25 Feb
2006
25 Feb
'06
6:47 p.m.
Just went back and reread the thread re: Plextor drivers, as we are looking to buy a
DVD-burner, and have been very happy with our Plexwriter, and previous Plextor CD burner.
(Also read the entire thread on cdfreaks.com re:Pxlinux )
This is the second time this month I've run into a situation where a hardware
manufacturer is refusing both to release their own linux drivers/software, or the
information necessary for others to write their own.
This makes no rational sense to me.
How on earth does it harm them to allow someone else, on their own time and own dime, to
write a driver or program for another OS, unless the company is planning to write their
own drivers/software and sell them - which in the case of both Plextor and RME does not
appear to be the case.
Allowing 3rd party drivers/software can only increase the market for their products, as
they will then be usable on a broader array of operating systems. Bigger market = more $$
for them, doesn't it?
What possible gain is there for them to coerce users into using a M$ OS?
Unless . . . . .
Not being a programmer, or knowing what is involved in writing drivers I am just
wondering:
could it be that MS is refusing to release whatever code is necessary for the hardware
manufacturers to write their MS-compatible drivers/software unless they acquiesce to some
sort of exclusivity agreement - i. e. agree to neither write Linux (or other OS)
drivers/sw, nor release their own hw info that would allow anyone else to do so?
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware manufacturers would want to lock
their product into a single OS.
- Maluvia
25 Feb
25 Feb
7:11 p.m.
Lots of times companies use technology they license from other
companies. Releasing specs for this type of info often requires a mind
numbing approval process with all other companies involved. For many
companies it's just not worth the time and cost to do all this.
Besides, a DVD burner is rather simple to reverse engineer and RME's
firewire unit sucks anyway. Get an Apogee firewire unit if you must
have a firewire interface. (Apogee's units are supported by the
freebob project)
-Reuben
On 2/25/06, Maluvia <terakuma(a)imbris.net> wrote:
Just went back and reread the thread re: Plextor
drivers, as we are looking to buy a DVD-burner, and have been very happy with our
Plexwriter, and previous Plextor CD burner.
(Also read the entire thread on cdfreaks.com re:Pxlinux )
This is the second time this month I've run into a situation where a hardware
manufacturer is refusing both to release their own linux drivers/software, or the
information necessary for others to write their own.
This makes no rational sense to me.
How on earth does it harm them to allow someone else, on their own time and own dime, to
write a driver or program for another OS, unless the company is planning to write their
own drivers/software and sell them - which in the case of both Plextor and RME does not
appear to be the case.
Allowing 3rd party drivers/software can only increase the market for their products, as
they will then be usable on a broader array of operating systems. Bigger market = more $$
for them, doesn't it?
What possible gain is there for them to coerce users into using a M$ OS?
Unless . . . . .
Not being a programmer, or knowing what is involved in writing drivers I am just
wondering:
could it be that MS is refusing to release whatever code is necessary for the hardware
manufacturers to write their MS-compatible drivers/software unless they acquiesce to some
sort of exclusivity agreement - i. e. agree to neither write Linux (or other OS)
drivers/sw, nor release their own hw info that would allow anyone else to do so?
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware manufacturers would want to lock
their product into a single OS.
- Maluvia
8:39 p.m.
On 2/25/06, Maluvia <terakuma(a)imbris.net> wrote:
Just went back and reread the thread re: Plextor
drivers, as we are looking to buy a DVD-burner, and have been very happy with our
Plexwriter, and previous Plextor CD burner.
(Also read the entire thread on cdfreaks.com re:Pxlinux )
This is the second time this month I've run into a situation where a hardware
manufacturer is refusing both to release their own linux drivers/software, or the
information necessary for others to write their own.
This makes no rational sense to me.
How on earth does it harm them to allow someone else, on their own time and own dime, to
write a driver or program for another OS, unless the company is planning to write their
own drivers/software and sell them - which in the case of both Plextor and RME does not
appear to be the case.
Allowing 3rd party drivers/software can only increase the market for their products, as
they will then be usable on a broader array of operating systems. Bigger market = more $$
for them, doesn't it?
What possible gain is there for them to coerce users into using a M$ OS?
Unless . . . . .
