I wonder if any hardware manufacturer will take Greg up on his offer of Free Linux Driver Development. From the post:
Yes, that's right, the Linux kernel community is offering all companies free Linux driver development. No longer do you have to suffer through all of the different examples in the Linux Device Driver Kit, or pick through the thousands of example drivers in the Linux kernel source tree trying to determine which one is the closest to what you need to do.
All that is needed is some kind of specification that describes how your device works, or the email address of an engineer that is willing to answer questions every once in a while. A few sample devices might be good to have so that debugging doesn't have to be done by email, but if necessary, that can be done.
In return, you will receive a complete and working Linux driver that is added to the main Linux kernel source tree. The driver will be written by some of the members of the Linux kernel developer community (over 1500 strong and growing). This driver will then be automatically included in all Linux distributions, including the “enterprise” ones. It will be automatically kept up to date and working through all Linux kernel API changes. This driver will work with all of the different CPU types supported by Linux, the largest number of CPU types supported by any operating system ever before in the history of computing.
As for support, the driver will be supported through email by the original developers, when they can help out, and by the “enterprise” Linux distributors as part of their service agreements with their customers.
When worded like that, it's hard to understand why more vendors don't want their drivers in the kernel. We really are talking about non-cost driver development here. What's more, you have people the caliber of Greg doing the work for you. He even addresses using an NDA in his post. So why the resistance from some? I'm not sure, but I'd guess it comes down to fear, perceived lack of control and misinformation. Especially in the case of commodity hardware such as NICs and on-board anything you should be begging to have Greg write your driver. Not only that, you should be paying him. But here he is, making the offer for free. Now if you make a specialized piece of $200,000 niche equipment, I can see why you would want a dedicated team of developers. Your device is likely not mainstream enough and is sufficiently complicated that you may not find someone willing or even able to maintain your driver. For the rest of you, I'm genuinely interested – what is holding you back? What would change your mind?
–jeremy
Archive for January, 2007
OpenID is getting a lot of attention this week. At LQ, we're obviously supporters of Open Standards and Open Source, but this is something slightly different. We're also believer that you own your identity and attention data. We've supported FOAF for a long time and do what we can to make sure your data is yours. While it's not without problems that need to be addressed, I'm happy to announce that soon, we'll also be supporting OpenID. It will be interesting to see how OpenID progresses. Your “login” is something that is very important to the big vendors (think Google and Yahoo! here). Once you've signed up for a login, it makes their barrier to entry to get you to try an additional one of their products or projects that much easier. After all, all you have to do is login to your existing account. Once you use 3-4+ services, it's quite hard to leave. You're what they call sticky at that point, and that's what every vendor wants. Of course, it's also easier for companies to maintain. We learned that the hard way at LQ. For example, for a while each site we launched had a different authentication system. It was really hard to get people to use LQ Bookmarks when you had to sign up for a distinct account. After we rolled it into the main infrastructure and allowed you to use your existing LQ login procedure, usage increased by leaps and bounds. At this point, the only LQ site that still has a distinct login is the LQ Wiki. That's by design though as we want the barrier to entry there to be a low as possible – it's a wiki after all. In that vein, the LQ Wiki will be the first site to support OpenID. After we're able to get a better feel for the technology and implementation, we'll make further decisions from there. No solid ETA for support at this point, but it should definitely happen this quarter. Stay tuned.
–jeremy
OpenID
It's clear that the benefits of Open Standards are starting to be realized in the mainstream. While the PDF spec has been available for a long time, Adobe is now going to submit it as an ISO standard. From the press release:
Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today announced that it intends to release the full Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.7 specification to AIIM, the Enterprise Content Management Association, for the purpose of publication by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
PDF has become a de facto global standard for more secure and dependable information exchange since Adobe published the complete PDF specification in 1993. Both government and private industry have come to rely on PDF for the volumes of electronic records that need to be more securely and reliably shared, managed, and in some cases preserved for generations. Since 1995 Adobe has participated in various working groups that develop technical specifications for publication by ISO and worked within the ISO process to deliver specialized subsets of PDF as standards for specific industries and functions. Today, PDF for Archive (PDF/A) and PDF for Exchange (PDF/X) are ISO standards, and PDF for Engineering (PDF/E) and PDF for Universal Access (PDF/UA) are proposed standards. Additionally, PDF for Healthcare (PDF/H) is an AIIM proposed Best Practice Guide. AIIM serves as the administrator for PDF/A, PDF/E, PDF/UA and PDF/H.
“Today’s announcement is the next logical step in the evolution of PDF from de facto standard to a formal, de jure standard,” said Kevin Lynch, senior vice president and chief software architect at Adobe. “By releasing the full PDF specification for ISO standardization, we are reinforcing our commitment to openness. As governments and organizations increasingly request open formats, maintenance of the PDF specification by an external and participatory organization will help continue to drive innovation and expand the rich PDF ecosystem that has evolved over the past 15 years.”
Some would argue this is coming a little late, but it's still good to see IMHO. Adobe is finally letting go of one of its crown jewels. While the spec has been previously available, licensing restraints mean we have a ton of free (gratis and libre) viewers but less writers. We should see more of a balance now (although some good libre writing options are already available).
Moving on to the impetus for this move. I think Adobe has a vision for the future of the web and it realizes the role Open Standards will play if they want to be a legitimate player in that future. More and more Government agencies are now requiring the document formats they use be standards based. The full PDF spec can now say that it is. You also have the fact that Microsoft is going to start pushing XPS, (XML Paper Specification, also called Metro) which is a direct PDF competitor. PDF being an ISO spec means that instead of Adobe being the perceived gatekeeper, anyone can propose additions/modifications. This means an ecosystem can build up. Of course, Adobe has a ton of expertise built up in this domain so they will remain the dominant player for a long time to come. This should be good for Open Standards as it will prove to some skeptics that the value and money aren't created by locking down a spec, but by opening it up.
–jeremy
Adobe, PDF, ISO, Microsoft, XPS
Not directly Linux or Open Source related, but scary if you use GoDaddy, who is currently the largest registrar. They recently summarily suspended seclists.org, run by Open Source nmap author Fyodor. The problem here is that it was not as a result of DMCA takedown notice or a court order. It was simply at the request of MySpace. Apparently they left a voicemail for Fyodor and then suspended the domain 52 seconds later. No real verification, no chance for a defense and certainly before what I would consider due diligence. The best part is that the offending page, one of 250,000+ pages at the domain, was simply an archive of a mailing list! If you use GoDaddy I would seriously consider moving your domain. It's not because of this incident either. Everyone makes mistakes and if their response to this was something along the lines of “it won't happen again”, I'd say lesson learned. Their actual response:
When asked if GoDaddy would remove the registration for a news site like CNET News.com, if a reader posted illegal information in a discussion forum and editors could not be immediately reached over a holiday, Jones replied: “I don't know…It's a case-by-case basis.”
If you're a GoDaddy customer, is that a policy that you're comfortable with?
–jeremy
Disclosure: Although I don't really advertise it anywhere, I am an authorized reseller for multiple registrars – none of them GoDaddy
GoDaddy, registrar, ICANN
A recent blog post by Mark Shuttleworth has sparked quite a bit of debate. His assertion:
We have to work together to keep free software freely available. It will be a failure if the world moves from paying for shrink-wrapped Windows to paying for shrink-wrapped Linux.
As free software becomes more successful and more pervasive there will be an increasing desire on the part of companies to make it more proprietary. We've already seen that with Red Hat and Novell, which essentially offer free software on proprietary terms – their “really free” editions are not certified, carry no support and receive no systematic security patching. In other words – they’re beta or test versions. If you want the best that free software can deliver, a rock solid, widely certified, secure platform, from either of those companies then you have to pay, and you pay the same price whether you are Goldman Sachs or a startup in Rio de Janeiro.
That’s not the vision we all share of what free software can achieve.
With Ubuntu, our vision is to make the very best of free software freely available, globally. To the extent we make short-term compromises, for drivers or firmware along the way, we see those as bugs, and ones that will be closed over time.
