From: Steffen Seeger <s.seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:14:10 +0200 (CEST)

Re: opinion of GGI

> On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 11:55:03AM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > Why you love or hate GGI? What could/must be improved?
> > > 
> > This is the reason the KGI drivers are not in the kernel. they don't like
> > the idea of this API where companies can make binary only drivers. I
> > remember once I stated I would write binary drivers just to support a card
> > under linux. Boy did I get hate mail. Almost all kernel developers have
> > the attitude give us the docs are forget it. 
> 
> I agree with them.  The only time I have ever had something crash the
> system that wasn't a problem with a kernel that was known to have
> problems (2.1.121 being the last example of this I've had recently) it
> was because of a binary driver.
> 
> And in the case of the problems I've had that were kernel bugs, there has
> always been a patch available to fix the bug in question posted.  OTOH
> I've had to wait literally as much as 4-5 days for a new binary driver to
> fix a critical bug that should never have gotten released anyway.  The
> tradeoff of stability and quality for isn't worth it.  As a result I'll
> never be convinced again that binary drivers can ever be a good thing.
> 
> This doesn't make kgi a bad thing.  I like kgi.  However the concern over
> binary only drivers is IMO quite valid.

My 2%:

May be the developers care about this, but the typical customer doesn't.
How else could one explain the market share of 30% (far more than any other 
graphics cards under Linux) of the 3Dfx Voodoo cards? IMHO not because
glide is defacto a binary only driver. May be because it is the only 
available (3D) driver...

It's up to the (linux/free sofware) customers (if there is anything like that) 
to show companies they prefer documentation and driver sources being available.

If something will improve software from a technological point of view 
considerably, but in the consequence allow for binary drivers, I think one
should  implement the improvement. The community will have to work out
ways to deal with the 'social' or 'religious' consequences - it always did.

It looks to me the only flaw about free software is, that there is nothing
like 'free hardware'. Even if the software can be free (== no cost and
you can make as many copies as you like), hardware never will. Consequently
someone has to build it, and that will result in expenses to be covered.

> --
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
> PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!

			Steffen

----------------- e-mail: seeger@physik.tu-chemnitz.de -----------------