7 ms·

Android putting graphics drivers outside the kernel and not under the GPL has created enough of a disaster. I don't look forward to the day when everyone is run

by swiley 6y ago

Android putting graphics drivers outside the kernel and not under the GPL has created enough of a disaster. I don't look forward to the day when everyone is running a kernel that doesn't force SoC manufactures to share even the most basic drivers.

marcodiego 6y ago
Android has been a mostly positive thing for linux, but it could be much more if so google desired. Google had the influence and power position to force many important drivers to become blob-free or open source (GPU, VPU, GSM modems, wifi, bluetooth), but it looks like they just didn't care.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Android has been one of the most negative contributors to general computing. We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. I'd love to update my still-decent Android phones that have long since stopped receiving security updates, but I can't. This is objectively inferior, a massive regression from general computing.
  - znpy 6y ago
    > We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. > I'd love to update my still-decent Android phones that have long since stopped receiving security updates, but I can't. This is objectively inferior, a massive regression from general computing. this is one of the smelliest BS i've read on hn in the last year or two. phones before android were not upgradable AT ALL. if you were lucky, you could put a bigger memory card, and that was it. nowadays you can access most of the sources of the os for your average android smartphone, you can rebuild the os and reflash it yourself. doing such thigs was a basically just wet dream in early 2000s.
    - edent 6y ago
      Err... The Nokia N series received frequent updates before Android ever came along. Blackberry constantly updated its OS. Sure, some carriers restricted updates - but that's still a problem Android faces.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        The Nokia N900 got its last official update in November 2010, if I recall correctly. It had only been launched a year and a half before. Yes, there was then a community effort to improve some of the userspace, but the device was eternally stuck on a 2.6 kernel due to blobs. I loved my N900, but let's not pretend Nokia made their hardware future-proof.
        swiley 6y ago
        PostmarketOS still runs on it.
      - magikaram 6y ago
        All the more reason to choose an unlocked phone over a carrier locked device.
        marcodiego 6y ago
        An unlocked phone is as locked as a non-unlocked one if it depends on proprietary drivers of blobs.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      > phones before android were not upgradable AT ALL. They weren't general computing devices. They were for making phone calls, sending SMS messages, and tracking contacts. The security risk profile did not include access to social media accounts and/or online banking. For many folks, and a growing many folks, their phones are now their primary computing devices. For many folks, their primary computing devices no longer receive security updates. > you can rebuild the os and reflash it yourself. Tell me how I do that if I cannot root the phone.
  - est31 6y ago
    > We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. And who enabled that? Not everyone wants to admit it, but it was IBM together with Microsoft which made this possible. This openness was thanks to a proprietary vendor wanting to make one operating system that ran on a wide variety of hardware. The chaos of the embedded world is Linux's doing.
    - morsch 6y ago
      IBM was as surprised by the "open platform" IBM PC as everybody else. They tried to fix that mistake with PS/2, but it was too late. https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-1/ https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-1/ https://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/ https://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/
- swiley 6y ago
  It had the opportunity to be a positive thing for Linux but I would argue it really hasn't been. Your comment makes a good point: Google had the power to fix a lot of this but didn't.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Do they seem like caring otherwise?
- dathinab 6y ago
  > but it looks like they just didn't care. Which is the funny thing, given how much closed source drivers have hurt android as far as I can tell.
captainmuon 6y ago
It's not a problem in the Windows world that drivers are not open source. I think rather than forcing them to put the drivers under GPL, we should fix the fact that embedded systems always need custom images. On x86, you can just grab a Windows or Linux .iso and it will enumerate all hardware via PnP and install the appropriate drivers. This is something that is sorely missing in the Arm world. Instead you get semi-closed BSPs, source code thrown over the wall, and you have to write your own device-tree files and often kernel code to get something to run. SSBA is a start but only targeting the server market.
- dleslie 6y ago
  > It's not a problem in the Windows world that drivers are not open source. It absolutely is a problem. There is plenty of not-that-old hardware that will only work on previous versions of windows. There's also _mountains_ of _terrible_ binary drivers that cause serious stability concerns.
  - adambyrtek 6y ago
    Broken binary drivers was also one of the main causes of the "blue screen of death" which gave certain versions of Windows such a bad reputation.
- scaladev 6y ago
  Maybe it's not a problem for you if you upgrade your hardware frequently (and don't care that it stops working on newer versions of Windows because the vendor couldn't give a shit about keeping the driver up to date), and buy exclusively high quality (and high price) parts. I had enough fun with Realtek / GPU drivers (from all three major vendors) on Windows to hate the very concept of a proprietary driver to the end of my life. The very same hardware somehow works perfectly fine on Linux. No kernel panics (not a single one in 12+ years of running it on Realtek crap), no intermittent connectivity problems, no weird GPU bugs, nothing of the sort.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    My netbook still has working drivers for Windows 10 with DX11 and GL 4.1 support, whereas the super cool open source AMD driver doesn't offer anything better than GL 3.3 with hardware video decoding that kind of works on full moons.
spijdar 6y ago
We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere. Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it. Others ship minimal shims in the kernel, and put the proprietary bits in userland code or some such. This seems to be more common, where vendors will technically release their kernel fork, but the code will be obfuscated or just generally useless without the proprietary blob that goes with it. I'd much rather the kernel just have a stable ABI so these kernels could at least be freely updated instead of being stuck with the hacked together fork with its proprietary shims.
- bscphil 6y ago
  > We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere. Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it. Sometimes I wonder if Linus could go back and do it over, if he would license Linux under the BSD license instead of GPL. He's never seemed like a particular stickler for free software ideology, and has welcomed connections between Linux and industry. I don't know that it bothers him that much to see Linux used in proprietary software. Not trying to start a flame war over licenses here, just speculating. And maybe this could be easily refuted by a link to one of his email rants, who knows.
  - ByTheBook 6y ago
    His own words: "I love the GPL and see it as a defining factor in the success of Linux" So I very much doubt he would license it under BSD or similar. Having said that, he has also stated that he is glad he stuck to GPLv2, as he is not a proponent of the TIVO clause, IIRC his words were something to the effect of 'I just want the code contributed back to the kernel'.
    - jsmith45 6y ago
      My own impression has been that he does not really care one way or the other about tivoization. If that clause had been present in the GPL since the beginning, it would not have stopped him from using it. However, he sees things like adding it as being a pretty significant change to the GPL, and does not like the fundamentally changing the deal. If GPL v3 consisted only of wording clarifications to ensure it worked properly in more regions and perhaps to allow apache license compatibility, he would presumably have had no objections, but of course, would be unlikely to have been able to relicense the kernel, given the kernel's numerous contributors and lack of "or later version" clause.

