OpenBSD Journal

Intel: Only "Open" for Business

Contributed by deanna on from the they-deserve-to-look-bad dept.

What follows is a message from Theo de Raadt, a letter to the Free and Open Source community at large, urging us to take a stand. Information about how to contact Intel, as well as helpful hints on how to explain the benefits of open documentation to any vendor, follow the message. Theo de Raadt writes:

In the past, our users have shown that they can help us convince vendors to do the right thing. They have shown vendors the path towards freeing up many pieces of documentation or granting firmware distribution rights. This has helped with many vendors, most of them quite large.

Before we ask a vendor, we have already lost (ie. the device does not work). When a vendor says no, we have lost nothing further -- there is no way we can lose further than having the device not work. We can only win, and then the device works. So there is no point in giving up until we win back the rights to write software for the hardware that we have purchased.

These vendors often want a quiet private discussion, because in a quiet private discussion they can continue to dismiss the requests and in the end do absolutely nothing. They do not want a noisy public discussion, because then they look bad. But they DESERVE TO LOOK BAD, because they are being bad to those who bought their hardware!

In this particular case, we would like more documentation for the Intel wireless chips. Damien [Bergamini] has already written drivers that make the devices work quite well... but there are still bugs, since all of this is based on reverse engineering efforts. The drivers could be better. Intel stands in the way of your devices working as well as they should.

Wireless devices from most other vendors now work significantly better in the *BSD projects than the Intel drivers. That is because almost all the other vendors have been far more open than Intel, and because Damien (and friends) have worked very hard to do their best. Quite frankly, Intel has been a royal pain in the ass. Not to us, but to people who bought their devices.

We would also like Intel to GRANT us distribution rights for the binary firmwares of their 3 wireless chipsets. Quite frankly we don't care what their reasons are, because their reasons must be lies according to the slides Intel presented at a conference.

Intel also must grant these rights freely (we will not sign away our users rights, and we will not sign away our own rights -- that is what some of the Linux vendors do when they ship Intel firmwares). Intel must do this firmware grant in the same way that Adaptec, Atmel, Broadcom, Cirrus Logic, Cyclades, QLogic, Ralink, and LSI and lots of other companies have granted distribution firmware to be used by others. We do not believe that Intel is not special enough that they can take people's money and their rights.

(By the way, Intel already provides some other firmwares for other chips, with the correct distribution terms... those firmwares being CRITICAL BUG FIXES for very broken 100mbit ethernet chips that they shipped in the millions. That is why we know that Intel's legal department already knows how to release firmware images with a BSD license, thus permitting distribution).

Until Intel releases these things, even their conference presentations make them total liars -- and that specifically means James Ketrenos. He has no right to tell such lies at an Open Source conference. People who release full code are open source -- Intel is not, and since James does not release *all the pieces that people need* into the Open Source Community, James is not Open Source, and therefore James is a big fat liar. James and Intel only release the partial fragments that they feel will make them look "Open".

(To quote a friend,
Some asshole said he was "open",
but he was only open for business.)

By withholding, Intel is being an Open Source fraud.

Majid Awad at Intel has stated to developers that he is the current person who is responsible for this particular area. So go ahead, let him know how you feel about this.

Again, his email address is majid.awad@intel.com

So let's win back the rights to run the hardware we purchased.

Please feel free to let other open source communities know about this matter. Thank you.

Allowing companies like Intel to get away with not providing docs affects the entire open source ecosystem. People in projects like the Linux kernel and FreeBSD need to realize that this affects them too, and they should join in at banging on these companies' doors. Intel needs to hear from us, their open source customers, that we will not let them walk into *our* sandbox and start bullying us around. Don't ever forget that you paid for their hardware; you don't owe them anything. However, they owe you a working product.

In 2004, Ryan McBride of OpenBSD composed this message to Texas Instruments, explaining the Project's needs and providing ample justification for its requests. This message serves as a good example of how to get the point across.

James Ketrenos's slides are from the 2006 OSDL Open Drivers Summit.

(Comments are closed)


  1. By Anonymous Coward (24.46.21.229) on

    This is very odd to me; When I've contacted Intel in the past about documentation and/or other information, they've always responded with gusto. They even went overboard with some of the docs I requested (I receieved a 100lbs box from intel with _paper_ versions of most of their controller & CPU information in 2000, along with posters, mouse pads, pens out the ears).
    I realise that firmware blob != documentation, but it seems odd to be restrictive on one end and not the other (maybe everything I requested as so generally accessable that they made no bones about it).
    If Intel doesn't want to give in to this form of pressure, they can go the way of the Adaptec SCSI Buffalo for all I care...

    1. By Jason Wright (68.101.39.147) jason@openbsd.org on http://www.thought.net/jason

      > This is very odd to me; When I've contacted Intel in the past about documentation and/or other information, they've always responded with gusto. They even went overboard with some of the docs I requested (I receieved a 100lbs box from intel with _paper_ versions of most of their controller & CPU information in 2000, along with posters, mouse pads, pens out the ears).

      Some departments within intel don't suck too bad. The networking division is one that has always sucked from the open source prospective. It was only a few years ago that the docs for the fxp became easily obtainable... Um, 10/100 technology, no matter how cool, has been commodity for at least 8 years.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (66.108.102.99) on

    Maybe it would be better to put these remarks about non-cooperative vendors right in the driver's license text, where they can't be modified.

    Otherwise the freeloaders will promptly strip them:
    http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/man/man4/nfe.4.diff?r1=1.2&r2=1.3&f=h

    I find that hypocritical and disgusting, taking the fruits of OpenBSD's struggles, but distancing themselves from the means they were achieved by.

    1. By niallo (82.195.149.9) on

      > Maybe it would be better to put these remarks about non-cooperative vendors
      > right in the driver's license text, where they can't be modified.
      >
      > Otherwise the freeloaders will promptly strip them:
      >
      >
      > I find that hypocritical and disgusting, taking the fruits of OpenBSD's struggles, but
      > distancing themselves from the means they were achieved by.

      Agreed, that is a truly pathetic move by "Free" BSD. They should be ashamed of themselves. Heaven forbid their masters at NVidia are offended and cut off the binary blob supply.

    2. By Walter Walterson (128.174.112.53) on

      > Maybe it would be better to put these remarks about non-cooperative vendors right in the driver's license text, where they can't be modified.
      >
      > Otherwise the freeloaders will promptly strip them:
      >
      > I find that hypocritical and disgusting, taking the fruits of OpenBSD's struggles, but distancing themselves from the means they were achieved by.

      It is unprofessional to include a complaint like this in the driver manual page. FreeBSD should be congratulated, not chastised, for removing such a comment from the manual. Manual pages are supposed to be brief, technical references, not political soapboxes. The venue for denouncing the "evil" within Intel is a public discussion forum.

      Even if one feels there is a technical justification for including this complaint in the manual page, it should be listed correctly. For example: "CAVEAT: Because nVidia has refused to provide hardware documentation, it is not known whether the operational assumptions made within this driver are correct. Unexpected behavior may therefore result from the use of this driver."

      Alternatively, one may make a more professional dig at nVidia by including in the credits the statement, "Credit goes to [...] for reverse engineering the behavior of this driver." Credits are a valid inclusion in a manual page, because they provide a contact point in case of questions or concerns raised by the driver.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (71.130.205.2) on

        > > Maybe it would be better to put these remarks about non-cooperative vendors right in the driver's license text, where they can't be modified.
        > >
        > > Otherwise the freeloaders will promptly strip them:
        > >
        > > I find that hypocritical and disgusting, taking the fruits of OpenBSD's struggles, but distancing themselves from the means they were achieved by.
        >
        > It is unprofessional to include a complaint like this in the driver manual page. FreeBSD should be congratulated, not chastised, for removing such a comment from the manual. Manual pages are supposed to be brief, technical references, not political soapboxes. The venue for denouncing the "evil" within Intel is a public discussion forum.

        "NVIDIA refuse[s] to release any documentation on their products" sounds unprofessional and political? Lack of documentation sounds like a technical reference to me...

      2. By Anonymous Coward (64.231.234.94) on

        > It is unprofessional to include a complaint like this in the
        > driver manual page.

        What on earth is with people thinking that free software should be "professional"? What does that even mean? It's not for sale, it's not like it's anyone's ... profession. Who are you trying to impress by being professional? And ... why?

    3. By Anonymous Coward (84.156.208.103) on

      > Maybe it would be better to put these remarks about non-cooperative vendors
      > right in the driver's license text, where they can't be modified.
      >
      > Otherwise the freeloaders will promptly strip them:
      >
      >
      > I find that hypocritical and disgusting, taking the fruits of OpenBSD's struggles, but
      > distancing themselves from the means they were achieved by.

      You can, rightfully, ask why the hint that the driver needed to be reverse engineered wasn't turned into an 'IMPLEMENTATION NOTES' section or something similar, but the FreeBSD man pages simply do not have CAVEATS sections.

      See src/share/misc/mdoc.template

  3. By Anonymous Coward (70.48.228.133) on

    Here are few links for those who wish to avoid Intel products until they choose to cooperate.

    Vendor Watch - "The purpose of this website is to keep tabs on computer hardware vendors and to convince them to provide open documentation for their hardware."

    The Free Software Foundation's list of hardware devices that support Free Software - "The Free Software Foundation is working to provide a resource on hardware devices that support Free Software. Initially, we offer this listing on WiFi wireless cards."

    1. By Terrell Prude', Jr. (151.188.247.104) on

      > Here are few links for those who wish to avoid Intel products until they choose to cooperate.
      >
      > Vendor Watch - "The purpose of this website is to keep tabs on computer hardware vendors and to convince them to provide open documentation for their hardware."
      >
      > The Free Software Foundation's list of hardware devices that support Free Software - "The Free Software Foundation is working to provide a resource on hardware devices that support Free Software. Initially, we offer this listing on WiFi wireless cards."


      I've been spending some quality time on Vendor Watch (http://www.vendorwatch.com/) writing several of the pages about the vendors. Please, folks, as you find updates or errors, edit the pages to keep them up to date. We need to make sure that people know that there is indeed hardware from cooperative vendors!

      --TP

      1. By Dunceor (192.16.134.66) on

        > > Here are few links for those who wish to avoid Intel products until they choose to cooperate.
        > >
        > > Vendor Watch - "The purpose of this website is to keep tabs on computer hardware vendors and to convince them to provide open documentation for their hardware."
        > >
        > > The Free Software Foundation's list of hardware devices that support Free Software - "The Free Software Foundation is working to provide a resource on hardware devices that support Free Software. Initially, we offer this listing on WiFi wireless cards."
        >
        >
        > I've been spending some quality time on Vendor Watch (http://www.vendorwatch.com/) writing several of the pages about the vendors. Please, folks, as you find updates or errors, edit the pages to keep them up to date. We need to make sure that people know that there is indeed hardware from cooperative vendors!
        >
        > --TP

        Just a note, it's www.vendorwatch.org. Great work!

    1. By Anonymous Coward (66.42.182.72) on

      "Showing" my support for getting Intel documentation, to deal with existing integrated hardware, however, I have lost faith in Intel dedication to quality IT service and products. Intel should be begging for top quality OpenBSD support.

      Looks like Intel might go the way of Microsoft and security by obscurity, and "forced" product replacement as a solution.

      Intel's shareholders and Board of Directors, should see a movement starting. No OpenBSD support with documentation, and even some $, well,
      I'll take my business elsewhere, and tell others as well.

  4. By Anonymous Coward (81.169.183.122) on

    Maybe openBSD could offer a prefilled-webmailer like website where you just set in your name and e-Mail-Adress to let them KNOW how many do angree with their words!

    In europe it would also be "possible" to sue intel because of a monopoly (like it was done with MS..) but who has the money for such actions :(

    1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.1.133) on

      > Maybe openBSD could offer a prefilled-webmailer like website where you just set in your name and e-Mail-Adress to let them KNOW how many do angree with their words!

      Pass that sentiment on to majid.awad@intel.com (as I have) and politely suggest that it would ease his workload to set up such a form to be used by yourself and all your clients/peers.

    2. By Marc Espie (213.41.185.88) espie@openbsd.org on

      > Maybe openBSD could offer a prefilled-webmailer like website where you just set in your name and e-Mail-Adress to let them KNOW how many do angree with their words!

      Nope, this kind of thing has very little weight. It has to be in your
      own words. A hundred *different* emails about that issue is more powerful than 10000 copy-pastes of the same thing. Realize that there
      are weasels at Intel. If they get 10000 times the same thing, they can
      argue it was an automated mailing by 3 persons. Think about that...

      1. By Anonymous Coward (213.118.165.79) on

        > Nope, this kind of thing has very little weight. It has to be in your
        > own words. A hundred *different* emails about that issue is more
        > powerful than 10000 copy-pastes of the same thing.

        This is true. I just wrote my own e-mail -- which ended up rather lengthy too, I might add.

        Just write about your own experiences. Write about the Intel hardware you have (and/or would buy if only they'd open up) and how their obtuse policies manage to annoy you in your daily life.

  5. By Renaud Allard (85.201.63.39) on

    I particularly like the page 6 on the presentation from James Ketrenos.
    Quote:
    "If you need to keep IP closed source (for example some whiz-bang algorithm), document the hardware sufficiently that the community can provide their own"
    Quite the reverse of what they are doing for the moment.

    But, as this very same page suggests, Intel will answer our requests.
    Quote:
    "-Treat the community as if they were a member of your internal team.
    -Listen, and respond to, their input and feedback!!!"

  6. By Anonymous Coward (220.253.19.213) on

    On the other hand AMD have done a lot to support the open source community

    1. By Anonymous Coward (216.41.83.206) on

      > On the other hand AMD have done a lot to support the open source community

      Sarcasm doesn't carry well on the internet.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (70.25.115.53) on

        > > On the other hand AMD have done a lot to support the open source community
        >
        > Sarcasm doesn't carry well on the internet.

        Its not sarcasm, AMD does support open source, and has done alot to support it. Including donating hardware to openbsd, along with providing docs. Why do you think AMD64 support was done so quick?

        1. By Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.104) on

          > > > On the other hand AMD have done a lot to support the open source community
          > >
          > > Sarcasm doesn't carry well on the internet.
          >
          > Its not sarcasm, AMD does support open source, and has done alot to support it. Including donating hardware to openbsd, along with providing docs. Why do you think AMD64 support was done so quick?


          Also, they sponsored one of the developers for LinuxBIOS (Yinghai Lu), a Free BIOS that works on many Tyan motherboards. I think AMD supported "open source" because they're behind Intel and wanted to get market share. Not that this is a bad reason, of course.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (64.231.234.94) on

            > I think AMD supported "open source" because they're behind Intel
            > and wanted to get market share. Not that this is a bad reason,
            > of course.

            Ummm. It's a bad reason. It means they'd turn their backs on us as soon as they find a more profitable way of operating. This is really about our rights, not their profits. The market is never going to take care of this kind of thing; it's up to us.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

      > On the other hand AMD have done a lot to support the open source community

      When they publish the specs for the ATI video chips, then I will gladly do so. But for now, I'm sticking with my PowerBook Pismo with an 802.11b Orinoco chipset, because it works and works well.

  7. By deathshadow (64.222.170.60) on

    Sorry, but I know enough to get twitchy when people start throwing around words like 'ecosystem'.

    There is this... "sense of entitlement" Open source advocates seem to be stuck on, where they seem to think the chip they bought on an entire board at $30 retail (which after packaging, distribution and taxes ends up at somewhere around $5 for the actual manufacturer) entitles them to somehow have access to the designers entire multi-billion dollar R&D budget to use it with something like linux - an application the developers did NOT spend money on creating it for in the first place.

    You can usually recognize this overzealous idealism and naivete when they start throwing around words like 'rights' or 'ownership' - without actually seeming to understand what those terms actually MEAN... combine this with the rampant anti-capitolist zeal statements like "only open for business" bring to the table, and the net result is that the majority of people who've actually got experience in business being tempted to tell said open source advocates to go back to their drum circles and tofu.

    Those elements I pointed out, 'Ecosystem', 'open for business', calling them a fraud, and the general language of the entire letter means IMHO it will likely be taken about as seriously by Intel as a letter from PETA or Greenpeace... and if you think anyone apart from the FBI and CIA, or the whack-jobs who belong to those groups actually takes them seriously, you're living in a dream world.

    The letter uses the language of indoctrination, same language used by politicians, union organizers, religious leaders and fringe whackos since the dawn of propaganda... A method of 'Us and them' and 'They are doing us a great injustice' that is based not in fact, but in scare tactics targeting the ignorant... Something that sickens me every time I see it, and sickens me even more when I see the sheep-like head-bobs typified by most of the other replies.

    But again, typical for the more vocal members of the Open Source community - I suspect there's something in the kool-aid apart from sugar.

    1. By loner (71.138.88.34) on

      I'm sorry, but you're suffering from serious typos. Let's see how this stands:

      Sorry, but I know enough to get twitchy when people start throwing around words like 'kool-aid'.

      There is this... "sense of reality" non-open source advocates seem to be stuck on, where they seem to think the chip they bought on an entire board at $30 retail (which after packaging, distribution and taxes ends up at somewhere around $5 for the actual manufacturer) entitles them to somehow believe that multi-billion dollar R&D budget bestows the customer a magical black box from the chip fab fairy - an application the developers supposedly spent money on creating it for in the first place.

      You can usually recognize this overzealous idealism and naivete when they start attacking words like 'rights' or 'ownership' - without actually seeming to understand what those terms actually MEAN... combine this with the rampant demoralizing zeal statements like "you're living in a dream world" bring to the table, and the net result is that the majority of people who've actually got experience in business being tempted to tell said such advocates to go back to their drool inducing activities.

      Those elements Intel pointed out, 'Enable the community to do as much as possible', 'compromise', calling themselves supportive member of the open source, and the general language of the entire presentation means IMHO it will likely be taken about as seriously by the community as a death threat from the local preschool... and if you think anyone apart from themselves actually takes them seriously, you're far away from reality.

      Intel's posturing uses the language of indoctrination, same language used by whackos since the dawn of propaganda... A method of 'Us and them' and 'We need to protect our IP' that is based not in fact, but in scare tactics targeting the uninformed... Something that sickens me every time I see it, and sickens me even more when I see the sheep-like head-bobs typified by most of the other replies.

      But again, it's typical for the more vocal members of the flaming community - I suspect there's something else in their water apart from lead.

    2. By vmalloc (65.29.62.84) on

      > Sorry, but I know enough to get twitchy when people start throwing around words like 'ecosystem'.
      >
      > There is this... "sense of entitlement" Open source advocates seem to be stuck on, where they seem to think the chip they bought on an entire board at $30 retail (which after packaging, distribution and taxes ends up at somewhere around $5 for the actual manufacturer) entitles them to somehow have access to the designers entire multi-billion dollar R&D budget to use it with something like linux - an application the developers did NOT spend money on creating it for in the first place.
      >

      How exactly does having access to the firmware, something that all computers using it come with, make you know all the secrets of the card? How does knowing what hardware commands to throw at it to turn the thing on and search for a wireless spot reveal their secrets? How exactly does an average (correction, BELOW average because of atrocious driver support) WiFi card have any more secret NDA information than all of the other WiFi cards?

      He is not making some crazy unreasonable request here. He is asking for the information neccessary to make the damned thing work. And without having to resort to binary BLOBs. It's not even a philosophical thing for me, as much as it is a STABILITY thing. I have been burned HARD by binary vendor drivers which have terrible bugs that are not fixable because the vendor loses interest after the initial driver release. I'm looking directly at Highpoint here, whose Rocketraid BLOB for FreeBSD brought a $3000 dollar production machine to its knees and made me look like an idiot in front of a very important client.

      > You can usually recognize this overzealous idealism and naivete when they start throwing around words like 'rights' or 'ownership' - without actually seeming to understand what those terms actually MEAN... combine this with the rampant anti-capitolist zeal statements like "only open for business" bring to the table, and the net result is that the majority of people who've actually got experience in business being tempted to tell said open source advocates to go back to their drum circles and tofu.
      >

      Second paragraph, and you've already dropped into talk show host mode. I am a libertarian, which makes me infinitely more pro-capitalism than your groveling statist ass will ever be. I guess if you were king, asking a company for the information neccessary to make a card work reliably would be illegal (freedom of speech anybody?). It's not like we're throwing pipe-bombs at Intel's headquarters or something, we're ASKING them for it. That's how you do things in the civilized world of free market capitalism.


      > Those elements I pointed out, 'Ecosystem', 'open for business', calling them a fraud, and the general language of the entire letter means IMHO it will likely be taken about as seriously by Intel as a letter from PETA or Greenpeace... and if you think anyone apart from the FBI and CIA, or the whack-jobs who belong to those groups actually takes them seriously, you're living in a dream world.
      >


      People have been asking Intel for a long time now, if they didn't want an embarassing episode, they should have fixed their lines of communication a while ago. That's probably the real problem here anyways, considering Intel's history - shitty management. Since Intel gains more customers by releasing the documentation, and thus more money, how can you conclude anything else?

      If in doubt, I dare to mention LSI. If I recall, they are pretty good with providing information on their cards, and yet they are one of the top dogs and can charge a premium on their cards, because people know they are a quality company and provide good reliable hardware. In other words, providing the documentation to make their cards hasn't hurt them - it's made them better.


      > The letter uses the language of indoctrination, same language used by politicians, union organizers, religious leaders and fringe whackos since the dawn of propaganda... A method of 'Us and them' and 'They are doing us a great injustice' that is based not in fact, but in scare tactics targeting the ignorant... Something that sickens me every time I see it, and sickens me even more when I see the sheep-like head-bobs typified by most of the other replies.
      >
      > But again, typical for the more vocal members of the Open Source community - I suspect there's something in the kool-aid apart from sugar.


      I suspect there's something psychological going on here that doesn't really have anything to do with the letter at all. Don't take it out on us that your girlfriend dumped you, you were an ass and she didn't like you not putting out because you were too busy writing crazy posts on the internet.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (64.222.170.60) on

        > He is not making some crazy unreasonable request here.

        No, he's just doing it in a crazy unreasonable way, using language that begs to be ignored by those 'on high' at Intel. Calling them 'assholes', 'liars', 'frauds' and an overall attitude that comes off as a hissy fit is no way to get a businessman to pay you the least attention.

        > I guess if you were king, asking a company for the information
        > neccessary to make a card work reliably would be illegal
        > (freedom of speech anybody?). It's not like we're throwing
        > pipe-bombs at Intel's headquarters or something, we're ASKING
        > them for it. That's how you do things in the civilized world
        > of free market capitalism.

        Unfortunately, again, you missed the point, it's not the asking, it's HOW it's asked... Theo could take a few lessons from the TI letter that Ryan McBride made - you'll notice a HUGE difference in the language - one seems to have been written to accomplish something with the company in question, while Theo's seems to have been carefully crafted to indoctrinate, spread FUD, and do everything EXCEPT get Intel to take it seriously.

        > People have been asking Intel for a long time now, if they
        > didn't want an embarassing episode, they should have fixed
        > their lines of communication a while ago. That's probably the
        > real problem here anyways, considering Intel's history - shitty
        > management. Since Intel gains more customers by releasing the
        > documentation, and thus more money, how can you conclude anything
        > else?

        Never heard of the 1% factor huh? Being they have WORKING IN HOUSE drivers that support 90%+ of the world (BOTH OSX and WIN) you'll actually have a hard time getting them to even consider that remaining bit IF said percentile are ascerbic, annoying and immature in behavior - all said attributes being easily recognized in the letter.

        As to 'shitty management' - how then have they stayed ON TOP of the hardware market, DESPITE being 'behind the curve' in a lot of technologies... saying they are poorly managed just because a small community of fringe enthusiast, most of whom cannot put together a coherent sentence or make a post without resorting to words like 'asshole' or 'shitty' cannot figure out who to contact in a monolithic business, is immature at best, and naivete at it's worst.

        > If in doubt, I dare to mention LSI. If I recall, they are pretty
        > good with providing information on their cards, and yet they are
        > one of the top dogs and can charge a premium on their cards,
        > because people know they are a quality company and provide good
        > reliable hardware. In other words, providing the documentation
        > to make their cards hasn't hurt them - it's made them better.

        Which oddly enough I can agree with - but you have to put it in perspective - LSI is 'not' a big player in the overall market. Being a MUCH smaller company allows them to change direction, change business model, and overall reap larger rewards by going after the smaller markets the larger companies are either ignoring, or having difficulty supporting because they cannot change directions that fast. Intel has a LOT of legacy and momentum to overcome, and as a corporation with a WORKING business model that has worked well for them for over four decades, you'll have a royal pain of a time trying to convince their board of directors there is ANY advantage to this 'new fangled open source thingy'...

        > I suspect there's something psychological going on here that
        > doesn't really have anything to do with the letter at all. Don't
        > take it out on us that your girlfriend dumped you, you were an
        > ass and she didn't like you not putting out because you were too
        > busy writing crazy posts on the internet.

        Aaaw, and you were doing SO well... but again, cannot actually attack the position, so you have to resort to personal attacks... How cute.

        1. By Chris (142.132.30.14) on

          The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

          Theo's tactics have worked on plenty of vendors, and probably will continue to do so. That you may not like them, content or delivery, is irrelevant.

          The speculation you make about how Intel "will" receive community complaints makes me think that you aren't in business. Loud people get reactions from business, and often get what they want.

          But it doesn't matter which of us is right in our speculation. The main thing to realize is that OpenBSD starts from a total loss position in this . Not trying means the hardware won't ever work. Trying in any capacity (nice and quietly or loudly and publicly) means there's a chance the hardware might work someday.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

      > There is this... "sense of entitlement" Open source advocates seem to be stuck on

      I pay for a product and I am BY LAW entitled to a certain service level. It is the law! Let me repeat, THE LAW.

      Let me tell you what doesn't bother me. If Intel says: hey open source I think you guys suck so go away. That's fine and that is THEIR entitlement however they are lying to our face that they support open source. That is the farce.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (64.222.170.60) on

        > I pay for a product and I am BY LAW entitled to a certain
        > service level. It is the law! Let me repeat, THE LAW.

        WHAT Law? I love it when people throw out nonsense like this without any thought... again, 'sense of entitlement'. Who says you are entitled to the full plans of how something works when you buy it? Caveat emptor my friend.

        > Let me tell you what doesn't bother me. If Intel says:
        > hey open source I think you guys suck so go away. That's
        > fine and that is THEIR entitlement however they are lying
        > to our face that they support open source. That is the farce.

        You're talking 'warranty of fitness' - which is usually unenforcable, and a matter of degree... People are talking like they don't support it at all, when the TOPIC is they don't support it ENOUGH - a subtle distinction, but an important one. They are a large company that is going to be slow to act, and frankly, calling them 'assholes', 'liars' and 'frauds' in an open letter is NO way to endear yourselves to them, much less get any sort of support.

        as said by someone else on another forum:
        >> It's great press, but as a negotiating strategy it's right
        >> up there with a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum - in
        >> the middle of a mosh pit.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (24.46.21.229) on

          > WHAT Law? I love it when people throw out nonsense like this without any thought... again, 'sense of entitlement'. Who says you are entitled to the full plans of how something works when you buy it? Caveat emptor my friend.

          I did not see a single request for the designs of the internal mechinations of the cards; all that is requested is the right to redistribute a blob:

          <<<We would also like Intel to GRANT us distribution rights for the binary firmwares of their 3 wireless chipsets. Quite frankly we don't care what their reasons are, because their reasons must be lies according to the slides Intel presented at a conference.>>>

          While I agree with you that there is little basis for such in our system, you could at least go after the correct target.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

          No I am not you fucking moron.

          Let me put in moron-car-speak for you. If you buy a car you expect it to run, right? and you might also expect to be able to drive it don't you?

          Guess what happens when these expectations aren't met? You can return it, however if the mfg refuses to make it work one can sue. Or have you never heard of those weird laws before? You know like the lemon-act and stuff.

          You paid for the fucking hardware therefore it has to work. Get it?

          Now, Intel can refuse to sell it to you. But guess what again; they DON'T.

          See no warranty.

          1. By deathshadow (64.222.170.60) on

            How colorful.

            > Let me put in moron-car-speak for you. If you buy a car you
            > expect it to run, right? and you might also expect to be able
            > to drive it don't you?

            Yeah, but when I get a car made to be driven down the highway I don't expect it to be able to win a rally race without a lot of work and modifications - and I sure don't expect the manufacturer warranty to apply after said mods.

            While what we're talking about here is nowhere near that level of modifications, we ARE talking about using the product for something it wasn't DESIGNED FOR - which is likely why the open source writers even NEED access to the firmware, calling the device in a manner it wasn't designed to. Otherwise, just loading the blob from the device with request_firmware(), and calling it should be more than sufficient... Oh wait, that's right, binaries are a four letter word to open source developers.

            Intel is just STARTING the process - note the language of the slideshow, that's not meant for swaying the public, that's written for swaying managers, board members and decision makers within their own company as to the new philosophy... If there was a mistake, it was showing it at the OSDL before they had finished 'indoctrinating' (Yes, I do believe I use that word far, far too often) their own staff and finished the top to bottom reorganization a switch from closed to open model actually takes to implement.

            ... and for a company Intel's size, that's NOT going to be a overnight change, as they're trying to overcome over three and a half decades of business model and practices.

            1. By loner (71.130.193.185) on

              [snip car comparison]
              When I get a car and want to make modifications, I'd expect some documentation on the parts. Somewhere. Anywhere. I'm not riding in the magical-black-box-with-4-wheels mobile. I can open it up and look inside, even if I'm not going to change anything.<--GASP.

              [snip jab]
              Right. D-U-M-B. Somehow, you and a slew of others consider it as another set of four letter words: O-K-A-Y and (perish the thought) S-A-F-E. But that's just me. Maybe you can explain to me how closed stuff gets scrutiny in an open environment...
              Reverse engineering! Brilliant! ...but that only goes so far. I eagerly await some miracle explanation.

              [snip last two]
              They shouldn't make it sound as such, then.


              Look, it always sounds like a war comparing open and closed stuff. Just don't lean toward one while you say you're part of the other. You can't be "sorta" pregnant, now can you?

            2. By sthen (85.158.44.148) on

              > While what we're talking about here is nowhere near that level of modifications, we ARE talking about using the product for something it wasn't DESIGNED FOR - which is likely why the open source writers even NEED access to the firmware, calling the device in a manner it wasn't designed to.

              The firmware is what used to be included on an eprom on the card but often isn't any more because it's cheaper to ship without an eprom and load it when the driver inits. That's all. Trouble is, without the firmware being downloaded, the device is completely useless. Not fit for purpose.

              This is just about asking for redistribution rights for the original unmodified firmware, exactly the sort of thing that used to be included on the onboard eprom. It's not asking for source code or to make any changes to the actual code. It's not talking about using the product for something it wasn't designed for either: it's just about having access to the firmware so it can be included in a suitable form with the OS for download to the device to make it work as a wireless network adapter, *exactly* what it was sold as. No tricks.

              > Otherwise, just loading the blob from the device with request_firmware(), and calling it should be more than sufficient...

              Firmware is code which runs on the device itself, not on the host os. In this case, due to cost-cutting, it is *not* present on the device, it must be downloaded. How do you do that, if the only internet access you have to fetch that firmware happens to be over the wireless network?

              Here's what comes with the OS in /etc/firmware at the moment:

              3c990
              3c990-license
              atu-at76c503-i3863-ext
              atu-at76c503-i3863-int
              atu-at76c503-rfmd-acc-ext
              atu-at76c503-rfmd-acc-int
              atu-at76c505-rfmd-ext
              atu-at76c505-rfmd-int
              atu-intersil-ext
              atu-intersil-int
              atu-license
              atu-rfmd-ext
              atu-rfmd-int
              atu-rfmd2958-ext
              atu-rfmd2958-int
              atu-rfmd2958smc-ext
              atu-rfmd2958smc-int
              cs4280
              cs4280-license
              fxp-d101a
              fxp-d101b0
              fxp-d101ma
              fxp-d101s
              fxp-d102
              fxp-d102c
              fxp-d102e
              fxp-license
              kue
              kue-license
              neo-coefficients
              neo-license
              ral-license
              ral-rt2561
              ral-rt2561s
              ral-rt2661
              rum-license
              rum-rt2573
              symbol-eprim
              symbol-esec
              symbol-license
              uyap
              uyap-license
              yds
              yds-license
              zd1211
              zd1211-licence

              All these people (Intel wired nic division, 3com, Ralink, Symbol, Zydas and others where firmware is distributed through a different mechanism e.g. Qlogic) have devices which require downloads of firmware in order to operate. They all allowed this to be distributed in a suitable form. Why should Intel's wireless nic division be any different?

              People need to be aware that what you buy from them (or their resellers, for example laptop OEMs) is only half a product, absolutely useless without firmware that is _not_ freely available.

          2. By Jaz (134.244.167.55) on

            > No I am not you fucking moron.
            >
            > Let me put in moron-car-speak for you. If you buy a car you expect it to run, right? and you might also expect to be able to drive it don't you?

            Car analogies are the province of slashdot.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

              > > No I am not you fucking moron.
              > >
              > > Let me put in moron-car-speak for you. If you buy a car you expect it to run, right? and you might also expect to be able to drive it don't you?
              >
              > Car analogies are the province of slashdot.
              >


              Actually, I agree with the car analogy. What I don't agree with is the salty, and totally unnecessary, language.

    4. By Anonymous Coward (83.145.73.122) on

      > There is this... "sense of entitlement" Open source advocates seem to
      > be stuck on, where they seem to think the chip they bought on an
      > entire board at $30 retail (which after packaging, distribution and
      > taxes ends up at somewhere around $5 for the actual manufacturer)
      > entitles them to somehow have access to the designers entire
      > multi-billion dollar R&D budget to use it with something like linux -
      > an application the developers did NOT spend money on creating it for
      > in the first place.

      As your comment seems to indicate you're not part of open source community but you're looking more like someone that do management, then you should know that time is money.
      Knowing that and knowing how much time opensource developers spend in their projects, then YOU SHOULD know how much money they SPENT.

      But no, you're just here to post insane FUD from a Verizon DSL line in order to protect Intel which must be your employer.

      1. By deathshadow (64.222.170.60) on

        > Knowing that and knowing how much time opensource developers
        > spend in their projects, then YOU SHOULD know how much money
        > they SPENT.

        Oh, you want to talk MONEY.

        Yeah, time (or money if you like) they generally 'spent' with no viable cash return - effectively devaluating the worth of programming. You read things like the GPL or worse, some of the truly insane FLOSS licenses, they seem carefully crafted to make sure programmers never get paid for their work - things like 'you can only charge for the cost of distribution' or 'only charge for support' SHOULD be huge warning signs to programmers everywhere, as it basically says the effort of the programming itself is worth NOTHING. There's a reason most Open Source developers end up having to have a 'day job' that happens to 'allow' their activities, while not really paying for them... or are career students/educators with the free time to blow on this sort of thing.

        That any business major specializing in marketing, can come along, slap their name on a OSS project, hire a couple high school kids to 'maintain' it, do a total rebranding and make all their money on distribution/support without ever kicking back to the original programmer should be proof enough of the 'flaws' in a immature naive idealism that is just asking to be taken for a ride. (Look at the current nonsense between Debian and FF as an example of this...)

        But, what does one expect from a social movement based around the hissy fit of someone who GAVE something away, then got his panties in a twist when we wasn't given a cut.

        > But no, you're just here to post insane FUD from a Verizon
        > DSL line in order to protect Intel which must be your employer.

        Ah yes, the last refuge of those who cannot make a coherent arguement, make wild assertions about the poster's character - what, does the truth hurt so much?

        1. By Anonymous Coward (200.206.211.121) on

          > > Knowing that and knowing how much time opensource developers
          > > spend in their projects, then YOU SHOULD know how much money
          > > they SPENT.
          >
          > Oh, you want to talk MONEY.
          >
          > Yeah, time (or money if you like) they generally 'spent' with no viable cash return - effectively devaluating the worth of programming. You read things like the GPL or worse, some of the truly insane FLOSS licenses, they seem carefully crafted to make sure programmers never get paid for their work - things like 'you can only charge for the cost of distribution' or 'only charge for support' SHOULD be huge warning signs to programmers everywhere, as it basically says the effort of the programming itself is worth NOTHING. There's a reason most Open Source developers end up having to have a 'day job' that happens to 'allow' their activities, while not really paying for them... or are career students/educators with the free time to blow on this sort of thing.
          >
          > That any business major specializing in marketing, can come along, slap their name on a OSS project, hire a couple high school kids to 'maintain' it, do a total rebranding and make all their money on distribution/support without ever kicking back to the original programmer should be proof enough of the 'flaws' in a immature naive idealism that is just asking to be taken for a ride. (Look at the current nonsense between Debian and FF as an example of this...)
          >
          > But, what does one expect from a social movement based around the hissy fit of someone who GAVE something away, then got his panties in a twist when we wasn't given a cut.
          >
          > > But no, you're just here to post insane FUD from a Verizon
          > > DSL line in order to protect Intel which must be your employer.
          >
          > Ah yes, the last refuge of those who cannot make a coherent arguement, make wild assertions about the poster's character - what, does the truth hurt so much?

          you are mad because opensource programmers do it better than you and now you are unemployed, don't you?

        2. By Anonymous Coward (83.5.204.66) on

          Look, whatever your point was, assuming for a microsecond there was one, I'm lost by now, as I daresay are most others.

          But I do have one question: do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously when you call yourself "deathshadow"? Isn't that your whole point?

          So off to /. you go. Thanks for dropping by.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (81.255.199.186) on

          > > Knowing that and knowing how much time opensource developers
          > > spend in their projects, then YOU SHOULD know how much money
          > > they SPENT.
          >
          > Oh, you want to talk MONEY.
          >
          [SNIP blah blah]
          > But, what does one expect from a social movement based around the hissy fit of someone who GAVE something away, then got his panties in a twist when we wasn't given a cut.

          That's exactly where you fail to understand what is going on.
          Most of the people working for opensource are not doing it for money but for fun.

          That is why i said they spent money, meaning they intentionally given productivity for free.

          > > But no, you're just here to post insane FUD from a Verizon
          > > DSL line in order to protect Intel which must be your employer.
          >
          > Ah yes, the last refuge of those who cannot make a coherent arguement, make wild assertions about the poster's character - what, does the truth hurt so much?

          The truth about the fact that this guy could really be from Intel staff ?
          Sure it must hurt really hard for some people that post here and that doesn't seem to understand what is the motivation for an opensource project.
          BTW, who is hiring you ?

    5. By Chris (24.76.100.162) on

      > Sorry, but I know enough to get twitchy when people start throwing around words like 'ecosystem'.

      What, even biologists?

      It's sad that you get twitchy when someone starts using a word that can be misused, without you evaluating if the word is being used appropriately. Even the word "synergy" has (gasp) a proper use.

      > There is this... "sense of entitlement" Open source advocates seem to be stuck on, where they seem to think the chip they bought on an entire board at $30 retail (which after packaging, distribution and taxes ends up at somewhere around $5 for the actual manufacturer) entitles them to somehow have access to the designers entire multi-billion dollar R&D budget to use it with something like linux - an application the developers did NOT spend money on creating it for in the first place.

      ASking to redistribute firmware, or get enough technical documentation to write drivers for a card is nowhere near "access to the designers entire multi-billion dollar R&D budget". This is an important point and you fail entirely to grasp it.

      >
      > You can usually recognize this overzealous idealism and naivete when they start throwing around words like 'rights' or 'ownership' - without actually seeming to understand what those terms actually MEAN... combine this with the rampant anti-capitolist zeal statements like "only open for business" bring to the table, and the net result is that the majority of people who've actually got experience in business being tempted to tell said open source advocates to go back to their drum circles and tofu.

      What do rights and ownership mean, then, such that they automatically (somehow?) make it wrong for us to want techincal documentation for hardware and the right to redistribute binary firmware?

      Where is the anti-capitalist zeal? Group action by consumers is meat and potatoes for capitalism.

      Your drum circles and tofu thing is truly bizarre. Who doesn't like drumming?

      > Those elements I pointed out, 'Ecosystem', 'open for business', calling them a fraud, and the general language of the entire letter means IMHO it will likely be taken about as seriously by Intel as a letter from PETA or Greenpeace... and if you think anyone apart from the FBI and CIA, or the whack-jobs who belong to those groups actually takes them seriously, you're living in a dream world.

      And in our dream world, vendor after vendor has supplied techincal documentation and the right to redistribute binary firmware after requests or pressure from OpenBSD and its community. What a dream it is!

      >
      > The letter uses the language of indoctrination, same language used by politicians, union organizers, religious leaders and fringe whackos since the dawn of propaganda... A method of 'Us and them' and 'They are doing us a great injustice' that is based not in fact, but in scare tactics targeting the ignorant... Something that sickens me every time I see it, and sickens me even more when I see the sheep-like head-bobs typified by most of the other replies.

      No more than your post here does, sadly. You just seem to think that your particular doctrine is the good one. Do you even know if your doctrine is different than ours? This campaign of OpenBSD's falls squarely in the purview of free markets and capitalism.

      > But again, typical for the more vocal members of the Open Source community - I suspect there's something in the kool-aid apart from sugar.

      Oh yeah, no villification here, just logic upon reason.

  8. By Anonymous Coward (72.177.101.219) on

    It seems that back in May Theo was thinking that Intel was getting better, at least on some fronts...

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114894681314538&w=2

    1. By Anonymous Coward (82.195.149.9) on

      > It seems that back in May Theo was thinking that Intel was getting better, at least on some fronts...
      >
      > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114894681314538&w=2

      I think he was mostly talking in the context of graphics hardware, rather than wireless hardware.

  9. By Anonymous Coward (128.151.69.144) on

    There is a story on Slashdot about this. It really irks me how uninformed people are over there. Some of the common opinions:

    *They think that Theo is whining.
    *They point to Linux drivers and say, "See? This stuff works."
    *They assume that ipw and iwi don't work at all on OpenBSD and then attack OpenBSD for this lack of support since Linux has a driver that also requires the click-through firmware just the same way.

    I think I'm pretty well convinced that humanity is hopeless based on this.

    (PS: why doesn't undeadly allow ul and li tags?)

    1. By Nate (65.95.229.97) on

      > There is a story on Slashdot about this. It really irks me how uninformed people are over there. Some of the common opinions:
      >
      > *They think that Theo is whining.
      > *They point to Linux drivers and say, "See? This stuff works."
      > *They assume that ipw and iwi don't work at all on OpenBSD and then attack OpenBSD for this lack of support since Linux has a driver that also requires the click-through firmware just the same way.
      >
      > I think I'm pretty well convinced that humanity is hopeless based on this.
      >
      > (PS: why doesn't undeadly allow ul and li tags?)

      Cause they are annoying, this is a discussion for a story, not a homepage.

    2. By CODOR (67.158.69.254) on

      > There is a story on Slashdot about this. It really irks me how uninformed people are over there.

      You think they're uninformed now, wait until the next story on either the GPL or BSD license appears...

    3. By asemisldkfj (66.92.79.45) on

      > *They think that Theo is whining.
      > *They point to Linux drivers and say, "See? This stuff works."
      > *They assume that ipw and iwi don't work at all on OpenBSD and then attack OpenBSD for this lack of support since Linux has a driver that also requires the click-through firmware just the same way.

      I read quite a few comments where people thought that this was about firmware for stuff like Intel CPUs and whatever else they make. There were also a few people who were somehow under the impression that OpenBSD was asking for open source firmware.

      I submitted a comment trying to point out these misconceptions, but I don't have much hope that anyone will read it. Slashdot morons...

    4. By Anonymous Coward (67.86.52.0) on

      SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:
      Slashdot contains stupidity which is known to inflict massive brain damage and may complicate pregnancy.

    5. By Stop drinking the Kool-aid (24.215.249.143) on

      > There is a story on Slashdot about this. It really irks me how uninformed people are over there. Some of the common opinions:
      >
      > *They think that Theo is whining.
      > *They point to Linux drivers and say, "See? This stuff works."
      > *They assume that ipw and iwi don't work at all on OpenBSD and then attack OpenBSD for this lack of support since Linux has a driver that also requires the click-through firmware just the same way.
      >
      > I think I'm pretty well convinced that humanity is hopeless based on this.
      >
      > (PS: why doesn't undeadly allow ul and li tags?)

      1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.

      2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.

      3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.

      4.) Which would you rather have:
      a.) Innovation.
      b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
      * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.

      5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (58.71.34.137) on

        Well i just added my 2 words and i'm thinking of buying !intel next time :-). So FSCK them there are lots of other hardware providers which will be happy to "open" their hardware products to make them profitable and used.
        So Next time buy something else, hit them in the pocket ... it hurts in there the most !

        1. By Anonymous Coward (24.215.249.143) on

          > Well i just added my 2 words and i'm thinking of buying !intel next time :-). So FSCK them there are lots of other hardware providers which will be happy to "open" their hardware products to make them profitable and used.
          > So Next time buy something else, hit them in the pocket ... it hurts in there the most !

          True, impacting profit will send a message. But, that impact needs to register > 0.0001%.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.122.160) on

        > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.

        If you`re using LINUX you can also THANK YOU Theo for FREE drivers, docs and FIRMWARE!
        Asshole...

        > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.

        Bullshit! R&D gets protected by LAWS! Not by NDAs or Licenses!
        If I decide to develop the best CHip ever and decide to make the design OPEN (readable!) it doesn`t mean everybody is allowed to COPY it.

        > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.

        You`re such a motherf*cker...
        INTEL is a MONOPOLY! Like MS on the Desktop!
        You realy think they do develop and produce just CPUs and Motherboard Chipsets?
        NO! Damn it NOOOO!
        They don`t! They`re also in mobile phones (you never had a crappy firmware of a "old" mobile phone and wished to get a fix? Lets name SMS-Implementations (wich can get DoSed! Yeah!) or MMS (wich can get DOSed..or even abused to get some cod einto ya phone...) or Bluetooth-Implementations (did I said that such stuff can get abused? I think so...)). Intel does also develop Chips for other stuff then WLAN, WiMAX and other kinds of infrastructure!

        If YOU get to a city where they decided to provide broadband via WiMAX wouldn`t you love to get drivers for YOUR prefered OpenSource OS?
        And now think about it... just IMAGINE there`s a driver but the FIRMWARE isn`T allowed to get distributed.. How do you get the firmware if you don`t have network access but just THIS card?

        It`s not about "GET AN AMD CPU" or "BUY A &ANY Card".
        It`s about freedom, the freedom of choice or does your car-company forces you to get gas from just ONE gas-station company because you COULD also use gas from another company but then your car wont move anymore?

        Or maybe better: It`s like selling cars with NO full and they tell you you can get the ONLY working gas at a gasstation 100 miles away.
        How do you`ll reach it...?

        > 4.) Which would you rather have:
        > a.) Innovation.
        > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
        > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.

        That`s all just bullshit!
        The WWW was developed by OPEN SOURCE!
        FTP Protocol is OPEN SOURCE otherwise nobody would have USED it maybe.
        SSH is OPEN SOURCE. VRRP isn`t OPEN SOurce but CARP IS.

        Innovatation and mass production don`t hurt each other!
        In fact it`s the innovatation wich makes the mass production possible!

        Blue-Ray is an innovatation. HD-DVD too..
        But with HD-DVD you can use existing mashines to produce it.
        With Blue-Ray you can`t. So what`s the bigger "innovatation"?
        For me the bigger innovation is that they developed a BETTER media wich can store MORE data but they can still use the same old crappy mashines and factories to make it. That`s how the coockie does crumble...

        > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.

        Why don`t you SUE all guys working at the Patent office?
        They could sell construction plans to CHina...

        Theo WONT create INTEL-clones at his house! He wanna use the CHIPS!
        And he`s NOT talking about the Sourcecode of the Firmware!
        If &VENDOR doesn`t like to hand out the FIRMWARE free then they should make it like in the OLD DAYS and burn it into the CARD!
        Today f.e. WLAN-cards are dumb devices with NO logic!
        Asll he`s asking for is to be able to place the "brain" to these Cards.

        It`s like a doctor would have to ask to assist his Professor wich teached him about medic how to reassemble an arm after an accident.
        It`s not about Cloning the whole human...

        1. By Anonymous Coward (24.215.249.143) on

          > > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.
          >
          > If you`re using LINUX you can also THANK YOU Theo for FREE drivers, docs and FIRMWARE!
          > Asshole...
          >
          > > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.
          >
          > Bullshit! R&D gets protected by LAWS! Not by NDAs or Licenses!
          > If I decide to develop the best CHip ever and decide to make the design OPEN (readable!) it doesn`t mean everybody is allowed to COPY it.
          >
          > > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.
          >
          > You`re such a motherf*cker...
          > INTEL is a MONOPOLY! Like MS on the Desktop!
          > You realy think they do develop and produce just CPUs and Motherboard Chipsets?
          > NO! Damn it NOOOO!
          > They don`t! They`re also in mobile phones (you never had a crappy firmware of a "old" mobile phone and wished to get a fix? Lets name SMS-Implementations (wich can get DoSed! Yeah!) or MMS (wich can get DOSed..or even abused to get some cod einto ya phone...) or Bluetooth-Implementations (did I said that such stuff can get abused? I think so...)). Intel does also develop Chips for other stuff then WLAN, WiMAX and other kinds of infrastructure!
          >
          > If YOU get to a city where they decided to provide broadband via WiMAX wouldn`t you love to get drivers for YOUR prefered OpenSource OS?
          > And now think about it... just IMAGINE there`s a driver but the FIRMWARE isn`T allowed to get distributed.. How do you get the firmware if you don`t have network access but just THIS card?
          >
          > It`s not about "GET AN AMD CPU" or "BUY A &ANY Card".
          > It`s about freedom, the freedom of choice or does your car-company forces you to get gas from just ONE gas-station company because you COULD also use gas from another company but then your car wont move anymore?
          >
          > Or maybe better: It`s like selling cars with NO full and they tell you you can get the ONLY working gas at a gasstation 100 miles away.
          > How do you`ll reach it...?
          >
          > > 4.) Which would you rather have:
          > > a.) Innovation.
          > > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
          > > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.
          >
          > That`s all just bullshit!
          > The WWW was developed by OPEN SOURCE!
          > FTP Protocol is OPEN SOURCE otherwise nobody would have USED it maybe.
          > SSH is OPEN SOURCE. VRRP isn`t OPEN SOurce but CARP IS.
          >
          > Innovatation and mass production don`t hurt each other!
          > In fact it`s the innovatation wich makes the mass production possible!
          >
          > Blue-Ray is an innovatation. HD-DVD too..
          > But with HD-DVD you can use existing mashines to produce it.
          > With Blue-Ray you can`t. So what`s the bigger "innovatation"?
          > For me the bigger innovation is that they developed a BETTER media wich can store MORE data but they can still use the same old crappy mashines and factories to make it. That`s how the coockie does crumble...
          >
          > > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.
          >
          > Why don`t you SUE all guys working at the Patent office?
          > They could sell construction plans to CHina...
          >
          > Theo WONT create INTEL-clones at his house! He wanna use the CHIPS!
          > And he`s NOT talking about the Sourcecode of the Firmware!
          > If &VENDOR doesn`t like to hand out the FIRMWARE free then they should make it like in the OLD DAYS and burn it into the CARD!
          > Today f.e. WLAN-cards are dumb devices with NO logic!
          > Asll he`s asking for is to be able to place the "brain" to these Cards.
          >
          > It`s like a doctor would have to ask to assist his Professor wich teached him about medic how to reassemble an arm after an accident.
          > It`s not about Cloning the whole human...






          Man, your angry. No need to get so worked up.


          > If you`re using LINUX you can also THANK YOU Theo for FREE drivers, docs and FIRMWARE!
          > Asshole...

          I don't use Linux and the drivers are always free. It's the hardware you pay for--but, that does not entitle you to know everything about the hardware.


          > Bullshit! R&D gets protected by LAWS! Not by NDAs or Licenses!
          > If I decide to develop the best CHip ever and decide to make the design OPEN (readable!) it doesn`t mean everybody is allowed to COPY it.
          >

          Oh, really. Are you a lawyer? Have you called Paul (CEO), yet? Just because they shouldn't, doesn't mean they won't. Ever wonder why Google is so secretive? Every bit of information can be utilized.


          > You`re such a motherf*cker...
          > INTEL is a MONOPOLY! Like MS on the Desktop!
          > You realy think they do develop and produce just CPUs and Motherboard Chipsets?
          > NO! Damn it NOOOO!

          Actually, I prefer single (never married / no kids) women.

          Don't like Intel? Use AMD.
          Don't like Microsoft? Use Apple.

          Of course, if you use AMD, you probably use Microsoft.
          If you use Apple, you use Intel.
          So, just go with Solaris, AIX, even better: OpenVMS!


          > They don`t! They`re also in mobile phones (you never had a crappy firmware of a "old" mobile phone and wished to get a fix? Lets name SMS-Implementations (wich can get DoSed! Yeah!) or MMS (wich can get

          Dude, I get a new phone every 2 years. I don't use old hardware.
          FYI-you should throw out that brick sized mobile and go for a Blackberry with the Intel Xscale processor! Yes, I worked on that.


          > That`s all just bullshit!
          > The WWW was developed by OPEN SOURCE!
          > FTP Protocol is OPEN SOURCE otherwise nobody would have USED it maybe.
          > SSH is OPEN SOURCE. VRRP isn`t OPEN SOurce but CARP IS.

          None of that is hardware... Software does have examples, as you demonstrated, but I don't see a Windows, Aqua, Oracle, SAP, Quicken, Photoshop that is open source. Don't even try to compare Gimp to Photoshop or KDE/Gnome to Windows or Aqua (GUI of OS X).


          So, dude, chill.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.122.160) on

            > > You`re such a motherf*cker...
            > > INTEL is a MONOPOLY! Like MS on the Desktop!
            > > You realy think they do develop and produce just CPUs and Motherboard Chipsets?
            > > NO! Damn it NOOOO!
            >
            > Actually, I prefer single (never married / no kids) women.
            >
            > Don't like Intel? Use AMD.
            > Don't like Microsoft? Use Apple.
            >
            > Of course, if you use AMD, you probably use Microsoft.
            > If you use Apple, you use Intel.
            > So, just go with Solaris, AIX, even better: OpenVMS!
            >
            >
            > > They don`t! They`re also in mobile phones (you never had a crappy firmware of a "old" mobile phone and wished to get a fix? Lets name SMS-Implementations (wich can get DoSed! Yeah!) or MMS (wich can get
            >
            > Dude, I get a new phone every 2 years. I don't use old hardware.
            > FYI-you should throw out that brick sized mobile and go for a Blackberry with the Intel Xscale processor! Yes, I worked on that.

            You`re far too egoistic
            Just "I" "i" and again "I"....
            The world is BIGGER then YOU.
            Just because YOU get new hardware every 2 years it doesn`t mean my friend in Romania can effort that TOO.
            Just because INTEL decides they wont sell nor support any 56MiB WLAN-Chips anymore doesn`t mean the whole world uses the NEXT class of Chips after the next day!

            Just an example: My Radeon 9200 isn`t supported anymore by ATI/AMD.
            And it`s not THAT OLD. I just got it because it "does what I need".
            And did the Xorg-Project got all Docs? Not realy...


            > > That`s all just bullshit!
            > > The WWW was developed by OPEN SOURCE!
            > > FTP Protocol is OPEN SOURCE otherwise nobody would have USED it maybe.
            > > SSH is OPEN SOURCE. VRRP isn`t OPEN SOurce but CARP IS.
            >
            > None of that is hardware... Software does have examples, as you >demonstrated, but I don't see a Windows, Aqua, Oracle, SAP, Quicken, >Photoshop that is open source. Don't even try to compare Gimp to >Photoshop or KDE/Gnome to Windows or Aqua (GUI of OS X).

            That`s exactly what I wante dto point out...
            YOU DON`T GET IT....

            Firmware isnīt hardware EITHER! It JUST runs there!
            It`s the SOFTWARE wich makes the HARDWARE useable!
            Even FPGAs need a programming...

            > So, dude, chill.

            I`ll chill after peoples like you get a CLUE about the stuff wich pisses me (and a lot others) OFF!

            "Hardware is no Software"-bla.. damn Moron where did you worked? In the marketing with all the other scum?

            Theo (as I do) donīt ask for CONSTRUCTION plans about HARDWARE.
            We wanna USE the Hardware we`ve PAID FOR and for this we DO NEED SOFTWARE. And without any good SOFTWARE you don`t SELL Hardware.

            As the WWW spreaded companies needed MORE Hardware (Server...).
            And as there was more and MORE Hardware from MORE and MORE Vendors peoples and companies did needed SOFTWARE/Knowledge wich is FREE avaiable.

            Long time ago "computers" couldn`t talk to each other because mashine A spoke protocol A and mashine B just protocol B.
            But hell then somebody woke up and said "damn that foo! Burn those assholes and kick their ass!" and made his concept of TCP/IP free avaiable. This on the other side helped HARDWARE Vendors to SELL more Hardware because NOW there was an OPEN standard wich was FREE for ALL and NOT patented and all those little vendors noticed "God damn HELL where do all those new CUSTOMERS COME FROM?" because NOW they where able to propably SELL products to MORE peoples.

            It doesn`t matter if it`s a protocol, a RFC paper or a BSD-OS.
            Fact is that those Vendors simply wouldnīt exists (at least not as big as NOW) if there wouldn`t have been people who thought that it`s better to give somethign away for free then hiding it under NDAs or fighting with lawyers.

            Again: All he (and so do I) want is the Firmware (binary..) with the PERMISSION to SHIP IT WITH THE OS.

            If it`s related to me I would like to shot CEOs for "binary firmware" but I also know that thus would be too radical...
            But it`s realy fucked up to have a good, but old, Motherboard wich may has issues in the BIOS-Code and not being ABLE to fix it.

            If you wnana have a PROOF: My old Laptop has a COMPLETLY fucke dup Bios and thus gives me HARD times! Linux, netBSD, FreeBSD they all do CRASH or fail after minutes. but OpenBSD runs well (as long as I donīt use the Cardbus).
            And that`s why I bought a NEW Laptop!
            I didn`t NEED a new laptop and I would propably would have LEARNED assembly just to be bale to FIX my damn BIOS but the BIOS is not FREE (and FUCKED UP!) and so I`m getting FORCED by Hardware-Vendors to spend MONEY even I wont.

            That`s MY little success storry about "binary firmware" (and I clearly count a BIOS as Firmware). And now please do tell me where it HURTS innovatation if the Vendor would have gave the BIOS-Code away for free (now after some years..).


            Hopefully somebody will start burning offices of those Vendors if he gets crazy because he spend all his money and noticed that nothing does work nor does he gets support by those peoples he paid....
            Peoples already got crazy because of less...

            1. By asemisldkfj (66.92.79.45) on

              great job everyone, you've successfully turned undeadly into slashdot.

          2. By Anonymous Coward (155.245.116.206) on

            >
            >
            > So, dude, chill.
            >

            OpenVMS ?? Go back to Slashdot you stupid fuck.

      3. By There's lead in YOUR Kool Aid. (71.130.201.148) on

        > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.
        Right. We should make Intel hate going open so much that they'll...open things up.

        > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.
        If I'm not mistaken, it's not merely for OpenBSD's sake. The whole open source community can benefit from this.

        > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.
        Not much to choose from.

        > 4.) Which would you rather have:
        > a.) Innovation.
        > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
        > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.
        Those aren't mutally exclusive goals!

        > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.
        If only Intel were as open with hardware documentation as you are with your opinion...

        1. By Anonymous Coward (24.215.249.143) on

          > > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.
          > Right. We should make Intel hate going open so much that they'll...open things up.
          >
          > > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.
          > If I'm not mistaken, it's not merely for OpenBSD's sake. The whole open source community can benefit from this.
          >
          > > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.
          > Not much to choose from.
          >
          > > 4.) Which would you rather have:
          > > a.) Innovation.
          > > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
          > > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.
          > Those aren't mutally exclusive goals!
          >
          > > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.
          > If only Intel were as open with hardware documentation as you are with your opinion...
          >
          >


          Unfortunately, my opinions don't make the money that Intel pulls in. So, I'd have to say Intel is doing something right here...

          1. By Anonymous Coward (71.138.118.163) on

            > Unfortunately, my opinions don't make the money that Intel pulls in. So, I'd have to say Intel is doing something right here...

            Hey, c'mon, you've made retorts to all the points the other guy made. Finish it up.

      4. By Anonymous Coward (66.42.182.72) on

        Market share and OpenBSD: Attention Intel and others.

        ---My vision for OpenBSD---

        New market POSSIBLY emerging. Simple, functionality, without MS headaches.

        Especially with laptops. Every kid a restricted computer, I'd start with OpenBSD. Old people just starting out wanting SIMPLE services, I'd start with OpenBSD.

        OpenBSD, with lynx, or firefox. A simple internet machine for many people who see a computer as a TV, or its thrown away. Some people will not even use or learn computers due to MS being known as a headache.

        When X windows is improved, along with a secure GUI web-browser, OpenBSD could be promoted as the only sane choice, for those who want it simple. Currently we are stuck with lynx and mutt, for a set and forget it box, that only gets updated rarely. Firefox is acceptable under OpenBSD for those who need a mainstream browser and LIFE.

        ...and if the hardware doesn't use Intel, because OpenBSD doesn't work with Intel well, then $ go to Intel competitors, and Intel loses face.

        But, I'd rather have Intel on our side with this vision, it just makes sense and dollars.

        And if Google would only see that it needs a working computer at home, as a client for SaaS [software as a service], then maybe we can get the vision going to the world, a big market.

        ---End of vision--- Perhaps way too optimistic, but a hope...

      5. By rangnar (84.170.89.153) on

        > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.

        He can't shut up when faced with massive nonsense. That is a problem for people who like do have their sheeps slaughtered without much noise.

        > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.

        Oh, I thought we are in modern times. Oh yes, knowledge is worthy and should be protected with all efforts. Start burning books. Shut down schools. By the way, roman and greeks haven't and don't protect their R&D, that's why you can calculate, talk and write in a free society. Yes, every coin has two sides.

        > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.

        That's what I like to do. But I need enough information for that. Information most sellers don't like to give due to protecting their R&D, IP or let's they the truth, their income.

        > 4.) Which would you rather have:
        > a.) Innovation.
        > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
        > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will
        > reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.

        Your point of view is indoctrinated and looking at that in reflection, you'll might be able to see it. And open design, where everyone can produce everything will rocket boost innovation. Because you can't manufacture, sell and profit anymore with broken or defective hardware by design that hides itself behind IP, trade secrets, patents and marketing blubs where you need naked girls to sell this crap to PFYs.

        It's funny, those who shout aloud that IP and Patents are needed to save the actual state of wealth or that it needs even more protection are those who faces most patent frauds. Perhaps innovation and income doesn't relate with law, IP and patents but with braking them?

      6. By Wim (88.82.33.37) wim@kd85.com on https://kd85.com/notforsale.html

        > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.

        what does that have to do with a reasonable distribution license on their firmware? Or do you think having to go to a website, register and click through hoops is a valid way of treating your customer?

        This is not limited to OpenBSD, this applies to *all* the opensource projects, you know, the Debians, Gentoos and even Hurd (wel, the real ones, not the Novells of this world who sign over their rights and play in the cards of big vendors like Intel)

        So basicly you are saying the OpenSource movement is a neglectable customer? Then the only people buying Intel hardware should be running eh... Windows and OS X?

        > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.

        I'd love to. Actually, I do sell excellent ralink replacements cards as a result:

        ral0 at pci0 dev 14 function 0 "Ralink RT2561" rev 0x00: irq 11, address 00:08:a1:9c:34:d4
        ral0: MAC/BBP RT2661B, RF RT2527

        ral0 at pci0 dev 14 function 0 "Ralink RT2561S" rev 0x00: irq 11, address 00:10:60:00:00:68
        ral0: MAC/BBP RT2661B, RF RT5225

        The problem is that Intel makes for example laptop vendors lock their BIOS so you can't
        boot with an 'unauthorised' card. (fortunatly there are ways around that, but it's still a cludge)

        > 4.) Which would you rather have:
        > a.) Innovation.
        > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
        > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.

        You miss the point. Nobody is asking Intel to opensource their firmware.

        > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.

        Yes you've been brainwashed, we all could tell from your rant above.
        Please come back when you have some facts

        1. By Anonymous Coward (82.153.166.138) on

          > what does that have to do with a reasonable distribution license on their firmware? Or do you think having to go to a website, register and click through hoops is a valid way of treating your customer?

          Not really but it's not just us. Windows drivers for their 10/100 network cards used to be click-through too.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (88.82.33.37) on

            > Not really but it's not just us. Windows drivers for their 10/100 network cards used to be click-through too.

            Please don't use Windows as a reference, it makes me feel uncomfortable to use it as a benchmark ;-)

            Anyways, having to download and install a piece of firmware is just not practical, try installing a laptop connected through wifi, or an embedded device without a web browser.

      7. By Chris (24.76.100.162) on

        > > There is a story on Slashdot about this. It really irks me how uninformed people are over there. Some of the common opinions:
        > >
        > > *They think that Theo is whining.
        > > *They point to Linux drivers and say, "See? This stuff works."
        > > *They assume that ipw and iwi don't work at all on OpenBSD and then attack OpenBSD for this lack of support since Linux has a driver that also requires the click-through firmware just the same way.
        > >
        > > I think I'm pretty well convinced that humanity is hopeless based on this.
        > >
        > > (PS: why doesn't undeadly allow ul and li tags?)
        >
        > 1.) Theo is whining. With such an attitude, if Intel does decide to be more open, it will be in spite of hime.

        History contradicts you.
        >
        > 2.) Intel has every right to protect it's R&D. OpenBSD is not utilized by a large enough population of it's clients for this discussion to matter.

        This is not a matter of Intel protecting "it's" R&D. The fact that you fail to grasp this point makes me wonder what you're doing on an even moderately technical website such as this.

        >
        > 3.) You don't like it? Use another chipset.

        How about we do something about it instead? Wait! We don't care what you say, we're doing it anyways. And it works.

        >
        > 4.) Which would you rather have:
        > a.) Innovation.
        > b.) Mass production due to open design; minimal innovation.
        > * Of couse, this is based on the premise that opening hardware designs will reduce innovation. This is my opinion; you may disagree.

        "Open design" is something the OpenBSD project and community are not and have never asked for. You are arguing one side of an argument with no one arguing back.

        Innovation *and* mass production have been part of the PC market pretty much since it started up. Why do you think being able to write drivers for software or redistribute binary firmware for Intel hardware will all of a sudden turn these two things into opposing choices?

        Intel itself allows this for other types of hardware, and yet the world hasn't ended and Intel hasn't gone belly up. Weird!

        >
        > 5.) I've worked for Intel in the past (sr. software engineer), so agree/disagree--I don't care. But, I'm telling you in the interest of full disclosure.

        I'm disinclined to believe this, since you seem to have so much trouble figuring out what it is OpenBSD actually wants Intel to do here.

  10. By aki (70.20.42.238) on bsdblowfish.blogspot.com

    I was just going to order a new server based on a Intel chipset. Now I won't.

    Can anybody recommend a simple server with supported hardware and compliant companies. RAID is a must.

    Thanks.
    Letter send to Intel.

    aki

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

      > I was just going to order a new server based on a Intel chipset. Now I won't.
      >
      > Can anybody recommend a simple server with supported hardware and compliant companies. RAID is a must.
      >
      > Thanks.
      > Letter send to Intel.
      >
      > aki

      Do you sign your letters *bahhhhhhh*, or do you think your content is self-explanatory as a sheep?

      1. By CODOR (67.158.69.254) on

        > Do you sign your letters *bahhhhhhh*, or do you think your content is self-explanatory as a sheep?

        You might want to consider that it's the people who blindly use binary blobs and non-distributable firmware that are the sheep being led to slaughter, and not the OpenBSD users...

      2. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

        > > I was just going to order a new server based on a Intel chipset. Now I won't.
        > >
        > > Can anybody recommend a simple server with supported hardware and compliant companies. RAID is a must.
        > >
        > > Thanks.
        > > Letter send to Intel.
        > >
        > > aki
        >
        > Do you sign your letters *bahhhhhhh*, or do you think your content is self-explanatory as a sheep?


        Umm...what's wrong with his question? Isn't that exactly what we *want* people to be doing--buying something other than chipsets from companies like Intel, nVidious, etc.?

    2. By Anonymous Coward (82.153.166.138) on

      > I was just going to order a new server based on a Intel chipset. Now I won't.

      Unfortunately many(most?) recent servers using AMD chips tend to have chipsets made by nVidia and Broadcom, both of whom are not good at sharing information either (especially errata because it makes them look bad). You can find some with AMD 8111 but it takes a bit of looking nowadays and some of those still have problems. If you want to avoid non-open companies and have a fully working system you have a bit of a task ahead of you.

      Different parts of the larger companies seem to do things quite differently; parts of Intel are open (things like AHCI and Azalia do have docs) and others aren't. Seems there is no common policy...

    3. By Charles Hill (76.16.134.135) on

      > I was just going to order a new server based on a Intel chipset. Now I won't.
      >
      > Can anybody recommend a simple server with supported hardware and compliant companies. RAID is a must.
      >
      > Thanks.
      > Letter send to Intel.
      >
      > aki


      Why? Is your server setup going to use wireless? Or are you going to completely disregard the free and open software that Intel has provided in the past over this one issue? (I'm thinking of the recent video chipset announcement.)

      If it is "all or nothing" then you are going to have a hard time building a working server that meets your criteria.

      Charles

      1. By Anonymous Coward (64.231.234.94) on

        > If it is "all or nothing" then you are going to have a hard
        > time building a working server that meets your criteria.

        This is an important point that hasn't been addressed enough:
        the monopoly aspect. And it is one of the reasons why "Just
        boycott them" isn't a solution.

  11. By Intel Alum (24.215.249.143) on http://www.opensystemrelease.com/home

    I can understand Theo's complaint, but not his impatience. Intel is a large corporation (around 100,000 now). It should be of no suprise that there is no common approach to working with the community. Web sites such at http://www.opensystemrelease.com/ are an example of how Intel is experimenting with community collaboration. Be patient, Intel is always looking to improve and meet the needs of it's client base.*


    * As observed when I worked for Intel in the past.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (68.104.220.48) on

      > I can understand Theo's complaint, but not his impatience. Intel is a large corporation (around 100,000 now). It should be of no suprise that there is no common approach to working with the community. Web sites such at http://www.opensystemrelease.com/ are an example of how Intel is experimenting with community collaboration. Be patient, Intel is always looking to improve and meet the needs of it's client base.*
      >
      >
      > * As observed when I worked for Intel in the past.

      Thanks for tuning in, but you are late. The time for patience has past. Do you think this subject developed overnight? Patience was already excercised; Intel has proven themselves to be a vendor who will not produce enough docs and specs for a sane driver to be written, and they care nothing for their consumers' hardware investments except to get them to purchase new ones in the future. The project has already asked nicely. In return they get lies and excuses. Know that this is not the first time the game has been played. Intel the current in a long line of vendors who we are trying to get to see the advantages of opening docs in a realistic (not fake) way. Other vendors see that it is right and help out; Intel does not.

      And "somewhat free" and "kind of free" and "free under these narrow set of circumstances" are not free. "Experimenting with collaberation" is not enough. There are either usable docs, or there are not.

      DS

  12. By Ronaldst (69.70.250.21) on

    I have lost the little respect I had left for Theo. Asking for something you aren't entitled to isn't a right. Grow up!

    1. By Simon Dassow (213.128.132.194) janus (at) errornet (dot) de on http://janus.errornet.de

      > I have lost the little respect I had left for Theo. Asking for something you aren't entitled to isn't a right. Grow up!

      You've more lost the respect for yourself (assuming you're using hardware from the named vendor)
      as Theo is one of the persons standing up for YOU in this case!

      PLUS: Everyone who owns this vendors hardware without having a working driver is entitled to ask in my eyes.
      You just ask for something you've already paid for.

      Regards,
      Simon

      1. By Ronaldst (69.70.250.21) on

        >
        > You've more lost the respect for yourself (assuming you're using
        > hardware from the named vendor) as Theo is one of the persons standing
        > up for YOU in this case!

        Theo is not standing up for me. He isn't even standing up for the majority of PC users.

        BTW my Intel stuff runs fine.

        > PLUS: Everyone who owns this vendors hardware without having a working
        > driver is entitled to ask in my eyes. You just ask for something you've
        > already paid for.

        Bug fixed are delivered for Intel drivers. Intel's doing their part. They have delivered a working "Open Source" driver.

        Please get back into reality.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (82.231.136.192) on

          which open source driver ?

          Since the flames have already begun - you're stupid.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (69.70.250.21) on

            > which open source driver ?

            The video drivers. They even have a website only for those.

            > Since the flames have already begun - I am stupid.

            Fixed. :)

            1. By Anonymous Coward (81.51.170.207) on

              > > which open source driver ?
              >
              > The video drivers. They even have a website only for those.
              >
              > > Since the flames have already begun - I am stupid.
              >
              > Fixed. :)

              The article is about wireless drivers

              So - you two are stupid :))

    2. By Anonymous Coward (68.227.41.220) on

      > I have lost the little respect I had left for Theo. Asking for something you aren't entitled to isn't a right. Grow up!

      congratulations on not getting it, at all.

      1. By Ronaldst (69.70.250.21) on

        >
        > congratulations on not getting it, at all.

        Just because it doesn't come in the flavour you like doesn't mean it's not good. :)

        Welcome to reality.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on

          ti ti dee

        2. By Chris (24.76.100.162) on

          > >
          > > congratulations on not getting it, at all.
          >
          > Just because it doesn't come in the flavour you like doesn't mean it's not good. :)
          >
          > Welcome to reality.

          Uh, no, by *definition* if it doesn't come in the flavour I like it's not good.

    3. By niallo (82.195.149.9) on

      > I have lost the little respect I had left for Theo. Asking for something you aren't entitled to isn't a right. Grow up!

      Why aren't we entitled to distribute firmware for devices we pay for, so that they can be used without an annoying separate step to fetch and install the firmware? Why aren't we entitled to use the devices we pay for to do installs and upgrades, where the environment doesn't have the tools to fetch and install the firmware? Why aren't we entitled to documentation to make the device work properly, instead of having to spend vast amounts of time reverse-engineering it?

      Why are much smaller companies like Ralink Technologies perfectly happy to distribute their firmwares under the BSD license? Why are they perfectly happy to provide documentation to developers, so that drivers for their products work well?

      Companies like Ralink Technologies understand that having their devices work across as many platforms and operating systems as possible helps them make money. However, a company like Intel is more interested in playing obsessive games with "Intellectual Property" to pump their share prices than actually satisfying their customers.

      I'm rather glad that not everybody is so spineless and blind as you, sir.

      1. By Ronaldst (69.70.250.21) on

        > Why aren't we entitled to distribute firmware for devices we pay for,
        > so that they can be used without an annoying separate step to fetch
        > and install the firmware? Why aren't we entitled to use the devices
        > we pay for to do installs and upgrades, where the environment doesn't
        > have the tools to fetch and install the firmware? Why aren't we
        > entitled to documentation to make the device work properly, instead of
        > having to spend vast amounts of time reverse-engineering it?

        Because you don't own that documentation. It's simple. You nor anyone else can force Intel into anything.

        Here's a tip growups use: don't spit on the owners of the things you want and maybe, just maybe, the owners might give in and let you use them.

        > Why are much smaller companies like Ralink Technologies perfectly
        > happy to distribute their firmwares under the BSD license? Why are
        > they perfectly happy to provide documentation to developers, so that
        > drivers for their products work well?

        Because they want to. Will you vilify every company that doesn't do what you want? Might as well quit your job because this might take a while.

        > Companies like Ralink Technologies understand that having their
        > devices work across as many platforms and operating systems as
        > possible helps them make money. However, a company like Intel is more
        > interested in playing obsessive games with "Intellectual Property" to
        > pump their share prices than actually satisfying their customers.

        Intel looks out for Intel's best interests. Besides, Intel is a very good citizen in the "Open Source" world. Too bad you don't like Intel's "Open Source." Maybe trying to take a friendlier approach next time?

        > I'm rather glad that not everybody is so spineless and blind as you,
        > sir.

        I am saddened to see selfish people like you. But then you're just another narrowminded OSS fundie.

        1. By niallo (82.195.149.9) on

          > > Why aren't we entitled to distribute firmware for devices we pay for,
          > > so that they can be used without an annoying separate step to fetch
          > > and install the firmware? Why aren't we entitled to use the devices
          > > we pay for to do installs and upgrades, where the environment doesn't
          > > have the tools to fetch and install the firmware? Why aren't we
          > > entitled to documentation to make the device work properly, instead of
          > > having to spend vast amounts of time reverse-engineering it?
          >
          > Because you don't own that documentation. It's simple. You nor anyone else can force Intel into anything.

          But I own the device. I am entitled to use it. Other companies agree that I am entitled to use it. You seem to have the same attitude as Intel, which is "its ok to treat customers like shit". You're right - I can't force Intel into anything. However, I'm perfectly entitled to shout very loudly about something I don't like. You seem to think we should just shut up and stop making this noise, which is inconvenient for Intel and maybe, just maybe, makes them look a little bad. We probably won't make enough noise to make Intel change their ways, but at least we are trying to change things. Which is more than apparent corporate peons such as yourself can say.

          >
          > Here's a tip growups use: don't spit on the owners of the things you want and maybe, just maybe, the owners might give in and let you use them.

          No. Unless you kick up shit, and fight your corner, you will be stepped on. This is how it is in all aspects of life. To pretend otherwise is to be foolish in the extreme. But if you want to sit quietly in your little box and let people step on you, go right ahead.

          >
          > > Why are much smaller companies like Ralink Technologies perfectly
          > > happy to distribute their firmwares under the BSD license? Why are
          > > they perfectly happy to provide documentation to developers, so that
          > > drivers for their products work well?
          >
          > Because they want to. Will you vilify every company that doesn't do what you want? Might as well quit your job because this might take a while.

          I will stand up for what I consider I am entitled to as a customer. This has nothing to do with every company. Plenty of companies play along perfectly fine, and I support them and buy their hardware. LSI, QLogic, Ralink Technologies...the list goes on and on.

          Intel are refusing to play nice like everybody else, and I intend to at least try and make a difference here, however small and hopeless it may be ultimately.

          >
          > > Companies like Ralink Technologies understand that having their
          > > devices work across as many platforms and operating systems as
          > > possible helps them make money. However, a company like Intel is more
          > > interested in playing obsessive games with "Intellectual Property" to
          > > pump their share prices than actually satisfying their customers.
          >
          > Intel looks out for Intel's best interests. Besides, Intel is a very good citizen in the "Open Source" world. Too bad you don't like Intel's "Open Source." Maybe trying to take a friendlier approach next time?

          You just said that Intel looks out for Itel's best interests, why should I try to be their friend? Business is not about friendship, its about interests. You clearly have never been involved in business, where kicking up shit when you don't get what you want is a key to success. The private talk approach has been tried already, and failed. What have we got to lose by kicking up a stink? Nothing. We can only gain, and Intel can only gain by having their devices supported.

          > > I'm rather glad that not everybody is so spineless and blind as you,
          > > sir.
          >
          > I am saddened to see selfish people like you. But then you're just another narrowminded OSS fundie.

          It's a sad day when its considered "selfish" to expect a device I've paid for to work properly. By that same token, I suppose its "selfish" for me to expect car companies to install better safety features in their cars, or for industries to invest in technologies which produce less pollution. If that's the case my good man, colour me very selfish indeed.

          1. By Ronaldst (69.70.250.21) on

            >
            > But I own the device. I am entitled to use it. Other companies agree
            > that I am entitled to use it. You seem to have the same attitude as
            > Intel, which is "its ok to treat customers like shit". You're right -
            > I can't force Intel into anything. However, I'm perfectly entitled to
            > shout very loudly about something I don't like. You seem to think we
            > should just shut up and stop making this noise, which is inconvenient
            > for Intel and maybe, just maybe, makes them look a little bad. We
            > probably won't make enough noise to make Intel change their ways, but
            > at least we are trying to change things. Which is more than apparent
            > corporate peons such as yourself can say.

            Of course if you own the device, you're entitled to use it. Intel provided you, the user, with everything you need to use it with. Intel provides decent support for it's products. Now where do you get this Intel are treating customers like shit? Did Intel send you an email claiming you are a moron again like Theo does? Please stick with reality. I am not interested in hearing your emotional investment in OSS.

            Yes, you are perfectly entitled to shout your frustration. However YOU don't have the right to DEMAND things that were never offered to you. Stop behaving like a child and grow up.

            > No. Unless you kick up shit, and fight your corner, you will be
            > stepped on. This is how it is in all aspects of life. To pretend
            > otherwise is to be foolish in the extreme. But if you want to sit
            > quietly in your little box and let people step on you, go right ahead.

            Intel has "Open Source" drivers. You are blasting this out of proportion. No one is being stepped on. No one is fighting in their little corner. All this is in your head.

            > I will stand up for what I consider I am entitled to as a customer.
            > This has nothing to do with every company. Plenty of companies play
            > along perfectly fine, and I support them and buy their hardware. LSI,
            > QLogic, Ralink Technologies...the list goes on and on.
            >
            > Intel are refusing to play nice like everybody else, and I intend to
            > at least try and make a difference here, however small and hopeless it
            > may be ultimately.

            You aren't entitled to the specs. You didn't pay for the specs. End of story. Intel are playing nice, they offer "Open Source" drivers. It's just that they don't wanna do what you want them to do.

            > You just said that Intel looks out for Itel's best interests, why
            > should I try to be their friend? Business is not about friendship,
            > its about interests. You clearly have never been involved in
            > business, where kicking up shit when you don't get what you want is a
            > key to success. The private talk approach has been tried already, and
            > failed. What have we got to lose by kicking up a stink? Nothing. We
            > can only gain, and Intel can only gain by having their devices
            > supported.

            Why should you try to be their friend? Because you want something from Intel that you aren't entitled to. That's why. O_o

            The private talk approach failed and now you're asking what does OBSD have got to lose by kicking up a stink? Further damaging the little OBSD and Intel have in relationship comes to mind.

            > It's a sad day when its considered "selfish" to expect a device I've
            > paid for to work properly. By that same token, I suppose its
            > "selfish" for me to expect car companies to install better safety
            > features in their cars, or for industries to invest in technologies
            > which produce less pollution. If that's the case my good man, colour
            > me very selfish indeed.

            Your device works properly. What you want is to take that device and make it work in a fashion that the vendor doesn't want to offer. Grow up.

            1. By CODOR (67.158.73.139) on

              The fact that you keep putting "Open Source" in quotes speaks volumes on how "Open" Intel really is...

            2. By Anonymous Coward (82.195.149.9) on

              > >
              > > But I own the device. I am entitled to use it. Other companies agree
              > > that I am entitled to use it. You seem to have the same attitude as
              > > Intel, which is "its ok to treat customers like shit". You're right -
              > > I can't force Intel into anything. However, I'm perfectly entitled to
              > > shout very loudly about something I don't like. You seem to think we
              > > should just shut up and stop making this noise, which is inconvenient
              > > for Intel and maybe, just maybe, makes them look a little bad. We
              > > probably won't make enough noise to make Intel change their ways, but
              > > at least we are trying to change things. Which is more than apparent
              > > corporate peons such as yourself can say.
              >
              > Of course if you own the device, you're entitled to use it. Intel provided you, the user, with everything you need to use it with. Intel provides decent support for it's products. Now where do you get this Intel are treating customers like shit? Did Intel send you an email claiming you are a moron again like Theo does? Please stick with reality. I am not interested in hearing your emotional investment in OSS.

              How have they provided my with everything I need to use it? If anyone has provided me with what I need to use it, it would be Damien Bergamini, who reverse engineered the device and wrote the best driver he could. But certainly not Intel. You know, I'm not even asking them to write the device driver. I'm asking them to allow operating systems to freely distribute the firmwares, so that it can "just work" like every other piece of hardware supported by OpenBSD. Like the Ralink Technologies and Atmel wireless chips do. I'm also asking them to give documentation to the developers, so that a bug-free driver can be written, and their hardware can work for even more people.

              >
              > Yes, you are perfectly entitled to shout your frustration. However YOU don't have the right to DEMAND things that were never offered to you. Stop behaving like a child and grow up.
              >
              > > No. Unless you kick up shit, and fight your corner, you will be
              > > stepped on. This is how it is in all aspects of life. To pretend
              > > otherwise is to be foolish in the extreme. But if you want to sit
              > > quietly in your little box and let people step on you, go right ahead.
              >
              > Intel has "Open Source" drivers. You are blasting this out of proportion. No one is being stepped on. No one is fighting in their little corner. All this is in your head.

              You are exactly right here. Intel indeed has "Open Source" drivers. They do not have Open Source drivers. They have changed the definition of Open Source to something else entirely, which is why you have correctly used double quotes.

              >
              > > I will stand up for what I consider I am entitled to as a customer.
              > > This has nothing to do with every company. Plenty of companies play
              > > along perfectly fine, and I support them and buy their hardware. LSI,
              > > QLogic, Ralink Technologies...the list goes on and on.
              > >
              > > Intel are refusing to play nice like everybody else, and I intend to
              > > at least try and make a difference here, however small and hopeless it
              > > may be ultimately.
              >
              > You aren't entitled to the specs. You didn't pay for the specs. End of story. Intel are playing nice, they offer "Open Source" drivers. It's just that they don't wanna do what you want them to do.

              Again, I agree with you entirely. Intel have changed the definition of Open Source to something else, and provide drivers which do not work for me.

              >
              > > You just said that Intel looks out for Itel's best interests, why
              > > should I try to be their friend? Business is not about friendship,
              > > its about interests. You clearly have never been involved in
              > > business, where kicking up shit when you don't get what you want is a
              > > key to success. The private talk approach has been tried already, and
              > > failed. What have we got to lose by kicking up a stink? Nothing. We
              > > can only gain, and Intel can only gain by having their devices
              > > supported.
              >
              > Why should you try to be their friend? Because you want something from Intel that you aren't entitled to. That's why. O_o
              >
              > The private talk approach failed and now you're asking what does OBSD have got to lose by kicking up a stink? Further damaging the little OBSD and Intel have in relationship comes to mind.

              I think you are greatly over estimating what "relationship" exists between the OpenBSD project and Intel. As Theo stated, there is nothing to lose. I understand that you don't like a fuss being kicked up. All this noise really upsets you. It would be much more comfortable for you if we all just gave up. Maybe because you work for Intel and this makes you look bad or something. Or maybe you're just into licking corporate boots like a good "grown up" should. OpenBSD doesn't work for Intel though, and its OK to kick up a fuss. We aren't afraid to complain.

              > > It's a sad day when its considered "selfish" to expect a device I've
              > > paid for to work properly. By that same token, I suppose its
              > > "selfish" for me to expect car companies to install better safety
              > > features in their cars, or for industries to invest in technologies
              > > which produce less pollution. If that's the case my good man, colour
              > > me very selfish indeed.
              >
              > Your device works properly. What you want is to take that device and make it work in a fashion that the vendor doesn't want to offer. Grow up.

              You're right again! What I want is for the device to work for me. Which it doesn't, and Intel don't want it to work for me either. Even though I've paid them money for it. I didn't realise that part of being a grown up was quietly accepting crap that doesn't work from vendors, I guess it must be a cultural thing. Where I come from, if something doesn't work the way its supposed to, you complain. Things must be different on your planet.

            3. By gordon willem klok (24.57.96.182) gklok@cogeco.ca on

              If someone says that they will do something in public for the benefit of the audience (co-operate with opensource developers/projects) and later does something completely different in private, their deceit needs to be exposed. What do you expect people to do when they have been lied too? Outrage is a perfectly reasonable reaction, DEMANDING that they rectify
              the behaviour that is inconsistant with their public statements or that they publically own up to the fact that they were making disengenious statements seems perfectly fair to me.

              The "Open Source" linux drivers for the IntelŪ PRO/Wireless 3945ABG network adapters require a binary only userspace daemon, how is that
              opensource ? Where is the documentation so a proper driver can be written?

              They wont license the firmware under terms of distribution that could possibly be considered acceptable for an Open Source project, how is that working with the community ?

        2. By Chris (24.76.100.162) on

          > > Why aren't we entitled to distribute firmware for devices we pay for,
          > > so that they can be used without an annoying separate step to fetch
          > > and install the firmware? Why aren't we entitled to use the devices
          > > we pay for to do installs and upgrades, where the environment doesn't
          > > have the tools to fetch and install the firmware? Why aren't we
          > > entitled to documentation to make the device work properly, instead of
          > > having to spend vast amounts of time reverse-engineering it?
          >
          > Because you don't own that documentation. It's simple. You nor anyone else can force Intel into anything.
          >
          > Here's a tip growups use: don't spit on the owners of the things you want and maybe, just maybe, the owners might give in and let you use them.

          Here is another tip for you, for when you're a grownup. Being quiet and nice only gets you as far as people indulge you. If you want to make something happen despite someone else's objections or complacency, you have to prepared to make some noise and put up with whiners who say "that's not polite!".

          That's how the world is. Why blame the people who make noise instead of the people who invariably fail to respond to polite requests?

          > > Why are much smaller companies like Ralink Technologies perfectly
          > > happy to distribute their firmwares under the BSD license? Why are
          > > they perfectly happy to provide documentation to developers, so that
          > > drivers for their products work well?
          >
          > Because they want to. Will you vilify every company that doesn't do what you want? Might as well quit your job because this might take a while.

          Ah yes, make it seem like OpenBSD and customers want something bizarre and arbitrary. "Vilify every company that doesn't do what we want"? What are we asking for here, a free pony with every hardware purchase?

          > > Companies like Ralink Technologies understand that having their
          > > devices work across as many platforms and operating systems as
          > > possible helps them make money. However, a company like Intel is more
          > > interested in playing obsessive games with "Intellectual Property" to
          > > pump their share prices than actually satisfying their customers.
          >
          > Intel looks out for Intel's best interests. Besides, Intel is a very good citizen in the "Open Source" world. Too bad you don't like Intel's "Open Source." Maybe trying to take a friendlier approach next time?

          Learn a little history. OpenBSD *always* starts out playing nice. It's only after months of run-around or BS that they make an appeal like this to the community. Contrary to what all you complainers seem to think, this kind of thing works out quite well.

          > > I'm rather glad that not everybody is so spineless and blind as you,
          > > sir.
          >
          > I am saddened to see selfish people like you. But then you're just another narrowminded OSS fundie.

          What horrible times we live in, where uppity users want to run the hardware they buy with the operating system they prefer. Asking for distribution rights to binary firmware and useful technical documentation in exchange for business is truly a sick, selfish thing.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (203.65.245.80) on

          "Besides, Intel is a very good citizen in the "Open Source" world."

          No they're not and that's the gist of the issue. Noone can force Intel to release anything and they aren't obliged to release anything

          BUT

          if you say one thing and do another you're a two-faced asshole and that is what Intel, or at least the NIC division, is doing.

          Do you people who whine so much about Theo's attitude really think he just woke up this morning and decided "hey, I'll just slag Intel out of the blue today"?
          These issues has been going on for a LONG time and NOTHING has happened from Intels side. Sure, try the nice approach, compromise blah blah blah, but there is a point at which you realize that the nice approach isn't working.

        4. By Anonymous Coward (203.65.245.80) on

          > Because you don't own that documentation. It's simple. You nor anyone else can force Intel into anything.

          Of course not but that doesnt mean we shouldnt ask for it.

          >
          "Here's a tip growups use: don't spit on the owners of the things you want and maybe, just maybe, the owners might give in and let you use them."

          Yes, never question big business. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
          If you ask politely over and over again and the only result is being ignored what do you do? That's right, you get pissed off.

          "Intel looks out for Intel's best interests."

          And thats exactly why we shouldnt trust them or be stupidly patient.

          "Besides, Intel is a very good citizen in the "Open Source" world."

          No they're not. They say one thing and do another. That's being a two-faced asshole in anyone's book and why should we tolerate such behaviour?

          "Maybe trying to take a friendlier approach next time?"

          Right, because we didnt already try that. Oh wait, we did but you wouldnt know anything about that since you havent followed the issue and you're just interested in whining about Theo's "attitude".

          "But then you're just another narrowminded OSS fundie."

          Namecalling is so mature.

    4. By Lars Hansson (203.65.245.80) on

      "Asking for something you aren't entitled to isn't a right."

      Sure it is, he all the right to *ask* for it but of course Intel isn't obliged to give it. Theere are no law against being two-faced bastards.
      That doesnt mean Theo, and others, shouldnt ask for it though.

      "Grow up!"

      Says the person how goes out of his way to troll on a site for an OS he isn't using.



  13. By Kenneth J. Hendrickson (72.40.155.167) on

    Dear Majid,

    It has recently come to my attention that the OpenBSD project still does not have the information they require to fully support Intel wireless chipsets. Please provide this information, and also release any required firmware with a license acceptable to the OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD projects.

    Let me explain my position further.

    When I buy hardware, I have also implicitly bought the right to use that hardware. Use of any hardware requires knowledge of how to interface with that hardware. Each interface must be fully documented. If any interface is not fully documented, then usability is compromised. I have paid for full usability, and that is what I want. If Intel won't provide it, I'll buy from your competitors who will.

    Please note that my position --- that interfaces be fully documented --- still allows for trade secrets and proprietary code. But those trade secrets and proprietary code must be embedded in firmware! If you try to protect your trade secrets by either failing to fully document an interface, or maliciously refusing to do so, you have hampered usability. That is unacceptable. Keep your secrets in the firmware. Fully document all interfaces. And I'll be a happy customer. And a repeat customer. But if any interface is not fully documented, you have failed in your implicit contractual obligation when you sold me the hardware. I don't like it when contracts, implicit or explicit, are violated by parties I have done business with, and I tend not to do business with them again.

    So please, follow up on this matter. Fully publish all interfaces to all of your hardware. If firmware is required to be downloaded into a device, make it freely available and freely distributable. (Freely available is not good enough; freely distributable is also required. Consider the extra pain and hassle a user of OpenBSD would have to go through if your wireless ethernet chip could not be supported directly from the OpenBSD CD, boot floppy, and/or website.)

    I'll be watching, and waiting. Please don't make me wait too long. I may buy next from your competitors.

    Sincerely,
    Kenneth J. Hendrickson

  14. By Anonymous Coward (68.104.220.48) on

    The comments on this article have been absolutely staggering. Never did I expect to see so many self-proclaimed open source advocates stepping up to defend a vendor's "rights" to not provide the proper support to their own user base in the way that so many have here. Is the rest of the open source world so braindead as to not realize that any win for OpenBSD produces a BSD-licensed driver source that can be ported to other platforms freely, without legal bindings and headache? That if firmware distribution is opened up that it is opened up for everyone, and everyone wins?

    For the record: no one is asking Intel to provide source code for drivers; no one wants Intel source code. History shows that vendor-produced source code is crap and that the community can write better code in a heartbeat. The subject is twofold; the OpenBSD project wants Intel to provide the same thing they want every vendor to provide, and the same thing that many vendors *do* provide: firmware distribution rights (it can even be binary blobs), and some sane documentation from which reliable drivers can be written. The same kind that Intel developers would have access to in order to write similar drivers. Intel doesn't have to give away trade secrets, either. Those can be kept in the binary firmware blobs. But they really should consider that a large portion of the user base consists of those who run an open source operating system and don't feel like having rights stripped from them in order to access firmware _to make devices they have purchased function correctly._

    Yes, everyone understands that if you don't like Intel's policies, boycott them and don't buy their crap. Well, that's already started happening. As evidenced already, many users have blacklisted Intel and will now purchase networking gear from competitors who choose to carry out business with the F/OSS market sector in a much more open manner. What makes it a bit difficult is those who have already invested in Intel gear - and paid the premium for it, I might add - or have purchased an otherwise functional and good system that happens to ship with Intel wireless chips. That decision has been made for them; is it fair to ask them to spend another $50-$100 dollars after the purchase to acquire yet another (non-Intel) card?

    Maybe an example would help. Who would buy a proprietary computer platform intending to do development for it without receiving enough documentation from the vendor describing how to write code that will run on it? The basic amount of documentation to support the purchase and get true value from it is all that is wanted. Similarly, who would buy a snazzy new programmable remote control without getting the instruction book to go with it to tell the user how to program it? I can say most users would be pretty upset if after purchasing the remote they had to go through more headache to be able to use it, or were told by the manufacturer that the only thing they got was the remote and they were on their own for figuring it out.

    The secondary point is that Intel portrays to the world that they are "open" and support open source software. Their slides say this, but their actions say other things. They produce just enough to give the world the flavor of being open, without really being open - otherwise no one would have to jump through the hoops they have to in order to get firmware, and everyone would be able to author reliable, stable, working drivers.

    DS

    1. By Noryungi (194.117.219.2) n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m on

      Quote: << Yes, everyone understands that if you don't like Intel's policies, boycott them and don't buy their crap. Well, that's already started happening. As evidenced already, many users have blacklisted Intel and will now purchase networking gear from competitors who choose to carry out business with the F/OSS market sector in a much more open manner. >>

      I have posted this before on kerneltrap.org, but, in the real world, where people have to work for living, you can't always make that kind of decision: the bean counters are going to make a decision for you. And the bean counters don't give a crap if it's Intel or not, as long as they can get a good price on it.

      Case in point: I am working right now for a very very large company. This company has an agreement with another very very large computer maker (No, not IBM). Whenever we buy a new server, or any kind of network equipment, we have to go through this other big company. Why? Because that company is our official supplier, that's why!

      Can you guess which CPU they use? Yup, Intel. So I don't get to choose the kind of CPU -- or even the kind of hardware -- that goes into the racks: this other company gets to decide what goes in the servers. I have a (schweet) 1U server next to me right now, with a cute little sticker on it that says "Intel Pentium D Inside".

      And guess what? I don't even get to choose the kind of OS that will get installed on that machine either! Instead of OpenBSD, I have to use SuSE Linux. And I am not complaining: it could be Microsoft Windows.

      That's how things work in the real world, baby. AMD? You mean you don't want to use Intel because they won't play nice? I don't think so. Sorry. Here is your brand-spanking-new Intel server, by the way. Doesn't work with OpenBSD? I don't care: make it work with something that's supported by our supplier, instead of playing with hippie OS. And I am serious: this is the kind of crap I have to put up with.

      That's why Intel has to play nice, BUT...: That's also why getting Intel to play nice will be so difficult: they know they have cornered a big part of the market. Many of us can't just switch suppliers at the drop of a hat.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.104) on

        You said it, brother. I have to put up with that kind of crap all the time. But here's one story where our side (the engineers) actually won.

        Up until very recently, we were an Intel Shop when it came to servers. We have one supplier of x86 hardware. That recent break was my doing; I insisted on a 64-bit server to run our network monitoring system, and I chose a quad-core AMD Opteron box. It is the fastest box currently in our data centre, and it's great.

        OK, now I had to choose an OS. Our standard OS for all servers is MS Windows Server, and no, it's not at all my choice. Due to a lot of underground work from me and a few other people, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is now "tolerated" in our data centre...but only RHEL, not yet SuSE, Debian, or OpenBSD. Naturally, I didn't want to use MS Windows. So, with some help, I spec'd a network monitoring app that doesn't run on it. :-) With the help of one of our contractors, the president of which is a Ph.D in computer science (and thus "titled", therefore "authoritative" in mgmt's eyes), we chose a Free Software application called Nagios. Yes, it runs on RHEL (and OpenBSD), but no, it does *not* run on MS Windows. Awww...wotta shame....

        The alternative would've been HP OpenView Network Node Manager possibly running on either Windows Server or Solaris, at considerably greater expense. Neither of those options was palatable for me; I wanted a Free Software solution. I chose GNU/Linux because of the 2.6 kernel's excellent multi-core support; to my knowledge, OpenBSD doesn't (yet) scale to multiple cores the way the kernel Linux does, but if it did, I might well have put OpenBSD on it and just said "oh, it's the latest Linux." Since I'm the sysadmin of this box, I get a bit more unofficial flexibility that way. Of the GNU/Linux distros, I chose specifically RHEL because that was politically the only way I was going to get a Free Software solution into our data centre. Well, I got that, so I consider this a victory.

        You win the war one battle at a time. And you have to win many battles to do so.

  15. By Cristiano Rosencreutz (84.222.111.112) aephirot@inwind.it on http://rosencreutz.blogspot.com

    well, i have a proposal for the wole opensource community:
    stop develop on x86 platform.
    use altrnative and open hrdware reference like the pegasos open desktop (powerpc based), for example (but also sparc and mips).
    and always prefer and "promote" hw with opensource support from producers.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (217.5.208.3) on

      > use altrnative and open hrdware reference like the pegasos open desktop (powerpc based), for example (but also sparc and mips).

      wakeup dumbass. pegasos are even bigger assholes.
      read your history. do not suggest to repeat it.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (64.84.47.159) on

      Please pardon the response above; the person has emotional problems.

      There was an attempt at a Pegasos port, but things went poorly. Go to http://www.google.com/bsd and search for "Pegasos" and read the full story.

      1. By Nate (65.94.96.99) on

        > Please pardon the response above; the person has emotional problems.
        >
        > There was an attempt at a Pegasos port, but things went poorly. Go to http://www.google.com/bsd and search for "Pegasos" and read the full story.

        Not emotional problems, a brain, just because someone doesn't put up with idiots coming around with obviously stupid ideas doesn't mean they are unstable, it means they don't like idiots.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      > well, i have a proposal for the wole opensource community:
      > stop develop on x86 platform.

      I would like to see anyone succeed in moving ~90% of the worlds computer users away from x86

  16. By uv (201.245.46.101) on

    I decide buy AMD for this reason, and its 64 bits, not emu64intel. Look the sales in USA AMD vs INTEL. Intel go to trash.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (216.239.132.34) on

      > I decide buy AMD for this reason, and its 64 bits, not emu64intel. Look the sales in USA AMD vs INTEL. Intel go to trash.

      Unfortunately the situation for AMD chipsets is not much better, since they typically use Broadcom and NVIDIA. These vendors are almost as bad as Intel.

      In other words, the situation is becoming bad for ALL vendors, and that is why we must fight rather than just "switch to vendor XYZ".

      1. By Anonymous Coward (68.167.146.78) on

        > > I decide buy AMD for this reason, and its 64 bits, not emu64intel. Look the sales in USA AMD vs INTEL. Intel go to trash.
        >
        > Unfortunately the situation for AMD chipsets is not much better, since they typically use Broadcom and NVIDIA. These vendors are almost as bad as Intel.
        >
        > In other words, the situation is becoming bad for ALL vendors, and that is why we must fight rather than just "switch to vendor XYZ".
        >
        >


        That is even now true for Tyan, who had previously used AMD chipsets (AMD has been pretty friendly to Free Software). Tyan, too, now uses nVidious and Broadcom motherboard chipsets, so I can't buy from them now. Ah well...looks like I'm sticking with what I've got; it's way faster than I really need anyway. :-)

  17. By Anonymous Coward (76.3.196.122) on

    Guess what google returns on Open Source Fraud query? :)

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]