Basically, he's calling the two main Enterprise Linux distributors proprietary companies. Greg DeKoenigsberg, the Community Development Manager for Red Hat (aka quite active in the Fedora community) fires back:
You can call Red Hat “proprietary” all you want. That doesn't make it true.
The difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux bits and CentOS bits is virtually nil; we make all of our source RPMs available to anyone who wants them. (Ask Novell if they do the same. I'll save you the time: they don't.) What is “proprietary” is the brand, and the quality of service you are entitled to receive by being a paying customer. Oh, and the notion that “the price is the same whether you're Goldman Sachs or a startup in Rio de Janeiro” is ludicrous.
If you want to duplicate that quality of service for Ubuntu users, that's noble and admirable. That's competition. But leave the FUD at the door, dude. You're better than that. Aren't you?
The discussion gets going from there. My opinion lies somewhere between the two, although that's not surprising considering they're basically diametrically opposed. I think calling Red Hat a proprietary company is a bit disingenuous. The bits are 100% freely available and Red Hat is extremely active in contributing code back upstream. I don't think there is any danger of there becoming a shrink-wrapped only Linux situation. Matt seems to think that Mark doesn't “get” enterprise Linux. I think it might be something else though, and that's that Canonical has an entirely different business model. The Red Hat business model has turned into something along the lines of (yes, these are *gross* oversimplification meant to illustrate a point) “If you want Linux for free, we have a release that is primarily aimed at developers that you are free (in every sense of the word) to do what you please with. The maintenance window is really short and we make no guarantees, but here it is – enjoy. If you'd like a solid and stable version of Linux that comes with support, ISV certifications and long term maintenance, we also have RHEL but it costs”. I've express my desire to have a maintenance without support version of RHEL (for a fee mind you, just a low one) in the past, but that may never happen. If you start with Fedora now and end up wanting official Red Hat support, you basically have to start 100% from scratch with RHEL. The Canonical version seems to be more along the lines of “Feel free to download any version of the product we have, be it LTS or not. If you'd like support, we'd be happy to provide it for a price.” For those not familiar with Ubuntu, LTS is “(Long Term Support”. This does give companies the added advantage of being able to try the official product while maintaining the ability to easily move to the supported product. That is nice, but if you want anything in the line of ISV certification at this time, Ubuntu doesn't have much to offer you (and that is important).
The one great thing that stands out to me here is that, due to the way that Linux is licensed both companies get a chance to prove their models. What's even better, they are doing so with essentially the same bits. Everyone in the community has the potential to win! No vendor lock-in on either side, so comparisons to “Microsoft of Linux” are non sequitur. See how great choice really is? The one final comment I'll add is that Red Hat has done a good job of proving their model works. Can Canonical do the same? Will they?
–jeremy
Ubuntu, Red Hat, Fedora, Linux, Open Source
A recent eWeek article intimates that Sun will dual license OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 once it's officially released. Rich Green points out that no decisions will be made until after the GPLv3 is officially released, but indicates that Sun is in discussions with the community regarding the detailed terms of GPLv3. He also notes that he's happy with the current progress. That makes a lot of sense and I'd certainly not expect Sun to commit to a license that isn't even released yet. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that Sun does like the final terms of the GPLv3 (WARNING: there is no way to know whether that will be the case, this is just speculation based on that assumption). Dual licensing OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 would be an interesting move with a lot of up side for Sun. OpenSolaris is currently a bit of a step child to some in the Open Source community due to the CDDL. Releasing under the GPLv3 would allow Sun to use a license with some street cred while also keeping the code out of the Linux kernel. This is because Linus has made it extremely clear that the kernel will remain GPLv2 only. I've already mentioned that the GPLv2/v3 split has a chance to create a small fissure in parts of the community. We're used to a large number of licenses, but the GPL is a very dominant one.
However, a move of this nature could attract significantly more developer attention for OpenSolaris. I've seen speculation that Sun may encourage some Linux developers to dual license their code under the GPLv2 and GPLv3, but that makes little sense to me. To make it back upstream into OpenSolaris proper, the code would also need to be licensed under the CDDL. Note that is my understanding of how things would need to work. I am not a lawyer and a three license scenario is far behind what I'm able to properly grok. Back to actual code, I've already said how much I like DTrace and Sun is doing some interesting things elsewhere. The ability to increase collaboration and share code should be beneficial to all, even if kernel-to-kernel code flow is prohibited. Much of the early Linux growth came at the expense of Solaris and the other proprietary UNIX variants (not Windows, as many seem to think) so it's hard to gage what impact this may have on commercial and enterprise Linux uptake. For now, it's a moot point. Once the GPLv3 is actually released however, it will be something to keep an eye on.
(Note: I had typed a much longer version of this post that contained some additional thoughts and ideas. Firefox crashed as I was hitting submit and this is a quick reconstruction of my thoughts. Hopefully I've hit on all the salient points of my original post.)
–jeremy
OpenSolaris, Sun, Linux, Open Source, GPL, GPLv3
From the press release:
The two leading consortia dedicated to the advancement of Linux – the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG) – today announced that they have signed an agreement to merge and form The Linux Foundation. The new organization accelerates the growth of Linux by providing a comprehensive set of services to compete effectively with closed platforms.
Founding platinum members of the Linux Foundation include Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, and Oracle. Jim Zemlin, former executive director of the Free Standards Group, leads The Linux Foundation. Other members of the new organization include every major company in the Linux industry, including Red Hat, as well as numerous community groups, universities and industry end users.
“Computing is entering a world dominated by two platforms: Linux and Windows. While being managed under one roof has given Windows some consistency, Linux offers freedom of choice, customization and flexibility without forcing customers into vendor lock-in,” said Zemlin. “The Linux Foundation helps in the next stage of Linux growth by organizing the diverse companies and constituencies of the Linux ecosystem to promote, protect, and standardize Linux.”
The Linux Foundation, which continues to sponsor the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds, employs a shared resources strategy – much like open source development itself – to collaborate on platform development while enhancing the Linux market for end users, the community, developers and industry.
The FSG and the OSDL have worked together on a variety of projects in the past. While their areas of focus have been different, they both have the same general goals and ideals. They also previously had to compete with each other for membership and resources. The joining of the two companies should give the new entity more resources, less overhead and duplication of effort and increased market influence. The only downside I see is that previously the “standards group” was a separate entity that didn't do a ton in the way of general advocacy or development. That independence is now gone, but it seems like a very small price to pay and managed correctly I don't see it as any problem at all. The New York Times article contained some verbiage that worried me a bit:
And the mission of the new organization is help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world’s largest software company.
Why did that worry me? Microsoft shouldn't really me our main focus in my opinion. Sure, we should learn from what they do well and be aware of what they are doing, but improving Linux should be the main goal. Luckily, that sentence seems to be the interpretation of the NYT author. Outside a quote in the press release, the word Microsoft is almost no where to be found on the actual Linux Foundation site (although there is a mention of “Successful proprietary software companies”, a generalization that I really like) and the wording of everything is in line with what I would expect of an entity focused on improving Linux and not battling a specific company. While on the topic of the site, it's a great mix of MediaWiki and WordPress that they've brought together very nicely.
A quick glance at the people involved here and it's clear that this group should be able to pick up some traction and make some demonstrable differences fairly quickly. They will also continue to employee developers such as Linus and Andrew. I'd encourage them to also try to work in community participation. I offered my support and the support of LQ to OSDL in the past. After some initial talks nothing every came of it – they just didn't have a spot for community participants. I hope to see that change with the new group. That issue aside, welcome to the party TLF; best wishes and good luck!
–jeremy
The Linux Foundation, FSG, OSDL, Linux, Open Source
A quick follow up to this post. Stephen Walli, an ex-Microsoftie (via acquisition) whom I've had the pleasure of having a few drinks with, makes some interesting observations about the current ODF/OOXML situation. From his blog post:
I'm going to take a slightly different view here. ECMA has already approved the specification. One can imagine that the Microsoft marketing and standards engines are in full gear, and Microsoft execs, Office spokespeople, and field account execs are faithfully espousing:
* “Microsoft Office 2007 is standards compliant. ECMA International is a recognized international standards organization, with participation from IBM, HP, Intel, Adobe, and dozens of other companies.” [Subtext: It must be a good standard for all our partners and competitors to have passed it in a fair-minded international standards process.]
