| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 10, 2010 13:46 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
Most would choose 1, as least as long as the choice was lengthy legal deliberations and possible legal risk [wireless] or maintaining two entirely separate firmwares because of nonpublic DRM requirements on the Windows firmware (which MS insist on, last I heard) [graphics] versus Linux support.
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 11, 2010 19:44 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
Many OEMs (particularly for servers) now require drivers for the components they buy to be included in-tree. The combination of requirements for kernel developers and OEMs might then force some hardware component vendors to go for option 3. But certainly there would be many others that would just go for option 2. Option 1 just doesn't exist any more except for niche products.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 9:56 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] There's an awful lot of hardcrapware out there that would never see the inside of a server room in a million years.
|
|||||||||||||