Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Greg KH]

So, I've gotten a lot of emails about this topic, so I'll just answer
them all here in public, and point people at them when they ask them
again:

First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
first, and the responses to that thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310

And here's Linus's response after I removed the driver, when Nemosoft
asked me to:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/229968

Oh, and there's now a lwn.net thread too:
http://lwn.net/Articles/99615/

Ok, on to the questions:

Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
   module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
   had to take it out.

Q: That hook had been in there for years!  Why did you suddenly decide
   to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
   good for a binary module to use.  I'm sorry, I should have realized
   this years ago, but I didn't.  Recently someone pointed this hook out
   to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
   kernel's policy of such hooks.  So, once I became aware of it, I had
   no choice but to remove it.

Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen.  It was
   his request, and I honored it.  Go ask him why he wanted it out if
   you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
   the current maintainer and author of the code.

Q: But you took away my freedom!  Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision.  The kernel also has to abide by
   it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
   Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are
   free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire.  I'd gladly
   support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and
   resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree.  That's the
   freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to
   do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all
   the time.)

Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
   costing me money by ripping it out.  You should be ashamed of
   yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom.  If it means that much to you,
   then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.

Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
   Linux.
A: Duh!  What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
   stating for years, in public.  Binary drivers only take from Linux,
   they do not give back anything.  See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
   address for more information and background on this topic.

Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
   GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:26 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Q: But you took away my freedom!  Isn't Linux about freedom?

The GPL provides is a very _specific_ kind of freedom. It has its own
restrictions -- in many ways it's less free than if we were to just
release our code to the public domain, or under a BSD-style licence.

That is intentional.

> Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
>    Linux.

Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is
not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.

People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead
of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently
encouraged to go elsewhere?

Linus was _joking_ when he said 'world domination'.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Prakash K. Cheemplavam]

> Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
>    GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
> A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.

This was a good one. ;-)

Prakash

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> Q: But you took away my freedom!  Isn't Linux about freedom?

We cannot take something away, you never had to begin with. The GPL gives 
you the freedom to modify the source of your driver. If you decide to 
relinquish this freedom by using a binary driver, we respect this 
decision, but this also means we cannot help you if something goes wrong 
with this driver.

bye, Roman

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:

> Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is
> not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
>
> People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead
> of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently
> encouraged to go elsewhere?
>

Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting 
results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some 
seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to 
Linux. This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If you don't like a 
partially binary driver, then I suggest you, too, contact Philips instead 
of turning on your own users and contributors, or fighting with driver 
maintainers that simply can't change the world to fit your wishes. We are 
all in this mess, we all want good working drivers, preferably opensource.

If the opensource principle really is that important to you, I invite you 
to send an email to Philips like the rest of us. And not attack people for 
wanting to have their hardware in a working state, or turning this into a 
BSD vs. GPL discussion.

Here: http://www.philips.com/

Thanks in advance!

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
>    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
>    had to take it out.

Can you say exactly where these procedures/policies are spelled out?

Alan Stern

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Ian Romanick]

Wouter Van Hemel wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
>> Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is
>> not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
>>
>> People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead
>> of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently
>> encouraged to go elsewhere?
> 
> Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting 
> results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling 
> some seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a 
> *contribution* to Linux. This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If 
> you don't like a partially binary driver, then I suggest you, too, 
> contact Philips instead of turning on your own users and contributors, 
> or fighting with driver maintainers that simply can't change the world 
> to fit your wishes. We are all in this mess, we all want good working 
> drivers, preferably opensource.

You've got things a little out of perspective.

1. Linux does not serve Philips.
2. Philips does not serve Linux.

Can we agree on that much?

3. Linux's licensing (i.e., the GPL) does not allow partial 
closed-source drivers.

You can agree or disagree with that until your face falls off.  That is 
the way that it is.  Allowing a license violation to continue would set 
a bad precedent that goes beyond open-source dogma.  It has nothing to 
do with zealotry.  It *is* a legal issue.  You're not free to pick and 
choose the parts of the license you like or don't like.  Using a 
license, ANY license, is like being pregnant:  there is no half-way.

