Re: [forum] Re: "Drivers? We don't need no stinking..."

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:10:21PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:43:15AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: 
> > There is actually a really good reason for this. The hardware vendors 
> > like ATI listened to the Open Source community and made a genuine attempt 
> > at fitting into the Open Source model. The paid to have Open Source 
> > drivers developed for the Linux platform (full 3D drivers, not just 2D 
> > ones) and has the full source code released to the community. They also 
> > made the specs for that generation of hardware available for the Open 
> > Source community as well.
[...]

> If that is really how ATI viewed the situation, someone very misguided
> must have set their expectations.
> 
> These were the wrong reasons to do open source drivers, and completely
> broken expectations for what would happen when open sourcing a
> codebase. You don't just throw out some code and then it's magically
> developed for you. It does not work that way.

Yes and no.

If a vendor does not have time to maintain their driver and listen to
feedback, I fully support a "drop and run" deployment of code and docs.
At least another interested developer can come along and make fixes if
they wish, or become the maintainer of the open source ATI work.

It is _preferred_ that a vendor be the maintainer, but not required.
I'll take "code and docs but that's it" over "nothing" any day.

	Jeff