Not being a programmer, or knowing what is involved in writing drivers I am just
wondering:
could it be that MS is refusing to release whatever code is necessary for the hardware
manufacturers to write their MS-compatible drivers/software unless they acquiesce to some
sort of exclusivity agreement - i. e. agree to neither write Linux (or other OS)
drivers/sw, nor release their own hw info that would allow anyone else to do so?
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware manufacturers would want to lock
their product into a single OS.
- Maluvia
I can understand, at this stage in the game, some companies not
supporting Linux officially, but being outright hostile such as
Plextor?? That is not acceptable. I'll never buy any [overpriced]
Plextor hardware. What is the reason? Is it even legal what they are
doing? I don't know the answers, but it hurts my head to even think
about it.
8:54 p.m.
On 2/25/06, Dana Olson <dana(a)ubuntustudio.com> wrote:
On 2/25/06, Maluvia <terakuma(a)imbris.net> wrote:
Don't be so hard on Plextor (or RME for that matter) Both have been
quite open providing developer kits and specs for OSS devs for many of
their products. Just because they may choose not to for some of their
products doesn't make them evil. It's their product and they can do
what they want with it. If you don't like it, buy something else.
-Reuben
Just went back and reread the thread re: Plextor
drivers, as we are looking to buy a DVD-burner, and have been very happy with our
Plexwriter, and previous Plextor CD burner.
(Also read the entire thread on cdfreaks.com re:Pxlinux )
This is the second time this month I've run into a situation where a hardware
manufacturer is refusing both to release their own linux drivers/software, or the
information necessary for others to write their own.
This makes no rational sense to me.
How on earth does it harm them to allow someone else, on their own time and own dime, to
write a driver or program for another OS, unless the company is planning to write their
own drivers/software and sell them - which in the case of both Plextor and RME does not
appear to be the case.
Allowing 3rd party drivers/software can only increase the market for their products, as
they will then be usable on a broader array of operating systems. Bigger market = more $$
for them, doesn't it?
What possible gain is there for them to coerce users into using a M$ OS?
Unless . . . . .
Not being a programmer, or knowing what is involved in writing drivers I am just
wondering:
could it be that MS is refusing to release whatever code is necessary for the hardware
manufacturers to write their MS-compatible drivers/software unless they acquiesce to some
sort of exclusivity agreement - i. e. agree to neither write Linux (or other OS)
drivers/sw, nor release their own hw info that would allow anyone else to do so?
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware manufacturers would want to lock
their product into a single OS.
- Maluvia
I can understand, at this stage in the game, some companies not
supporting Linux officially, but being outright hostile such as
Plextor?? That is not acceptable. I'll never buy any [overpriced]
Plextor hardware. What is the reason? Is it even legal what they are
doing? I don't know the answers, but it hurts my head to even think
about it.
9:25 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 18:54 -0600, Reuben Martin wrote:
Don't be so hard on Plextor (or RME for that
matter) Both have been
quite open providing developer kits and specs for OSS devs for many of
their products. Just because they may choose not to for some of their
products doesn't make them evil. It's their product and they can do
what they want with it. If you don't like it, buy something else.
The plextor situation is pretty bad - certain SCSI commands are
encrypted to make reverse engineering them a DMCA violation. If this is
the future of hardware we are f**ked - it won't be possible to run Linux
on a PC in 5 years. It's VERY important to let Plextor know that they
will be punished in the marketplace for this type of behavior.
Lee
9:33 p.m.
On 2/25/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 18:54 -0600, Reuben Martin
wrote:
According to the guys behind Pxtools, the SCSI commands are cleartext.
So it's even worse than that, in my opinion. There is no possible way
that this should stand in court, but they're threatening anyhow...
For reference: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=127340&
Dana
Don't be so hard on Plextor (or RME for that
matter) Both have been
quite open providing developer kits and specs for OSS devs for many of
their products. Just because they may choose not to for some of their
products doesn't make them evil. It's their product and they can do
what they want with it. If you don't like it, buy something else.
The plextor situation is pretty bad - certain SCSI commands are
encrypted to make reverse engineering them a DMCA violation. If this is
the future of hardware we are f**ked - it won't be possible to run Linux
on a PC in 5 years. It's VERY important to let Plextor know that they
will be punished in the marketplace for this type of behavior.
