3 ms·

The problem is, this sends bad message to users. I (the end-user) get a device with a blob that looks like a Linux (the kernel). I don't get any freedoms (but

The problem is, this sends bad message to users. I (the end-user) get a device with a blob that looks like a Linux (the kernel). I don't get any freedoms (but to whine to vendor). And I get a message from the very head of kernel developers that they aren't interested in me having anything. Now, it's also true most users don't give a damn about their freedoms. And those who do are such a tiny minority they can be just ignored - unlike the valuable corporate partners.

karma_vaccum123 10y ago
The vendor isn't obliged to make their device hackable even if they do publish the source. Some do, and that's neat, but in most cases, access to the source might, at best, only result in the next iteration of device having some change in a year's time. Your little box will continue to make you unhappy. You should just get a refund. The kernel developers aren't on the hook at all here. No one told you to buy a specific device.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Oh, thanks, of course you're right. Except for devices that are hackable in practice, but aren't much so because of this heartwarming attitude. It's not unusual that someone had managed to build the kernel that boots (and even works well) but doesn't know how to interface some hardware. E.g. a hardware NAT engine of a SOHO router, so FLOSS firmwares have to NAT in software. Or some sensor on a phone. The secret is in the kernel and that kernel's source's supposed to be available but it isn't.
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    The GPLv2 has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA for a product. Your beef is with device vendors, not Linus.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      Here, we don't talk about the product itself, as a whole. We talk about its kernel. Sure thing, if I don't have access to the kernel, then it's all irrelevant. We only consider the cases when the device is actually hackable (despite whatever its vendor says).

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

The vendor isn't obliged to make their device hackable even if they do publish the source. Some do, and that's neat, but in most cases, access to the source might, at best, only result in the next iteration of device having some change in a year's time. Your little box will continue to make you unhappy. You should just get a refund. The kernel developers aren't on the hook at all here. No one told you to buy a specific device.

drdaeman 10y ago
Oh, thanks, of course you're right. Except for devices that are hackable in practice, but aren't much so because of this heartwarming attitude. It's not unusual that someone had managed to build the kernel that boots (and even works well) but doesn't know how to interface some hardware. E.g. a hardware NAT engine of a SOHO router, so FLOSS firmwares have to NAT in software. Or some sensor on a phone. The secret is in the kernel and that kernel's source's supposed to be available but it isn't.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  The GPLv2 has absolutely nothing to do with the EULA for a product. Your beef is with device vendors, not Linus.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Here, we don't talk about the product itself, as a whole. We talk about its kernel. Sure thing, if I don't have access to the kernel, then it's all irrelevant. We only consider the cases when the device is actually hackable (despite whatever its vendor says).