* “Indeed, ECMA International has submitted the standard to ISO for fast track approval as an international standard, and the process will complete in 2007.” [Subtext: It's so good, that they have recommended it for FAST track at the world's premier standards body.]
I would be surprised if Microsoft's Massachusetts team isn't already lobbying to have the new “standard” included in the ITD reference architecture alongside ODF. Regardless of the merit of ISO accepting the document, however, buyers will be staring the nasty rhetorical beast in the teeth. So what is a procuring organization to do?
He then outlines a certification process plan that I really think would serve ODF well. Hopefully something along these lines happen soon. Time is certainly of the essence here. He concludes with something similar to what I said in my previous post:
“Standards” with only one implementation aren't. The buying side of the marketplace has always recognized this and chosen the standard with multiple implementations over the specification with only a single implementation. The ODF world has the ability to demonstrate this message in a way that meets the needs of customers, and the demonstration through a branded certification is much more powerful than unaligned vendor rhetoric.
Absolutely spot on. The days of this kind of thing being accepted are thankfully coming to an end. Many companies and institutions have had to learn the hard way, but they are learning.
–jeremy
Microsoft, OOXML, MSFT, Open Source, ODF
Andy Updegrove continues his excellent coverage of the OOXML standards approval process. From this post:
Regular readers will be aware that OOXML, the Microsoft Office XML-based formats adopted by Ecma, are now in the adoption queue at ISO/IEC. Ecma is a “Class A Liaison” partner with ISO/IEC, which permits it to use the same Fast Track process that national standards bodies use. That process takes six months – the same amount of time that the PAS process takes (the route used by OASIS to submit ODF to ISO/IEC) – but has two steps rather than one, although the practical result is much the same.
During the first one-month step, any member may submit “contradictions,” which, loosely defined, means aspects in which a proposed standard conflicts with already adopted ISO/IEC standards and Directives. Those contradictions must then be “resolved” (which does not necessarily mean eliminated), and these resolutions are then presented back to the members during the second stage to consider as part of the voting package. During this second, five-month step, other objections, questions and comments can be offered by members. (For more detail on the rules relating to contradictions and what can be raised during this phase, see the excellent writeup at the OpenDocument Fellowship site.)
While the unprecedented size of OOXML (over 6,000 pages) has made performing a detailed review a daunting task, more and more contradictions are being found by those that are slogging their way through on this very tight timeframe. Here is a sampling of those that people have brought to my attention:
He goes on to detail some of the upcoming contradictions that will be submitted. You should read the full post, but they include items such as reliance on the Windows platform, necessitating the implementation of undocumented Word bugs and reliance on documentation not included in the 6,000+ page draft. In the end, I very much agree with this statement: Other contradictions would seem to be impossible to resolve given the nature of OOXML itself, the stated purpose of which is to describe a single vendor's product – bugs, rats and all. The format is not a community developed standard that is meant to describe an office document format, it's basically “how MS Office works”… including bugs… without some needed information. That's not a problem for Microsoft given that their implementation is already done. It seems doubtful that even Microsoft given this document could write a fully compliant application. That means no one else even stands a chance. If this is passed, Microsoft will be able to keep Government contracts (which are increasing requiring an Open and standard document format) and also get good PR. All the while the standard almost certainly won't be implemented fully by any other product. Not exactly how standards are supposed to work.
–jeremy
Microsoft, OOXML, MSFT, Open Source, ODF
Looks like my post about the Flash 9 EULA has sparked some discussion on John Dowdell's Blog (he's an Adobe employee). While I'd agree with the comments on his blog about “use” vs. “distribution”, it's great to see an employee participating in the discussion in an open and transparent manner. If the intent of the license is what John thinks it is, the wording really should be changed. I could absolutely see the reason for not allowing distribution, it's the “use” bit that I found surprising. As for the “restrictive commenting practices” – to be honest I really don't like the software that currently runs this blog. It's being moved to Wordpress as soon as 2.1 is out.
–jeremy
Linux, Adobe, Flash, Open Source
Subscribe