[Gllug] webcams on linux

[David Pashley]

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:

> >>I'd much rather have a functional piece of hardware with binary only
> >>modules, than non-functional hardware!

and I then proceeded to list a few reasons why binary modules were not a
good solution. Information about a specific driver does not nullify any
of my arguments.

-- 
David Pashley
david at davidpashley.com
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030219/ec56500b/attachment.pgp>