4. Philips serves *its* customers.

The logical conclusion is that, one way or another, Philips needs to 
make a driver available that is compatible with Linux's licensing.  It 
can do that or decide that it doesn't care about its customers that use 
Linux.  The license really doesn't leave room for a third option.

Further bickering about it here is an exercise in futility.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:

>First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
>first, and the responses to that thread:
>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310

Reading the thread (which I already did) shows even more clearly that what 
you did is wrong.
The hook and the functionality of pwc/pwcx has been in the kernel for years.
People like myself have invested quite much money on cameras - assuming 
that no evil person would remove the support of an existing hardware from 
the Linux kernel once the support had been added.
What you did is WRONG. You may have the rights to do it. But it is WRONG. 
Once the support has been added it is wrong to remove it without replacing 
it with something else.

>And here's Linus's response after I removed the driver, when Nemosoft
>asked me to:
>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/229968

I wonder if Linus is aware of the entire story or he only heard your part 
of it.
And Linus. If you still support this.. I would very much like you to answer 
me - and the 10000s of other people that spent money on a piece of hardware 
that we had every reason to believe would continue to be supported by Linux 
- these questions.

- What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of 
cameras?
- How do you feel about the many others that are in the same situation?
- What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux - 
that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic 
reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).
- Do you actually care about the many people that uses Linux?
- Do you actually care about people? If yes. Why do you allow this to happen?
- How will this behavour bring Linux to the desktops?


>Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
>A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
>    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
>    had to take it out.

You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could 
have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly with the module developer.
If someone came with a new driver it was something else because no-one 
would be depending on it.

>Q: That hook had been in there for years!  Why did you suddenly decide
>    to remove it now?
>A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
>    good for a binary module to use.  I'm sorry, I should have realized
>    this years ago, but I didn't.  Recently someone pointed this hook out
>    to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
>    kernel's policy of such hooks.  So, once I became aware of it, I had
>    no choice but to remove it.

Yes. Again. You had the choice to leave this one in UNTIL an alternative 
approach had been made. It was not at all necessary to do what you did. You 
were not forced to do it by anyone. It was your choice.

>Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
>A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen.  It was
>    his request, and I honored it.  Go ask him why he wanted it out if
>    you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
>    the current maintainer and author of the code.

You were probably happy because it has been clear for months that the two 
of you did not get along very well. And now we all have to suffer because 
of this.

>Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
>    costing me money by ripping it out.  You should be ashamed of
>    yourself!
>A: See the above question about freedom.  If it means that much to you,
>    then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.

So only people that can code kernel modules have rights in your world? You 
have no responsibility?

>Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
>    GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
>A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.

Maybe you should start listen to people.
Maybe they get angry at you for a good reason.

I am a typical icebreaker. I brought the first Linux box into Motorola in 
Copenhagen. It was an uphill battle against management. Against IT 
department managers. But after one year of pushing I was allowed to run a 
pilot project. Guess what. I am in doubt now. Will my Linux box still 
support my hardware and software a year from now.
Will I continue to push for getting more Linux boxes into our company? No. 
This is much more than just a camera thing. This is about commitment. Does 
the Linux and open source community commit to support the hardware and 
software to buy or invest money on developing? Or can a fanatic with ideas 
destroy everything. There are people that have built a business making cost 
effective surveillance systems with Linux and USB cameras using Motion. 
There will be no more support of their boxes anymore because of you. I 
wonder what names they give you now.

Kenneth


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk  

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:54:55 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <kenneth@lavrsen.dk> wrote:

> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of 
> cameras?

You, just like the rest of the world and even distribution makers if
they choose to do so, can patch the driver back into the kernel.

Just because it's not in the vanilla sources doesn't mean you can't
get a working setup.  Look at all the NVIDIA users out there. :-)
Are they moaning about how the vanilla kernel maintainers are making
them "throw away blah blah dollars of video cards"?  Absolutely not,
they load the binary-only blob, the go play quake3, and they're happy.

> - What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux - 
> that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic 
> reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).

