>BTW: I'm also satisfied with binary-only drivers, but as read in this
>thread, some guys would not be satisfied with this, too, what I myself
>can't understand.
>
>Linux, FreeBSD and I believe the other BSDs, too, have invested much
>work in a reliable kernel-module framework, which is perfect for
>third-party drivers.
>
>But binary-only or open-source, the question was to convince Phillips
>(and other vendors), that the OS-community is big enough to invest in
>OS-OSs (hehe, OpenSource-Operating-Systems :-)), _how_ they do it is
>another question.


I think that the gist of reasoning, however, is that most companies 
don't want to invest resources in making drivers for every OS out 
there, which is what would be necessary in order for them to 
distribute binary drivers. The ppl here don't care if the company 
provides anything at all, as long as they provided a way to create 
the drivers from within NetBSD. We want the manufacturer to provide 
specs and/or docs. That way, any OS or OS revision/flavor can make 
its own drivers at no expense to the company. This would open up the 
hardware to whole new uses that the manufacturer had never even 
dreamt of. The only reason not to would be to protect proprietary 
information. I hardly consider the method of transmitting video 
through USB to be top secret proprietary info.

Just my thoughts,
Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.