From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Mon Mar  1 01:32:11 1999
Received: from druid.inprise.com (druid.inprise.com [143.186.11.70])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA22689
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 01:30:42 +0100
Received: from godzilla.inprise.com (mail.inprise.com [10.186.1.4])
	by druid.inprise.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01935
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduffey ([10.143.1.75]) by godzilla.inprise.com
          (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)  with SMTP id AAA285B
          for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:27:29 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990228162759.00967100@mail.inprise.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:27:59 -0800
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
From: "Kevin Duffey" <kduffey@inprise.com>
Subject: Re: Trident's contribution, a draft 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

>	Put it this way: what's the point of winning if you do it by
>giving in?  What have we won if our Linux systems depend on proprietary,
>non-free drivers?  We've got NT all over again.  Why bother in the first
>place? 

Not really. NT costs money. These drivers wouldn't, even if you dont have
source code. I am all for GPL for some projects..but I am not about to give
out my source code on a project I have worked on for a year or two so that
everyone who wants to can recreate the project slightly different and tack
their name to it. Its quite possible my app isn't the "best" the code could
have been written, and if someone betters it, I lose. They win. They use my
original idea/code, add to it, change it, then do something with it
themselves. Maybe they cant "sell" it, but they could end up with a much
larger base than my application..the original, and thus people who support
mine (with plug-ins, etc) would soon have no reason to support it. I just
don't agree with that philosophy on every type of project. However, I do
believe a good OS should have FREE support for ALL hardware. If that means
that the driver does NOT come with source code for everyone to freely
change and redistribute however they want, so be it. As long as the
hardware is supported, thats whats important. if ALSA intends to be the
leader for sound and music in linux, its going to have to give up its solid
GPL only architecture, or it wont last. I really hope you and others dont
regard me as someone trying to break the GPL. I dont mean this in any way.
What I do mean is certain aspects of support will require those that do not
believe in GPL as well as those that do. If the aim of ALSA is to also
promote Linux as an OS with equal capabilities (or better) of other OSs
that support hardware, then its going to have to compromise in some way to
allow support for those vendors that are not willing to give up source code
for their drivers. Or..ALSA can support only those willing to give up
source to their drivers, and others such as OSS can support ALL of them and
become the defacto standard for linux. Current distributions claim only GPL
software..but it wont be long (if linux rises up to meet the MS challenge)
before some will start shipping various bits of software that make the
overall linux OS "sell" better. If OSS supports most to all soundcards, and
provides a robust enough API that developers choose to support it over
ALSA, then its very likely that hardware vendors will also support OSS
because they dont have to support GPL by going that way. Thus, they are
free to support linux and the standard sound system that developers use in
their apps. Where ALSA could stand a big loss is if games start appearing
in the linux OS and use OSS instead of ALSA. HOWEVER...that doesn't really
matter because I assume ALSA is being developed "on the side" so to speak,
like most linux GPL apps, and if it doesn't take off..who cares. Some users
may still use it, and thats fine. If ALSA does however become the "better"
of the two formats (OSS) then ALSA will need a way to support the best
hardware, or it may lose out anyways..even if its better.

>	That's a bad part of OOP.  The good part, the one that emulates
>the UNIX idea of strictly defined input and output for recombination of
>programs (e.g. for $i in *.txt; echo $i >> output.data; cat $i | grep -v
>'FOO' | wc >> output.data; done) is good.  The idea that I can't see what
>you're doing is bad.  Information hiding is, morally speaking, bad.  There
>are examples where it isn't, such as the location of naval ships to
>enemies in times of war, etc., but when life and death doesn't depend on
>it, it's very hard to come up with a justification for that doesn't rely
>on greed.  Open Source has been proved to be economically viable (RedHat,
>Cygnus, etc.).  It hasn't proved to be economically dominative, e.g. like
>M$, but who cares about that.  What right do people have to be economic
>tyrants?

I am starting to believe GPL isn't for me. :) In all honesty, I like GPL,
because good stuff has happened because of it. Linux, GIMP, GNOME, ALSA,
etc. However, I very much need to make a living with my software. I would
like to run my own software company one day. So I should ask before I say
the wrong thing..if my software is FREE, with source code, how do I make
money? I have a wife and kid, with more on the way. I have a life style
that doesn't require a lot of money, but a decent sum to live. I am
wondering how I will keep my company alive and make enough to live on as
well if everything I do under GPL dicatets its free. How does Linus make
his money? How do any of the ALSA members make a living? How about GNOME,
GIMP, Enlightenment, etc? Who is paying their checks if the software is
free? That could be the "crucial" turning point for me. If I can make more
money, or at least a good amount to live on by giving my software out for
free WITH source, then I may bend that way. Otherwise, I dont want to
"share" my internal secrets with others who for the most part will take it,
change it a bit, and then sell it themselves in some way and make money off
of my ideas. 

>	Yes.  Then people have the headache of their binary only drivers
>(i.e. a royal pain in the ass recompiling kernels, more frequent crashing
>(probably), etc.), they will look for a card that won't give them those
>headaches in the future.

They may not need this in the near future. With computers approaching 600+
Mhz, and built in support for multimedia capabilites including hardware
mixing of audio, its possible that special instructions on these chips will
accelerate the whole shabang anyways and we wont need to support too many.
Ofcourse, all the folks with older computers will still need support. But
thats more reason to tell them to upgrade!! :) Hell, a full blow PIII 550
costs like $2500 fully loaded! That aint bad.

>	This doesn't make any sense.  If there card is so good, why hide
>the source?  If it's so easy to make if you know the interface, it can't
>be that good.  Btw, a good card hides the interface.  you say to it, "I
>want three of those here and Seven of those there".  Nothing revealed, all
>of the work is done by the card.  If so much of the work is done by
>software, you're being cheated.

Well, let me point out that this is YOUR opinion (and many others) about
hiding the source or not. Why was OOP invented? Part of it was to HIDE the
implementation details so other users of the libraries you write DONT see
your code. They only have to know how to interface with them. Why use
CORBA? CORBA hides all the source details on the server where the object
resides. I dont see people getting to download these sources (although
ORBit may allow this..not sure). 

As for a good card hides the interface...if you have the source code there
is no hiding at all. I dont see what the hang up is on soundcard drivers
and source code. I thought the intent of ALSA, its original intent was to
provide a more robust API and more support than OSS, and make it free. I
dont see why it MUST give out source code to every soundcard manufacturers
drivers. The worst part about this whole conversation we are having is that
ALSA has the potential to be the best, but to me, it will never reach that
potential because some of you involved (no offense to anyone) refuse to
allow support for the best soundcard hardware available because they refuse
to give up source code. I say, screw the source, lets have the support. If
Linux is to rain supreme over MS Windows, it needs MAJOR backing of
hardware support, and if ALSA wants to become the sound system standard for
Linux, it also needs to support ALL of the soundcards it can for that
support. If it shuts out Creative Labs, the BIGGEST soundcard maker in the
world, you have pretty much given up the chance to be the standard. 


>	Let's apply the RMS test, what's best for the future of free
>software.
>	1. Binary only drivers in ALSA
>	More people will use ALSA, probably.  Creative Labs will make more
>cards under NDA.  Most people won't bug them to release specs.  They will
>go on doing this, secure in their niche of binary only.

   And rightfully so. They made the cards, they have a right to do this if
they want. Is it fair that you take that away from potential ALSA users
because one company (the biggest soundcard company in this case) doesn't
want to release source?

>	2. No binary only drivers in ALSA
>	People will use binary OSS drivers instead of ALSA drivers.  More
>people will be aware of the inferior support of Creative.  Hardware Howtos
>shouldn't list creative as they aren't really supported.  Some people will
>buy other hardware.  Creative will probably keep making NDA cards, but
>they will probably at least notice that they aren't achieving as much
>market penetration as they would like.

How about this:
  
    3. Binary only AND No binary drivers. FREEDOM to choose which to support.
  EVERYONE gets to use ALSA free of charge, and for those vendors that do
support the GPL movement they can release specs and source, meanwhile those
that dont, at least make binary drivers so ALSA becomes the superior linux
(and future OSs as well) sound system to allow full development of any
sound application possible, including games, music apps, etc.  In the end,
EVERYONE wins because EVERYONE is happy that ALSA supports ALL hardware.
Woohoo!


>	Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.  Creative seems wed to
>the idea of NDA.  From what I've heard they are militant about it, not
>reactionary about it, the way that companies that have switched were.
>This is just speculation, though.  I don't have a crystal ball.

I hear ya. But, turning our backs on them wont matter much right now
anyways. And as more people start using Linux and look for sound support
(since probably 30% or more of the computers use Creative Labs cards, or
some form that complies with their specs), they are going to use the sound
system that supports the most cards, whether or not it costs a bit of
money. And..I have yet to check in to it..but I dont believe OSS costs
money. I believe they just allow non-source (no GPL) drivers..which is
basically what ALSA will have to do to make it work. Creative will just tag
along with OSS instead of ALSA if thats the case..and with the large user
base they have..they will win. :) 

	First, how can you consider releasing something under the GPL and
>make comments this stupid?  "What does freedom matter to most people, they
>don't have the ability to take advantage of it anyway?"  Come one.  What
>did slavery matter to the slaves, they weren't educated enough to really
>do much with their lives?  This idiotic argument can be made for just
>about every denial of freedom to a person.

HAHAH..let me wipe the tears from my eyes. You talk about freedom, yet, you
take it away from users by not supporting all hardware. I agree that it can
be made for just about every denial..but  like I said above, GPL is for
SOME things..and not for others. I personally dont believe asking many many
vendors to support GPL by giving their source code away is the RIGHT thing
to do for an OS that is trying hard to become the standard..or at least the
choice. Linux has a STRONG possibility in a few years to dominate, or at
least compete with MS windows on the desktop as well as server market.
But..if every new architecture that comes out says "hey all you hardware
vendors that are used to your freedom to HIDE your code..you now HAVE TO
show the world your code or you cant be part of us". How does that work? To
me..if you are trying to support an OS that is trying to be a "better" OS
than the one that is on almost every computer in the world (at least..home
computers and a majority of server computers), how can you ask for support
by vendors by telling them they also have to show their secrets? I mean, if
I was the guy making the molds for the first dollars and I was the only one
that could do it, I wouldn't want to openly show everyone how to do it so
that I can no longer make any money from it. Not that this applies
perfectly to the Creative Lab thing..because they dont sell their drivers.
But, maybe they have some specific special reasons for not releasing the
source code to the device driver. Maybe they plan on enhancing it in ways
that makes their company look better than others that could potentially use
their code against them, and then run them out of business. What I am
saying is, GPL is not a good business model for a company that is already
well established to suddenly change to. That is why I keep saying, GPL
isn't for everything. It works great for the OS, and because of it has made
Linux very popular. Please dont try to tell me that Linux is popular for
other reasons. I mean..it is..based on stability and security, etc. But if
Linux was to try to sell for $100 a copy, it wouldn't be near installed as
much as it is. The fact remains, other GPL and OSS software (OSS as in Open
Source..not the Open Sound) become popular, but make no money. Maybe there
are ways they make money elsewhere, but surely not from free programs, and
not by giving the secrets of how they were written away either. 



Anyways..shoot..I have written so much..I got work to do.  

Listen..before you get all upset with what I am saying (if you even do), I
would like to point out that I am not trying to break the GPL or what ALSA
is about, nor offend anyone. I like the GPL, and I am seriously considering
releasing at least part of my apps with GPL. But..in the case of making a
sound system architecture for an up and coming OS that would like to take
over the world one day (which I strongly believe it will do in the next few
years), I firmly believe if you want to enlist the help of major hardware
vendors so as to support them on Linux, you cant demand they give up their
securities they have had since day 1 in the MS Windows. If everyone started
doing that, MS Windows will remain king, and Linux will be a fad (I surely
hope not because it blows MS windows out of the water in every way I can
see). Without the hardware support, a lot of computers will only partially
work under Linux, and thus those users who own them will have no desire to
switch to Linux, or upgrade. The only alternative would be to buy a
computer with good hardware that is supported. 

On a different subject..I am very curious as to how Linux can get current
MS Windwos users to switch. 

I hope this doesn't cause a flame war..just my .0001% brains worth.


Kevin Duffey
kduffey@inprise.com