Lee
9:28 p.m.
On 2/25/06, Reuben Martin <reuben.m(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/06, Dana Olson <dana(a)ubuntustudio.com>
wrote:
http://portal.wikinerds.org/interview-zeb-2005jun
Might wanna read that before you defend them. I think there is a big
difference between "not supporting Linux" and "sending cease and
desists to open-source projects."
Dana
On 2/25/06, Maluvia <terakuma(a)imbris.net>
wrote:
Don't be so hard on Plextor (or RME for that matter) Both have been
quite open providing developer kits and specs for OSS devs for many of
their products. Just because they may choose not to for some of their
products doesn't make them evil. It's their product and they can do
what they want with it. If you don't like it, buy something else.
-Reuben Just went back and reread the thread re: Plextor
drivers, as we are looking to buy a DVD-burner, and have been very happy with our
Plexwriter, and previous Plextor CD burner.
(Also read the entire thread on cdfreaks.com re:Pxlinux )
This is the second time this month I've run into a situation where a hardware
manufacturer is refusing both to release their own linux drivers/software, or the
information necessary for others to write their own.
This makes no rational sense to me.
How on earth does it harm them to allow someone else, on their own time and own dime, to
write a driver or program for another OS, unless the company is planning to write their
own drivers/software and sell them - which in the case of both Plextor and RME does not
appear to be the case.
Allowing 3rd party drivers/software can only increase the market for their products, as
they will then be usable on a broader array of operating systems. Bigger market = more $$
for them, doesn't it?
What possible gain is there for them to coerce users into using a M$ OS?
Unless . . . . .
Not being a programmer, or knowing what is involved in writing drivers I am just
wondering:
could it be that MS is refusing to release whatever code is necessary for the hardware
manufacturers to write their MS-compatible drivers/software unless they acquiesce to some
sort of exclusivity agreement - i. e. agree to neither write Linux (or other OS)
drivers/sw, nor release their own hw info that would allow anyone else to do so?
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware manufacturers would want to lock
their product into a single OS.
- Maluvia
I can understand, at this stage in the game, some companies not
supporting Linux officially, but being outright hostile such as
Plextor?? That is not acceptable. I'll never buy any [overpriced]
Plextor hardware. What is the reason? Is it even legal what they are
doing? I don't know the answers, but it hurts my head to even think
about it.
8:40 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 14:49 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
I just cannot think of any other reason why hardware
manufacturers
would want to lock their product into a single OS.
(with apologies to the writer of "Fight Club")
Let A be the estimated profit per Linux sale, B the size of the Linux
market and C the potential cost if the competition uses the published
specs to copy their device. If A times B is less than C, there will not
be a Linux driver.
The only thing these vendors understand is money - if they don't support
Linux, don't buy their gear. One big client's insistence (the Weather
channel) was enough to get ATI to release open drivers for one of their
lines of 3D cards. We just need to get Linux heads into positions of
power like that...
Lee
26 Feb
26 Feb
3:24 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 19:39 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 14:49 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
Lee, do you have a link for a story on that Weather Channel thing?
I'd sure like to know more about that.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
I just cannot think of any other reason why
hardware manufacturers
would want to lock their product into a single OS.
(with apologies to the writer of "Fight Club")
Let A be the estimated profit per Linux sale, B the size of the Linux
market and C the potential cost if the competition uses the published
specs to copy their device. If A times B is less than C, there will not
be a Linux driver.
The only thing these vendors understand is money - if they don't support
Linux, don't buy their gear. One big client's insistence (the Weather
channel) was enough to get ATI to release open drivers for one of their
lines of 3D cards. We just need to get Linux heads into positions of
power like that...
6:04 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: Companies Refusing to Release/Permit Linux Drivers
We don't need to worry about things like this. There is a Free
Engineering movement forming and getting stronger. I believe
closed-source and propriatery stuff gets sterile and dies after a while
simply because it's not fun to work at, so this should be a
self-regulating problem.
Carlo
6982
days inactive
6983
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Carlo Capocasa -
Dana Olson -
Jan Depner -
Lee Revell -
Maluvia -
Reuben Martin