[Gllug] webcams on linux

[Sean Burlington]

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.

-- 

Sean




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