Is Microsoft stalling on its GPL Linux drivers?
Summary: After releasing with much fanfare 20,000 lines of driver code under the GNU General Public License (GPL) for inclusion in the Linux kernel, Microsoft hasn't followed through with the necessary updates and fixes required by the community, according to one Linux leader.
After releasing with much fanfare 20,000 lines of driver code under the GNU General Public License (GPL) for inclusion in the Linux kernel, Microsoft hasn't followed through with the necessary updates and fixes required by the community, according to one Linux leader.
Greg Kroah-Hartman, a Novell fellow with SuSE Labs and Linux Driver Project lead, posted on September 9 a status update on the drivers being assembled for inclusion in the Linux 2.6.32 kernel, Kroah-Hartman had some harsh words about Microsoft's participation since its original announcement of its GPL plans in late July.
Kroah-Hartman chided a number of driver-code contributors for not doing the necessary work to get their code in shape. But he singled Microsoft out with the following words:
"hv (Microsoft Hyper-V) drivers. Over 200 patches make up the massive cleanup effort needed to just get this code into a semi-sane kernel coding style (someone owes me a bit bottle of rum for that work!) Unfortunately the Microsoft developers seem to have disappeared, and no one is answering my emails. If they do not show back up to claim this driver soon, it will be removed in the 2.6.33 release. So sad..."
(Kroah-Hartman also is the guy who belatedly called into question Microsoft's motives for releasing the driver code under the GPL by seemingly backing one open-source community member's claim that Microsoft was in violation of the GPL by mixing and matching open- and closed-source code. Some in the open-source community consider that kind of behavior as a violation and others don't.)
I asked a Microsoft spokesperson whether Microsoft had had second thoughts about making its Hyper-V code available under the GPL. The spokesperson denied that was the case and said the primary person responsible for the Hyper-V drivers had been traveling in Europe for the past two weeks "meeting with various OSS (open-source software) constituencies and customers."
I wonder if and when Kroah-Hartman will update his driver-status log....
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Can't we all just get along?
He has no right to be upset
And if he removes MS code from the kernel, so what? The beauty of open source and Linux is that you don't need permission from anyone other than the end user to get your code on their machines. If MS's code is useful, businesses [b]will[/b] add it to their Linux implementations and Greg Kroah-Hartman can go to hell.
A little harsh on the reply there
Not upset. Philosophical maybe.
Tennessee
Open Source community, it was being submitted for inclusion in the
kernel. Submissions are reviewed and frequently are not accepted for
style, suitability, or correctness. As to who does not get respect look
up the histories of the Linux virtual machine and scheduler. OpenBSD
(albeit different code tree and personalities) came about because a
particular developer felt he was not getting sufficient respect and was
tossed from FreeBSD when the others got tired of the noise.
If the reviewer finds the code unsuitable for inclusion with the kernel,
it's very difficult for me to imagine an independent party wanting to
download the code, study it, and then adapt and compile the code to
roll their own kernel. Possible. Not likely. Still, you're right, the
possibility is a consequence of code freedom.
In any case, the reviewer has comments for the code's author and the
code's author has been too busy to address them. When they are
addressed, the code will get into the next kernel.
For your life experience and to understand how it works and how it
fails, you should organize a volunteer effort and then you'll have a real
appreciation for looking the gift horses in the mouth.
*sigh*
Ergo, it's essential that when bugs are found that they are dealt with far more seriously and quickly than one might if the code was in the application space.
M$ must be investigating for deceiving OSS
Give it a rest..
I will not rest...
A correction
The final statement in this paragraph is not relevant. It doesn't matter what anyone in the open source community considers. The GPL V2 is quite clear on what mixing is and isn't allowed, and what the distribution requirements are for mixed code (with the exception of web applications, which is not applicable here). In any cae, if you want to distribute code under the GPL you have to comply with the distribution requirements, or not distribute at all. Microsoft was not observing the distribution requirements.
Hans
And thus MS's plot to sabotage Linux with crappy MS code is foiled!
There is a Fox (Microsoft) trying again to get into
A parallel
Here, we have a developer that says, in essence, that the code MS contributed grudgingly is not good enough to be distributed with the kernel, because a bunch of patches are required to make it fit in. In the Windows world it would mean a refusal to give a WHQL signature to the driver, asking for further work on it.
Who makes a driver WHQL compliant? Microsoft? Hell no! It's the code's developer or submitter that needs to correct it!
Well here, the situation is reversed: Microsoft submitted some piss-poor code, that didn't pass quality review (because of one defect every 100 lines) and... They're not correcting it.
Who should be blamed? The Linux developers for not maintaining crappy code that they were thrown, or Microsoft, for not supporting its customers by providing sucky drivers?
Remember why Microsoft broke driver APIs and forced WHQL upon driver writers? Because they were fed up with Windows crashing because of someone else's code. Should Linux maintain a lower standard?
Want some cheese with that whine?
what do you expect from the bunch of .... at ms
Time will tell ...
Ballmer Calls Linux "A Cancer"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/01/1658258
davidebsmith writes: "In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says that Linux and the open source movement is "good competition" because it will "force [Microsoft] to be innovative," but calls Linux "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." He also says that the inclusion of IE in Windows has been "great ... for innovation in the software industry" (except for Netscape) and that MS's new copy protections are just "bumps in the road" to "help customers understand when they are crossing the line . . . so they can't do the wrong thing." And he says a few more amusing things, also."
(An excuse for WGA)
RE: Is Microsoft stalling on its GPL Linux drivers?
http://www.wctube.com/
http://www.cameporn.com/
http://www.escortbayan9.com/
tamam
RE: Is Microsoft stalling on its GPL Linux drivers?
Many people don't understand how incredibly <a title="3d oyun,3d oyunlar" target="_blank" href="http://www.game.gen.tr/kat-5-3d-oyunlar.html">3d oyunlar</a> widespread issue #3 is above and how difficult this issue is to resolve when you're talking about an application that is mission critical to a business. <a title="avatar oyunlar" target="_blank" href="http://www.game.gen.tr/kategori-4-33-Avatar_Oyunlari.html">avatar oyunlar</a> This is the singel greatest reason companies look at the issue and say, "Screw it. We'll live with the risk and run an N-3 version of the browser
RE: Is Microsoft stalling on its GPL Linux drivers?