Not impossible, you're being rediculious, you can add the driver back
into the kernel you use just fine.  See above.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

I'm going to be short and simple.

You're making a huge fuss over this.  You're making wild claims about 
being forced to throw away $2000 worth of cameras, the next great thing 
that Linus will toss out of the kernel, companies being hurt, and 10,000 
or more people being put out.

Here are a few points to consider Kenneth;

- Maintain the PWC support yourself
- Stay with the last kernel that supported PWC
- Maintain a patch that puts PWC support into the kernel
- Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the 
whole of the code?

I would also consider the ramifications of a business model that uses 
bleeding edge releases of kernels for their customers.  You're so upset 
and maddened by what has happened, that you've lost focus on what is 
going on.

The hook wasn't right.  It goes against policy of the kernel.  Putting 
off dealing with it is a slippery slope.

The reaction from the PWC camp seems to be wholly heated and with little 
logical discussion.  Before you turn your flamethrower on me, I also 
have two cameras.  Doing things the Right Way is better, I really don't 
want to be moving the lines every time something doesn't suit me perfectly.

-david
p.s. If you feel like throwing away two grand worth of cameras, feel 
free to ship them to me.  I'm sure my trashcan would enjoy the use of them.

[-- Attachment #2: david+challenge-response.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 183 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@blue-labs.org
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:51:01PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> > A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
> >    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
> >    had to take it out.
> 
> Can you say exactly where these procedures/policies are spelled out?

See Linus's response on this thread for a statement of such a policy.

As to where they are written down, I don't know, sorry.

greg k-h

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of
> cameras?

I would think that Greg has invested more time than what could be covered
by that $2000 (i suggest you look up the going rate for experienced kernel
developers), you could at least show him some respect in the way you form
your questions.

	Zwane

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Ian Romanick wrote:

>> Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting results 
>> from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some seem to 
>> think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to Linux. 
>> This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If you don't like a partially 
>> binary driver, then I suggest you, too, contact Philips instead of turning 
>> on your own users and contributors, or fighting with driver maintainers 
>> that simply can't change the world to fit your wishes. We are all in this 
>> mess, we all want good working drivers, preferably opensource.
>
> You've got things a little out of perspective.
>
> 1. Linux does not serve Philips.
> 2. Philips does not serve Linux.
>
> Can we agree on that much?
>

Sure.

> [...]
> Further bickering about it here is an exercise in futility.
>

True. That's why I suggested that every developer who want this driver 
removed, also stays true in their dedication for open drivers, delivers 
some *constructive* action and emails Philips or whatever company of the 
day that needs some convincing. Not just shooting down what you don't like 
and being impossibly hard to people like Nemosoft who are caught between 
two fires. If you care about opensource, equally much time would be spent 
in (1) giving a minimal try to get it opensource, and (2) having a 
constructive dialog with the maintainer. It can't take more time than 
having these fights, can it?

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Jesper Juhl]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:
> 
> > First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
> > first, and the responses to that thread:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
> 
> Reading the thread (which I already did) shows even more clearly that what you
> did is wrong.
> The hook and the functionality of pwc/pwcx has been in the kernel for years.
> People like myself have invested quite much money on cameras - assuming that
> no evil person would remove the support of an existing hardware from the Linux
> kernel once the support had been added.
> What you did is WRONG. You may have the rights to do it. But it is WRONG. Once
> the support has been added it is wrong to remove it without replacing it with
> something else.
> 
Assuming that any hardware support that gets added will be there forever 
in some form of another is incredibly naive in my oppinion. And this goes 
for any operating system, not just Linux - hardware support has been 
dropped from several different operating systems over the years for lots 
of different reasons - I have boxes where I can't run the latest version 
of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't 
see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.


> > Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> > A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
> >    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
> >    had to take it out.
> 
> You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could
> have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly with the module developer.
> If someone came with a new driver it was something else because no-one would
> be depending on it.
> 
As I understand it the hook should never have been added in the first 
place. Doesn't matter if it has been there for a day, a week, a year or 10 
years - it should never have been added and once it was discovered it was 
removed - I have no trouble with that bit, especially since the pieces 
are still out there and you are free to just patch your personal kernel in 
any way you please to get the result you desire, or you can just stick 
with an older kernel until a suitable alternative shows up.


> This is much more than just a camera thing. This is about commitment. Does the
> Linux and open source community commit to support the hardware and software to
> buy or invest money on developing? Or can a fanatic with ideas destroy
> everything. There are people that have built a business making cost effective
> surveillance systems with Linux and USB cameras using Motion. There will be no
> more support of their boxes anymore because of you. I wonder what names they
> give you now.
> 
And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting 
binary only drivers?
Binary only drivers undermine open source. If you want to depend on closed 
drivers go ahead, but if that support disappears then take it up with the 
company unwilling to provide open drivers or open specs so people can 
write their own open drivers.
You purchased a piece of hardware that depended on a closed source driver, 
no open source developer has any resonable commitment to support that.

If you want to be constructive instead of just bitch and moan, then go 
talk to Philips and get them to release code or specs so we can get proper 
open source drivers - your real beef is with them, not with open source 
developers.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> 

Oppinions expressed are only my own, and do not nessesarily reflect those 
of my employer.
--


PS. I'm wondering why you asked Linus a whole host of questions yet did 
not even CC the man on your email.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Ford wrote:

> - Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the whole 
> of the code?
>

Because we can't find Nemo.

... sorry about that.

Really, does anybody know him face to face, or any of the previous 
developers of this driver? That could help.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

>  I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
>of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
>see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.

Ehhh????? No comment.

>As I understand it the hook should never have been added in the first
>place. Doesn't matter if it has been there for a day, a week, a year or 10
>years - it should never have been added and once it was discovered it was
>removed - I have no trouble with that bit, especially since the pieces
>are still out there and you are free to just patch your personal kernel in
>any way you please to get the result you desire, or you can just stick
>with an older kernel until a suitable alternative shows up.

Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
Why is it so important that it is removed now?
Why does it have to be done in a way that create a problem for the common 
users?
Linus indicated that since Nemosoft had asked for his driver to be removed 
noone else could take the sources as they are and add them again. So any 
altertive would be a start from scratch? Or did I misunderstand this?
That can take years. So I cannot update my kernel for years?
How many normal users knows even how to compile their own kernel?
You guys on this list talk as if anyone knows how to write a kernel module. 
I think most of you have lost contact with the real users.

>And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting
>binary only drivers?

I am just asking for you guys to not DESTROY what is already there without 
an alternative.

>Binary only drivers undermine open source. If you want to depend on closed
>drivers go ahead, but if that support disappears then take it up with the
>company unwilling to provide open drivers or open specs so people can
>write their own open drivers.

Treating the normal users using Linux this badly undermines open source 
1000 times more I can assure you.
Linux is getting a reputation of being an operating system that you cannot 
trust being fully available in the future.
I am hearing those arguments in my own company. Stability and making sure 
that investments in information technilogy will not be obsolete at least 
some years is vital.

>You purchased a piece of hardware that depended on a closed source driver,
>no open source developer has any resonable commitment to support that.

It is sad that you need legal counselling before you buy a USB camera.
Besides. There are no real altertives. I have tried 4-5 other cameras using 
for example the OV511 driver. They all failed. They were either not light 
sensitive enough for surveillance at night or the firmware/driver was so 
unstable that the cameras froze and had to be disconnected to work again. 
Only the pwc driven cameras are stable and good enough.
Otherwise you have to use expensive real video cameras and they cost many 
times more for the same quality image.
So I did not really have much choice. And this is still the case as far as 
I know.


>If you want to be constructive instead of just bitch and moan, then go
>talk to Philips and get them to release code or specs so we can get proper
>open source drivers - your real beef is with them, not with open source
>developers.

Many have. And I will again. But if Philips will not let their competitors 
know about some brillient compression algoritm we cannot blame them for 
protecting their investment in the development. In the real world not 
everything can be open source. At least not when new technology needs to be 
kept secret to prevent copycat companies from lawless countries to harvest 
the fruits of expensive investments.
It is our own jobs that are in danger. Remember that.
But I think it is about time Philips releases the code or at least algoritm 
now. The copycats must have reverse engineered that little piece of code 5 
times now.
I have tried also but it is just too difficult for me to follow the binary 
stuff.

>PS. I'm wondering why you asked Linus a whole host of questions yet did
>not even CC the man on your email.

On most mailing lists people get angry if they receive the same mail both 
from the list and directly. It seems to be different on this list. I am 
starting to figure out the tradition here.

Kenneth

PS: Thanks to the many that writes support mails directly to me. I am 
really happy to receive them. And post them in public too. Linus is not God 
and he is not always right. He and his kernel developers need to learn that 
there are actual users out there.


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk 

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 00:08, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> >  I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
> >of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
> >see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.

BTW Sun did similar things with Solaris somewhere aroung 2.6 IIRC.

> Ehhh????? No comment.

Why?

[...]
> Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
> Why is it so important that it is removed now?

Because the driver's maintainer wanted it.

> Linus indicated that since Nemosoft had asked for his driver to be removed 
> noone else could take the sources as they are and add them again. So any 
> altertive would be a start from scratch? Or did I misunderstand this?

Yes, anyone - including you - can take over the maintanance of the
GPL-part of driver. Even if the former maintainer does not like it.

> That can take years. So I cannot update my kernel for years?
> How many normal users knows even how to compile their own kernel?
> You guys on this list talk as if anyone knows how to write a kernel module. 
> I think most of you have lost contact with the real users.

No, they complain all around all the time. I don't think one can loose
contact eeven if he wishes.
The point is: This is GPL software - either you do something, or someone
else does something or nothing is done. Whining doesn't help that much
compared to writing code.

> >And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting
> >binary only drivers?
> 
> I am just asking for you guys to not DESTROY what is already there without 
> an alternative.

It is not destroyed, it is only in another place. Find it and put it
back whereever you need it.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Paul Jakma]

Interesting comment on /.:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410

>From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary 
pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the 
smaller images produced without. Hence they speculate that the 
function of the binary pcwx part is actually to interpolate the 
160x120 image to the bigger 640x480 size, and has little to do with 
hardware..

allegedly..

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!"
-- The Ghostbusters

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[linux]

Paul Jakma wrote:
> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410
>
> From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary 
> pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the 
> smaller images produced without. Hence they speculate that the 
> function of the binary pcwx part is actually to interpolate the 
> 160x120 image to the bigger 640x480 size, and has little to do with 
> hardware..

Actually, it's probably *colour* interpolation.  Digital cameras are
based on fundamentally black-and-white image sensors, with a filter
grid superimposed.  (Search on "Bayer filter" for the most common RGGB
pattern.)  A "640x480" digital camera has 640x480 = 307200 sensor pixels,
divided among 3 (or sometimes 4) colours.

Note that this is unlike a "640x480" colour LCD, which will have 640x480x3
= 921600 active elements.  But it is the standard terminology for the field.

This gives some luminance/chrominance information at each pixel, but to
assign a 24-bit colour to each pixel requires some interpolation based on
adjacent picels.  Digital cameras do such interpolation internally, but
it's also popular to support a "raw" image format to an external program,
in the hope of better result.  See gPhoto for examples of such algorithms.

Anyway, I can imagine that the camera can do something crude internally
like downsampling by 2x2 to get colour values for each pixel.  I can also
imagine that it can export the raw image to a software driver for better
interpolation that would take more CPU horsepower than it has on board.

Now, the fact that colour is effectively encoded in the high-frequency
portion of the luminance signal makes it rather tricky to produce a
"sharp" colour image without introducing artifacts when a high-frequency
black & white signal is present.  The general techniques are published,
but digital camera makers put a lot of effort into the subtleties and are
generally very posessive of the details of their implementation.

This might be what's going on with Philips.

However, given that we already have access to lots of suitable Free
interpolating software, Linux doesn't need that.  It just needs to know
how to elicit a raw high-res frame from the camera and what the returned
bits mean.  The rest can be coped with.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Samstag, 28. August 2004 23:07 schrieb linux@horizon.com:
> However, given that we already have access to lots of suitable Free
> interpolating software, Linux doesn't need that.  It just needs to know
> how to elicit a raw high-res frame from the camera and what the returned
> bits mean.  The rest can be coped with.

640 x 480 x 8 x 24 is still a lot more than USB 1.1 can handle.
What goes over the wire will be compressed.

	Regards
		Oliver

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> - What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux -
> that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic
> reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).

Hardware which needs a binary driver is not `supported by Linux'. You _know_
the so-called support may vanish in the (near) future.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Brian Litzinger]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
>    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
>    had to take it out.

I think Greg "chose" to take it out.

> Q: That hook had been in there for years!  Why did you suddenly decide
>    to remove it now?
> A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
>    good for a binary module to use.  I'm sorry, I should have realized
>    this years ago, but I didn't.  Recently someone pointed this hook out
>    to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
>    kernel's policy of such hooks.  So, once I became aware of it, I had
>    no choice but to remove it.

I do not believe he "had no choice".  The guards at Auswitchs made the
same argument at Nuremberg.  The tribunal determined they did have a
choice.  I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme
then there.

> Q: But you took away my freedom!  Isn't Linux about freedom?
> A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision.  The kernel also has to abide by
>    it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.

The kernel cannot act itself.  It is more or less an inanimate
object.  People must carry out actions on its behalf.

> Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
>    costing me money by ripping it out.  You should be ashamed of
>    yourself!
> A: See the above question about freedom.  If it means that much to you,
>    then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.

This confuses me.  The functionability people are after is the closed
source part. Maintaining the open source portion seems unrelated.

> Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
>    Linux.
> A: Duh!  What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
>    stating for years, in public.  Binary drivers only take from Linux,
>    they do not give back anything.  See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
>    address for more information and background on this topic.

I disagree.  Binary drivers may take away from Linux and they may add to it.

> Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
>    GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
> A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.

I think from statements Greg made above we can at least say he is
willing to hide behind misplaced authority.

-- 
Brian Litzinger

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Jeff Kinz]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> > Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> > A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
> >    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
> >    had to take it out.

> I think Greg "chose" to take it out.

True, No one was holding a gun to his head.   :)

> > it really didn't belong in there due to the kernel's policy of such
> > hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had no choice but to remove
> > it.

> I do not believe he "had no choice".  The guards at Auswitchs made the
> same argument at Nuremberg.  

[*** Nice "subtle" technique to call someone a Nazi. Real smooth!]

I "choose" to stop at stop signs and red lights.   Yay me.

> I disagree.  Binary drivers may take away from Linux and they may add to it.

My experiences: Binary drivers make Linux harder to support, harder to
distribute, harder to administrate and harder to maintain in production.

While they provide short term benefits, their long term impact is
negative. One example: What happens when company X goes out of business
or stops supporting the device?

A decision has been made: My understanding is that the Binary portion is 
moving to user space and the devices in question will still function
as a result.   

Please move it off the kernel list.

-- 
Idealism:  "Realism applied over a longer time period"

Jeff Kinz

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[viro]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> I do not believe he "had no choice".  The guards at Auswitchs made the
> same argument at Nuremberg.  The tribunal determined they did have a
> choice.  I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme
> then there.
 
*PLONK*

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 19:31 2004-08-30, Brian Litzinger wrote:
>I do not believe he "had no choice".  The guards at Auswitchs made the
>same argument at Nuremberg.  The tribunal determined they did have a
>choice.  I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme
>then there.

I would like to put a great deal of distance between myself and the 
oppinions I and others have expressed concerning a little driver for a 
camera - and the unacceptable analogy expressed above.

Brian! - comparing Nazies that exterminated millions of people in gas 
chambers with a guy that annoys some people that happens to own a webcamera 
is disgusting.

I do not want anyone to think that I  - in any way - am associated with the 
above repulsive statement.

Kenneth


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk