Re: [linux-audio-user] (OSS vs. RME) vs. (OSS + RME) [slightly OT]

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] (OSS vs. RME) vs. (OSS + RME) [slightly OT]
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 16:38:25 EET


Hi Vord,

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 03:45, vord wrote:
> LAU --
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong here ... but ... lack of supported hardware is
> part of the reason people don't migrate to *nix operating systems; and
> another is the frightening complexity involved in doing anything with
> *nix which the OS and its software inherits from the relatively small,
> disorganized, underfunded community. add to this a dash of social
> ignorance and general complacency -- perhaps some nearsightedness too?
> -- and i think thats where we, the OpenSource community, stand with
> respect to the masses.
>
> It is difficult to say which of the above issues is the biggest
> hindrance to Open Source domination. However, hardware support is
> crucial; and thats a non-debatable fact. Concordantly, it seems to me
> that, if our goal is to spread cheer and free software throughout the
> land to our fellow men, we MUST INSIST on developing drivers for
> everything that has achieved either extreme popularity or extreme
> utility.
>
> By INSIST i mean the following [taking this RME situation for
> example]: a group of people [some ALSA-dev people, lets say] speaks to
> RME about developing the drivers, agreeing to sign not only an NDA but
> some other agreement which has the following [or similar] conditions:
> (1) RME controls the source however it wants [open or closed] and for
> as long as it wants. (2) the NDA team is not allowed the exclusive
> right to modify the source, RME can do so in-house if it chooses, but
> both groups must be notified of alterations and be allowed ample time
> to inspect the source to make sure said changes do not break
> everything before the new code is used to generate new binaries. (3)
> RME and the NDA team jointly distribute pre-compiled drivers to LAUs.
> [so on and so forth].

This is unacceptable unless RME is willing to pay for such service.

As an owner of fireface and open source believer i can only tell that
i'm not interested in closed source drivers. Even if they already
existed i wouldn't be insterested in keeping fireface. The reason why i
bought it is, i believed that RME would have no problems releasing such
specs again.

I absolutely believe in companies providing opensource support for their
hardware products.

http://www.audioscience.com
http://open.neurosaudio.com

Those companies already provide not only open source drivers but (in
case of neuros) also schematics for their hardware and firmware source
code. I certainly do not know how this should hurt them. Quite the
opposite.

Because if you don't do that yourself you'll end up like this:

http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/build.shtml
http://gallery.ipodlounge.com/ipod/thumbnails.php?album=6
  

Marek


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 14:54:29 EET