dollars in lost business
for each minute of downtime, or downgrade to a 100mbps card with an
open-source driver, and still potentially lose customers because their
machines now communicate up to ten times slower than they did before.
To avoid putting individuals and businesses in a difficult situation like
Company X's, it's important to employ as much of the protection provided by
the GPL as possible to help preserve the freedom and source code availabilty
of the Linux kernel and its components. Although I recognise how important
good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only
support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position.
I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line.
--
Brian Ristuccia
brianr@osiris.ml.org
bristucc@baynetworks.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu
Reply to: