3 Mar
2004
3 Mar
'04
2:16 a.m.
Perhaps instead of rotating the hardware, we could set
up a
scheme whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the
maintainer of support for device 'Y', and other developers who
want to test their software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That
way, 'X' gets the benefit of having the loan hardware on-site,
but also has the responsibility to work with the community on
support for it.
This is completely wrong. I would never advise open-source developers to borrow a device
in order to get a job done
for free and additionally have responsibilities(such as returning the hw and
responsibility to work with the community on
support for it). This should be a responsibility of the company that manufactures that
device.
Obsequiousness is not what's going to help us.
Curently, as very few companies provide open source drivers for their hw unfortunately,
the company can either donate a device or provide specs if that developer already bought
their device.
If you already own a device (whether donated or not) it's in your personal interest to
get the driver done.
If you're not a developer capable of coding a driver, you can either
a) pay someone to get it done
b) pester him and pray that he will accept ;)
In that case you would lend him your own hw.
That means there's no need to talk about responsibility. It just isn't how
opensource works.
We should be advising people to buy hw which is already supported.
Regarding the 'Linux Audio' conference announcement on linuxaudio.org:
Daniel, AFAIK it's Linux Audio Developers ZKM conference, but sounds like it's now
a linuxaudio.org conference.
To quote you from jan-12-2004 "Secondly, as important as the ZKM conference is, it
has no official status." Well now it sounds it has got an official
status. But it sounds more like it's now a linuxaudio.org conference
more than a LAD conference. If you view linuxaudio.org as a separate
project, i think it's fair to call things by their right names and not
usurp an event for your own project.
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 08:14, Richard Bown wrote:
You simply
haven't thoroughly read my messages.
Tell you what Marek. Why don't we
play a game of who can keep quiet the
longest? You start. 
3 Mar
3 Mar
11:13 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 03:32:05AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
gosh, i feel much better now that somebody said it.
i completely agree on every point stated by Marek, also regarding the
LAD conference in ZKM.
- --
jaromil, dyne.org rasta coder, http://rastasoft.org
Perhaps
instead of rotating the hardware, we could set up a
scheme whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the
maintainer of support for device 'Y', and other developers who
want to test their software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That
way, 'X' gets the benefit of having the loan hardware on-site,
but also has the responsibility to work with the community on
support for it.
This is completely wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://gnupg.org
iD8DBQFARaOPWLCC1ltubZcRAq1EAJwKeGeCsz0g6juhauVFznq3wI4O2ACgizU2
qRWeN1gA4zIwSoaDB2piAus=
=4YJX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:23 a.m.
I would never advise open-source
developers to borrow a device in order to get a job done for free
and additionally have responsibilities(such as returning the hw and
responsibility to work with the community on support for it).
I think that's up to the developer to decide. The situation at the
moment is that many libre audio software developers don't even have
access to good quality or up to date hardware.
This
should be a responsibility of the company that manufactures that
device.
I think donors are looking for some responsibility from the community,
which seems fair enough to me.
If you
already own a device (whether donated or not) it's in your personal
interest to get the driver done.
I think we need to move beyond pure personal interest - to me, Linux
audio isn't a hobby.
If you're not a developer capable
of coding a driver, you can either a) pay someone to get it done
b) pester him and pray that he will accept ;)
With the consequence that hardware support is still patchy.
That means there's no need to talk about
responsibility. It just
isn't how opensource works.
I think we have very different ideas about how the community works.
Many developers do take their responsibilities very seriously,
including device driver maintainers.
We should be advising people to buy hw which is
already supported.
So what happens when the cards we now recommend go out of production?
What about Firewire devices?
Regarding the 'Linux Audio' conference
announcement on
linuxaudio.org:
Daniel, AFAIK it's Linux Audio Developers ZKM conference, but
sounds like it's now a linuxaudio.org conference.
You're trolling again. There is no announcement, just a link to a
press release which I submitted to linuxpr.com on behalf of Frank and
Matthias, with their agreement. I hope you've also been helping with
publicity for the event.
To quote you from
jan-12-2004 "Secondly, as important as the ZKM conference is, it
has no official status." Well now it sounds it has got an official
status.
It is de facto the most significant Linux audio conference, but it
still doesn't have the ability to decide what individual community
members must do. Compare this to a political party conference, or
that of a professional body, where votes are held to decide on
policy. If you want to be a doctor for example, in most countries you
have to join the doctors' organisation and follow the rules that it
decides on - otherwise you won't be allowed, by law, to perform
operations.
But it sounds more like it's now a linuxaudio.org
conference more than a LAD conference.
I don't think so - there's no mention of linuxaudio.org in the press
release, other than in the submitter line. Perhaps you should suggest
that they change the name next year to the International Linux Audio
(Developers Only, No Users) Conference.
Cheers
Daniel
11:30 a.m.
On Wednesday 03 Mar 2004 2:32 am, Marek Peteraj wrote:
This is completely wrong. I would never advise
open-source
developers to borrow a device in order to get a job done for free
and additionally have responsibilities(such as returning the hw and
responsibility to work with the community on support for it). This
should be a responsibility of the company that manufactures that
device. Obsequiousness is not what's going to help us.
I haven't commented on the loan hardware thread at all yet, but
actually I agree entirely with Marek here. Hardware companies need
to be encouraged to work to get their products supported, sure, but
it's still ultimately a question of their providing a service to
their own users. Getting existing free software developers to do
most of the work makes it staggeringly cost-effective for them
already. Before talking about an individual developer's
"responsibility" to do free work for a hardware company, we should be
talking about that developer's worth to the company.
Daniel, AFAIK it's Linux Audio Developers ZKM
conference, but
sounds like it's now a linuxaudio.org conference.
I don't get this complaint though. As I see Daniel's just noted,
there's nothing at all about the conference on linuxaudio.org except
a link.
Chris
12:10 p.m.
Before talking about an individual developer's
"responsibility" to do free work for a hardware company, we should
be talking about that developer's worth to the company.
Perhaps - but let me put it like this. The professional Linux audio
market is currently so small as to be insignificant to a hardware
company. We currently rely on good will to get any loan hardware or
specifications.
If a particular company wants to donate hardware worth thousands of
dollars to a libre software developer, they won't expect it to be
lost, damaged or sold on eBay. As for 'free work', we're not talking
about taking bread out of developers mouths, since these companies
probably aren't paying anyone for Linux support at the moment.
Another consideration is this: many companies will have a budget for
supplying hardware to third parties for review and test, but won't
have one for third party tech support. It would therefore be much
easier for that company to supply hardware. The value would also be
greater than cash, since the hardware company doesn't have to pay
retail price for their own equipment.
Besides, the responsibility I was talking about was the responsibility
of an individual to work with the community in return for having
primary access to the hardware. If you want free stuff, it's only
reasonable to make some commitment in return.
Cheers
Daniel
3:30 p.m.
On Wednesday 03 March 2004 10:24, Daniel James wrote:
But that's the manufacturer's fault - not ours. And use of the words
"ours"
and "we" here has to be under advisement it seems - some people want free
toys to play with, some people want to be taken seriously in a business
context and you can't apply a single loan policy to both camps.
Rather than just endlessly banging this issue about can't we just agree on a
proposed policy and then vote on it? Isn't that how things are supposed to
work?
R
Before
talking about an individual developer's
"responsibility" to do free work for a hardware company, we should
be talking about that developer's worth to the company.
Perhaps - but let me put it like this. The professional Linux audio
market is currently so small as to be insignificant to a hardware
company. We currently rely on good will to get any loan hardware or
specifications. 
4 Mar
4 Mar
11:49 a.m.
Rather than just endlessly banging this issue about
can't we just
agree on a proposed policy and then vote on it? Isn't that how
things are supposed to work?
I'm all in favour of attempting to reach a consensus first, if that is
possible.
As far as voting goes, only six projects/companies out of eighteen
have so far nominated a representative to the Management Board:
Andrea Glorioso (AGNULA)
Patrick Shirkey (Boost Hardware)
Christian Schaller (GStreamer)
Jan Depner (JAMin)
Ron Parker (Mirror Image)
Steve Harris (plugin.org.uk)
If the other twelve members would like to nominate their
representatives, that would help achieve better representation. These
members are:
ALSA
Ardour
Audacity
Core Sound
dyne:bolic
Fervent Software
4Front Technologies
JACK
Linux Audio Systems
Lionstracs
MandrakeSoft
Rosegarden
Please note that one individual can't represent more than one member
project or company, since they would then effectively have two or
more votes.
Cheers
Daniel
9 Mar
9 Mar
3:49 p.m.
again, are these companies required to be making linux audio products,
or can they diversify into licensing issues? (hint: copyleftmedia.org.uk)
also when and where is this 2nd Linux Audio conference?
curiously m~
Daniel James wrote:
Rather than
just endlessly banging this issue about can't we just
agree on a proposed policy and then vote on it? Isn't that how
things are supposed to work?
I'm all in favour of attempting to reach a consensus first, if that is
possible.
As far as voting goes, only six projects/companies out of eighteen
have so far nominated a representative to the Management Board:
Andrea Glorioso (AGNULA)
Patrick Shirkey (Boost Hardware)
Christian Schaller (GStreamer)
Jan Depner (JAMin)
Ron Parker (Mirror Image)
Steve Harris (plugin.org.uk)
If the other twelve members would like to nominate their
representatives, that would help achieve better representation. These
members are:
ALSA
Ardour
Audacity
Core Sound
dyne:bolic
Fervent Software
4Front Technologies
JACK
Linux Audio Systems
Lionstracs
MandrakeSoft
Rosegarden
Please note that one individual can't represent more than one member
project or company, since they would then effectively have two or
more votes.
Cheers
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
4:10 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:00:12 +0000, iriXx wrote:
again, are these companies required to be making linux
audio products,
or can they diversify into licensing issues? (hint: copyleftmedia.org.uk)
also when and where is this 2nd Linux Audio conference?
Karlsruhe, Germany
http://www.zkm.de/lad
- Steve
3 Mar
3 Mar
6:51 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Daniel James wrote:
while i may agree with the general gist of marek's first objection, it
seems to me he is (again) shooting the messenger here.
it is certainly more desirable to have vendors supply drivers or
development samples of hardware without strings attached. but the fact is,
many don't.
if i understood daniel's intent correctly, he is trying to provide a
*mechanism* for how hardware loans and/or donations should be handled.
marek is talking about *policy*. in good unix tradition, those should
kept separate.
back to lurk mode, regards
joern
Before
talking about an individual developer's
"responsibility" to do free work for a hardware company, we should
be talking about that developer's worth to the company.
Perhaps - but let me put it like this. The professional Linux audio
market is currently so small as to be insignificant to a hardware
company. We currently rely on good will to get any loan hardware or
specifications. 
4 Mar
4 Mar
12:37 a.m.
I don't really have the time (or background) to work on drivers for new
hardware but I want to interject one small comment here. If you're
going to deal with companies and you want to be taken seriously you have
to deal with them in a professional manner. You can't make demands of a
company. They are in business to make money and probably aren't real
interested in the philosophical side of the open source movement. The
magic phrase here is quid pro quo. They give/loan us something and we
give them drivers/support. When you get right down to it we're donating
our time and effort for a much less tangible (but no less important)
return. Let's try not to look at it like we're being victimized. I
don't know about the rest of you but I work on the software because 1) I
use it; 2) I like working on software (I know, I'm sick, it's also my
job at work); and 3) because I like helping other people.
Jan
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 11:01, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Daniel James wrote:
while i may agree with the general gist of marek's first objection, it
seems to me he is (again) shooting the messenger here.
it is certainly more desirable to have vendors supply drivers or
development samples of hardware without strings attached. but the fact is,
many don't.
if i understood daniel's intent correctly, he is trying to provide a
*mechanism* for how hardware loans and/or donations should be handled.
marek is talking about *policy*. in good unix tradition, those should
kept separate.
back to lurk mode, regards
joern
_______________________________________________
Consortium mailing list
Consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.agnula.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium
Before
talking about an individual developer's
"responsibility" to do free work for a hardware company, we should
be talking about that developer's worth to the company.
Perhaps - but let me put it like this. The professional Linux audio
market is currently so small as to be insignificant to a hardware
company. We currently rely on good will to get any loan hardware or
specifications.
7624
days inactive
7630
days old
consortium@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Chris Cannam -
Daniel James -
Daniel James -
iriXx -
Jan Depner -
jaromil -
Joern Nettingsmeier -
Marek Peteraj -
Richard Bown -
Steve Harris