[Gllug] webcams on linux

[Sean Burlington]

David Pashley wrote:
> Sean Burlington said, and I quote:
> 
>>David Pashley wrote:
>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Dylan" <dylan at dylan.me.uk>
>>>To: <gllug at linux.co.uk>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:20 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Gllug] webcams on linux
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday 18 February 2003 19:48, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>but I'm not supporting companies that want to produce binary only
>>>>>drivers.
>>>>
>>>>What, exactly, is the problem here? If we support companies who
>>>>provide drivers, GPL or otherwise, then the companies who don't
>>>>provide any drivers at all are more likely to get the message.
>>>>
>>>>I'd much rather have a functional piece of hardware with binary only
>>>>modules, than non-functional hardware!
>>>>
>>>
>>>There are at least 3 problems with binary modules.
>>>
>>>1. Any bugs you have to wait for the manufacturer to fix.
>>>
>>>2. You have to wait for the manufacturer to update the driver to work
>>>with new versions of the kernel/program (eg sane or gphoto2). Many
>>>modules come out for only one (or a selection of) kernel versions.
>>>This means you can only run those kernels. This is esp bad when they
>>>target kernels shipped with redhat or SuSE. These will probably not
>>>work on Debian for example.  You also get manufacturers (like nVidia)
>>>who ship binary objects and a small source code wrapper. When you try
>>>to move to a 2.[56] kernel, these drivers will not work.
>>>
>>>3. You will recieve no help from the open source community. Thin
>>>about the taint flag in the kernel. If your kernel is tainted, and
>>>you have an unrelated problem, you will most likely be ignored or
>>>told to go away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>have you read the relavent site ?
>>
>>particularly this page
>>
>>http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/nda.html
>>
>>I agree that open source drivers are preferable - but I can't write
>>one - and at least Phillips are co-operating and moving in the right
>>direction.
>>
>>Note that Phillips don't produce the driver.
>>
> 
> I fai to see how that page changes any of the disadvantages of binary
> modules/drivers. My email was in response to a particular point:
> 

sorry - I thought you were discussing webcams on Linux, in which case 
(for the driver I am most familiar with) your statements are incorrect

points 1 and 2 assert a dependance on the maufacturer which does not 
exist in this case


-- 

Sean



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug