• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is RedHat deliberately CRIPPLING Linux?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.

 
i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did.
Click to expand...

FC didn't block anything, AFAIK it was a bug that slipped through and was fixed after release. And if people like gregkh get their way proprietary drivers will be impossible eventually so RH won't have a choice in the matter.
 
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.
Click to expand...

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.
Click to expand...

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.
Click to expand...

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did.
Click to expand...

FC didn't block anything, AFAIK it was a bug that slipped through and was fixed after release. And if people like gregkh get their way proprietary drivers will be impossible eventually so RH won't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
What're they going to do that redhat can't undo?
 
What're they going to do that redhat can't undo?
Click to expand...

Technically there's nothing that RH can't undo, but how much manpower is RH willing to spend undoing them and what are the legalities of it? A function in the kernel that's made available to external modules has to be exported via an EXPORT macro, but there's also an EXPORT_GPL macro that will only work if the license in the module is GPL or compatible. And little by little gregkh and others are replacing old EXPORTs with EXPORT_GPLs. And AFAIK RH already doesn't officially support any non-GPL'd drivers so it's not that big of a stretch for them.
 
So at that point, if vendors started writing their modules to lie about being GPLed, then there'd be a more clear-cut legal case against them? Looks like it's gonna get kind of interesting and I can't wait to see what happens in the video chip area.
 
From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?
Click to expand...

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.

btw, about time you changed that avitar back 😉
 
Originally posted by: fisher
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.
Click to expand...

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.
Click to expand...

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.
Click to expand...

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.
Click to expand...

i only put those in to soften the argument and to provide a fun point. it was never meant to be the main topic in any post.

 
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
Originally posted by: fisher
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
who cares whether you stand out or not. ITs freaking impossible to a have a disacussion here without ppl taking it of topic. the point was if red hat was crippling linux. i said it would if it blocked proprietry drivers like fedora did. where the **** do standing out in line fit in here.
Click to expand...

uh well. you said here...

ps. geeks like to stand out. but they still like atleast some more ppl to use what they use.
Click to expand...

after you said...

besides nobody, not even the biggest of geeks like to use something nobody else does.
Click to expand...

so make up your mind i guess. standing out is not using what everyone else uses. and i don't think linux is in danger having one user, regardless of the driver situation.
Click to expand...

i only put those in to soften the argument and to provide a fun point. it was never meant to be the main topic in any post.
Click to expand...

this is anandtech! anything is open for arguement!

anyway, gotcha. i'm surprised this thread wasn't locked already anyway.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Nothinman
From one standpoint there's already a clear-cut legal case against them. It's kind of hard to describe a Linux driver as not being a derivative of Linux, to run it requires Linux-specific functions and when you compile it you get all of the inline code included in your driver. If you can't legally link a non-GPL'd application against a GPL'd library how can you link a non-GPL'd driver against the GPL'd Linux kernel?
Click to expand...

Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean.

For a person, for their own use, to link against kernel. Sure you can do whatever you want. You can embed microsoft code in it or anything like that. It's perfectly legal.

The only problems happen when you distribute software... Nvidia kernel driver, Atheros binary blob, etc etc, are technically breaking the GPL since they are distributed under a incompatable license. Very obviously it's something that is ment to be used with Linux. It can only be used with linux and nothing else. But it's up to the copyright holders to enforce this, and if they don't.. then all bets are off. Pretty much.

Personally I am going to try out going binary-blob free. I am switching to the Intel platform and am going to use the GMA950 video chipset. Going to see how that goes. I am tired of the nvidia drivers borking my system and I want a desktop system that does sleep as well as my laptop does. But I don't know how well it will work out for me application-wise. If not a fanless 6600gt is only 139 bucks away. :/
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Static linking yes, but for runtme loaded modules, no.
Click to expand...

Even runtime modules get some copies of inline functions and the like included in their object code.

btw, about time you changed that avitar back
Click to expand...

I never changed my avatar =)
Click to expand...

Sure, but there are lots of runtime excpetions to GPL licenses, this is one place where there should be one, but the FSF is not acting in the best interests of users here (IMHO).

As for the avatar, oops, that was n0cmonkey (sorry!)

Bill


 
Sure, but there are lots of runtime excpetions to GPL licenses, this is one place where there should be one, but the FSF is not acting in the best interests of users here (IMHO).
Click to expand...

It's not the FSF, for the license to be changed all of the copyright holders on the linux kernel would have to agree and that will never happen.

As for the avatar, oops, that was n0cmonkey (sorry!)
Click to expand...

I know, I just thought it was funny. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top