From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Mon Mar  1 04:53:38 1999
Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA04562
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 04:53:11 +0100
Received: from mediaone.net (cekim.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.198.87])
	by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA02197
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <36DB61F4.9BD170DD@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:58:44 -0500
From: root <cekim@mediaone.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: (SB Live) Free drivers or not? (fwd)
References: <m10HHZG-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

getting off topic, I apologize, but I had to say....

> > Am I to understand you correctly that at any time Linux can suddenly change
> > the kernel to a point that current libraries ( I assume these are like .DLL
> > files in MS Windows..Dynamic Linking Libraries..loaded by an app at
> > run-time, instead of compile time..is this correct? .o is their name?) will
> > no longer work at all?
> 

snip...

> > I am a bit worried about this because I plan to
> > support the Linux community, but I am not giving my actual program away for
> > free, or the source code.
> 
> That's a pity.  If you don't give away the source, you won't get bugfixes

snip again ...

For the sake of getting linux into mass acceptance (although I wonder
aloud if that is really what the people who really love linux and pour
their heart and sole into it really want in the end ... Careful what you
wish for):

Some developers want the world's help and some don't.  That is fine and
we should respect that.

The ideal of free everything is nice and RedHat has certainly proven
that open source does not have to mean "free" or non-profit.

But, there will always be products, ideas, software, etc.. that are only
good/great because it is the first/only one to solve a problem.  We have
to recognize that this means the people doing said development have a
limited time to "pay" for their time before everyone and their uncle
does the same thing faster cheaper smaller and more environmentally
friendly :)

We don't want to scare any innovation away from linux.  

If a developer wants to be paranoid and squeeze every IP $ out of their
product that is their problem.

in the end the acceptance of a product in the linux community will be
based primarily on two things:

1. does it do something useful/easily that I cannot do with 100 other
packages?

2. does it work reliably and across my various configurations?

#2 is the caveat of binary releases.  It will take diligence on the part
the developer to work through the maze of distributions, GCC versions
(egcs now too) MPU flavors, kernel configs, window managers desktop
paradigms.....

For the most part a binary only developer should be more fearful of the
incarnations of redhat, debian, slackware and so forth than the kernel.

They have caused me more "compatibility" problems than running a devel
kernels.

It is not much different from NT service packs (in fact much better
because you see it coming and you can look at it to see EXACTLY how it
impacts you).

The "stable" kernels stay intact for long periods of time and then the
transition from one to the next just as easy or painful as with windows
depending on the APP (though windows has always been more painful
perhaps I should take that back).

As for Linus' comments:
he is justified in saying/thinking that.  I am glad he does.  He is out
to change things in big ways.  That rarely happens in little steps.  It
generally takes "revolutions".

for the rest of us, we just want it to work for us right now and perhaps
give a hint of some nifty things to come.

I have seen quite a lot of hostility to developers testing the waters
who have not yet grown comfortable with open source.  This is bad for
linux and bad for open source.

New binary only developers should be told that:

1. Yes! things change in fundamental ways in the kernel and the "OS"
such as it is, but generally for good reasons and in a sensible manner,
not every week.  NT service packs do much the same thing in a harder to
track manner.

2. Yes you can deliver binary only software to protect your code, but
understand that there are many linux users with unique
setups/hardware/platforms who have multiple computers in their
house/life and if only works on one, they may keep looking

3. If you release a neat package in binary only, be prepared for some
bored college programmer/group to mimic it.  

BUT please do offer your package in linux!!!

"Can't we all just get along?"

And RELAX...

If everything were free, it would not be worth anything :) (sorry, I
couldn't resist spreading a little velveeta)

/Mike

