3 ms·

This is a good example of one of the dangers and failure points of open source. When hardware integration matters, you're going to have sub-par results if you d

This is a good example of one of the dangers and failure points of open source. When hardware integration matters, you're going to have sub-par results if you don't have a strong relationship with the hardware manufacturers. The best firmware is from companies that control both the software and the hardware. Linux fundamentally cannot have this relationship. Some things need to be very specifically controlled and designed, with business interests driving progress. Open source doesn't help much with this. Trying to build a system that works fluidly with the larger audience, when the audience is independent corporations, is for better or worse a nightmare.

slgeorge 11y ago
I think you're trying to say that: a. Graphics requires software and hardware to be integrated b. Open Source communities don't work where you are driving designs in software and hardware - they are uncoordinated I can't comment on (a). In terms of (b) you might be right for the idea of "hackers at night" open source. But, a lot of open source is 'professional', so a graphics company could solve this by: 1. Graphics companies provide hardware and information under NDA to specific Open Source developers. That gets you enablement but not necessarily a "design" as you can't direct their work. 2. The hardware companies hire Open Source developers. That way you have either all, or a big chunk of a specific area of the developers. As employees they will work together on the companies priorities. 3. The hardware companies set-up a foundation. Then the foundation co-ordinates and works on the priorities of the members. There are sub-groups of the Linux Foundation that work like this - for ARM Linaro is an example. There's a meta-comment that talks about the economics of this area - that's a more significant challenge than the organisational ones.

slgeorge 11y ago

I think you're trying to say that: a. Graphics requires software and hardware to be integrated b. Open Source communities don't work where you are driving designs in software and hardware - they are uncoordinated I can't comment on (a). In terms of (b) you might be right for the idea of "hackers at night" open source. But, a lot of open source is 'professional', so a graphics company could solve this by: 1. Graphics companies provide hardware and information under NDA to specific Open Source developers. That gets you enablement but not necessarily a "design" as you can't direct their work. 2. The hardware companies hire Open Source developers. That way you have either all, or a big chunk of a specific area of the developers. As employees they will work together on the companies priorities. 3. The hardware companies set-up a foundation. Then the foundation co-ordinates and works on the priorities of the members. There are sub-groups of the Linux Foundation that work like this - for ARM Linaro is an example. There's a meta-comment that talks about the economics of this area - that's a more significant challenge than the organisational ones.