On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 12:52:45AM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > >How would a common API provide more support from the vendor ? What does 
> > >the API have to do with releasing documentation ?
> > 
> > I'd rather have Adaptec provide a source code driver for their cards 
> > directly, then have Scott Long have to fight with unavailability of 
> > documentation itself ... if the driver works, what do we need 
> > documentation for?
> 
> Have a read of the Broadcom-provided Linux drivers for their GigE
> chips.  You'll understand.  Beware, it usually induce bleeding from
> the eyes.

Yes, and that's just about inevitable, since that's actually the goal.
The idea is to provide an obfuscated source driver so they can say
they're doing open source / free software -- without actually doing it.

The really amazing thing is that people take the bait. People who should
know better, that is.

If you think about it, there's no reason in the world why anyone would
pay their developers to do an open source driver, yet *not* be willing
to publish specs. Excepting that the drivers they put out are so nasty,
and full of magic numbers, and all sorts of other weird stuff.

It's a load of poop in an open source wrapper.

Specs that you can write drivers with count. Most everything else is
posturing.

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD Users Group
dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |