Perhaps we should start to behave more like OpenBSD? [LWN.net]

Perhaps we should start to behave more like OpenBSD?

Posted Jul 20, 2006 22:23 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
Parent article: OLS: Open source graphics drivers

I remember reading through a thread on an OpenBSD mailing list recently
concerning crypto chips released by the company Hifn. Apparently, the
vendor would release documentation but only if you signed up for an
account / went through a company representative. Many OpenBSD developers
deeply objected to this for privacy and other reasons.

So some dude from Hifn had come in to the mailing list and declared that
his company's specs were Open. Not only did OpenBSD users/devs disagree
with him, the outpouring of harsh and negative responses to the Hifn
guy's assertion seemed like a rush of concentrated anger. Many users
alluded to their influence over the buying power of many of Hifn's
potential customers, and strongly promised to make sure those customers
would look elsewhere. There were even threats to drop the open driver!

When I read it, I remember thinking that the approach seemed rather
harsh. It looked like they had passed the point of showing concern and
were simply delivering the Hifn associate abuse. But I suppose that my
interpretation might have been quite incorrect. I think some of us in the
community have gotten so used to having to beg for specs and drivers that
we haven't been flexing our muscles as much as we can. What's the great
fear -- that our demand is going to anger the vendors enough that they
don't support us at all?

Now that ATI seems totally uncooperative on the r500, they might be a
prime candidate for this level of abuse. It should be loud, unrelenting
and all over the press, and it shouldn't cease until the very moment ATI
folds. If the major vendors don't want to release open source drivers,
fine -- but I think customers have a right to demand programming
specifications for the things they buy.

Additionally, we need everyone with the capability to do so to apply
auxiliary pressure. Anyone in the corporate sector with an interest in
running Linux hardware (be it for internal or product use) should band
together in sending the message to the vendors that they might find
themselves losing support if they're not willing to even attempt to be
reasonable.

It flat out pisses me off when I read about NVIDIA stating that graphics
drivers are so hard to write that we can't do them, or that customers
don't want open source drivers.

We as the greater free software community have a handle on just about
every technical problem you can imagine. We're more portable than
anything the proprietary world could ever produce or has ever seen. Our
features and capabilities are outstanding.

Our biggest problem then isn't a technical one in my opinion - it's this
business of free drivers. It's time to turn up the heat.

(Log in to post comments)

Hifn vs ATI

Posted Jul 20, 2006 22:54 UTC (Thu) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]

My impression from the Hifn/OpenBSD thread is that the encryption chip and graphics chip markets are different a way that isn't favorable to supporters of free/open-source software. ATI and Nvidia are the only high-end consumer graphics chip makers around. And neither they nor any of their competitors (unless you count Intel, which doesn't compete in many of their markets) offer specs for the development of open source drivers.

In contrast, de Raadt said "I can get documentation for pretty much 99% of the [encryption] chips in the industry without supplying any private information." If this was the case for graphics chips, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, there's no 99% (or even 1%) of the graphics chip market with open source friendly policies.

Given that, we can deny ATI and Nvidia our money, but who do we give it to?

Hifn vs ATI

Posted Jul 20, 2006 23:04 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

I recognize there are definite differences, but I think we need to be more
vocal.

Hell - go crazy with me for a second. What if we were able to organize
users and developers from GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD (since we
pretty much all have at least /some/ stake in having at least open specs).
This organized group picks 1 company to focus on (ATI) and comes up with 1
demand (programming specifications).

Then every day, every participant in our little protest calls each of
ATI's telephone numbers / departments once. Each of us calls tech support,
sales, RMA, and any other phone-accessible departments once every day.
It's eventually downright harassment, but every call costs them time,
money and frustration when they're not handling their other customers.
Eventually it becomes expensive to ignore our demand for programming
specifications.

And ironically, when we have the specifications and interested parties
have time to build r500 support, they might just have a flood of customers
(read: NVIDIA defectors) to help them earn all that lost support money
back. Then we set our sights on NVIDIA...

Hifn vs ATI

Posted Jul 23, 2006 6:48 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

By every single bit of advice from actual driver developers I have ever read, this is madness -- not just useless, but destructive. Venom on the mailing list had no effect at all, because nobody read it. What did have an effect was the real threat to their sales. Nothing anybody in Free Software can do can have any impact on their sales, because (1) too few are involved, and anyway (2) most of their sales aren't to end users, but to manufacturers who aren't even aware there's an issue, and would be uninterested if they did know.

What can possibly influence ATI and Nvidia? Volume sales. That's all. If you have a say in large-volume orders, and can convince ATI and Nvidia of it, you have their ear. Anything else is just grandstanding.

Hifn vs ATI

Posted Aug 2, 2006 2:11 UTC (Wed) by djm (subscriber, #11651) [Link]

Wrong. It did have an effect, as is evidenced by HiFn making their documentation completely free withouht click-through licenses or private information gathering.