by swiley 6y ago

marcodiego 6y ago

Android has been a mostly positive thing for linux, but it could be much more if so google desired. Google had the influence and power position to force many important drivers to become blob-free or open source (GPU, VPU, GSM modems, wifi, bluetooth), but it looks like they just didn't care.

dleslie 6y ago
Android has been one of the most negative contributors to general computing. We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. I'd love to update my still-decent Android phones that have long since stopped receiving security updates, but I can't. This is objectively inferior, a massive regression from general computing.
- znpy 6y ago
  > We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. > I'd love to update my still-decent Android phones that have long since stopped receiving security updates, but I can't. This is objectively inferior, a massive regression from general computing. this is one of the smelliest BS i've read on hn in the last year or two. phones before android were not upgradable AT ALL. if you were lucky, you could put a bigger memory card, and that was it. nowadays you can access most of the sources of the os for your average android smartphone, you can rebuild the os and reflash it yourself. doing such thigs was a basically just wet dream in early 2000s.
  - edent 6y ago
    Err... The Nokia N series received frequent updates before Android ever came along. Blackberry constantly updated its OS. Sure, some carriers restricted updates - but that's still a problem Android faces.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      The Nokia N900 got its last official update in November 2010, if I recall correctly. It had only been launched a year and a half before. Yes, there was then a community effort to improve some of the userspace, but the device was eternally stuck on a 2.6 kernel due to blobs. I loved my N900, but let's not pretend Nokia made their hardware future-proof.
      - swiley 6y ago
        PostmarketOS still runs on it.
    - magikaram 6y ago
      All the more reason to choose an unlocked phone over a carrier locked device.
      - marcodiego 6y ago
        An unlocked phone is as locked as a non-unlocked one if it depends on proprietary drivers of blobs.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    > phones before android were not upgradable AT ALL. They weren't general computing devices. They were for making phone calls, sending SMS messages, and tracking contacts. The security risk profile did not include access to social media accounts and/or online banking. For many folks, and a growing many folks, their phones are now their primary computing devices. For many folks, their primary computing devices no longer receive security updates. > you can rebuild the os and reflash it yourself. Tell me how I do that if I cannot root the phone.
- est31 6y ago
  > We entered the new millennium with the concept that most computers could use most extension hardware with (relatively) little effort, and you could upgrade your computer's basic operating system at will; even change it to another one entirely. And who enabled that? Not everyone wants to admit it, but it was IBM together with Microsoft which made this possible. This openness was thanks to a proprietary vendor wanting to make one operating system that ran on a wide variety of hardware. The chaos of the embedded world is Linux's doing.
  - morsch 6y ago
    IBM was as surprised by the "open platform" IBM PC as everybody else. They tried to fix that mistake with PS/2, but it was too late. https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-1/ https://www.filfre.net/2012/05/the-ibm-pc-part-1/ https://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/ https://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/
swiley 6y ago
It had the opportunity to be a positive thing for Linux but I would argue it really hasn't been. Your comment makes a good point: Google had the power to fix a lot of this but didn't.
coldtea 6y ago
Do they seem like caring otherwise?
dathinab 6y ago
> but it looks like they just didn't care. Which is the funny thing, given how much closed source drivers have hurt android as far as I can tell.

captainmuon 6y ago

It's not a problem in the Windows world that drivers are not open source. I think rather than forcing them to put the drivers under GPL, we should fix the fact that embedded systems always need custom images. On x86, you can just grab a Windows or Linux .iso and it will enumerate all hardware via PnP and install the appropriate drivers. This is something that is sorely missing in the Arm world. Instead you get semi-closed BSPs, source code thrown over the wall, and you have to write your own device-tree files and often kernel code to get something to run. SSBA is a start but only targeting the server market.

dleslie 6y ago
> It's not a problem in the Windows world that drivers are not open source. It absolutely is a problem. There is plenty of not-that-old hardware that will only work on previous versions of windows. There's also _mountains_ of _terrible_ binary drivers that cause serious stability concerns.
- adambyrtek 6y ago
  Broken binary drivers was also one of the main causes of the "blue screen of death" which gave certain versions of Windows such a bad reputation.
scaladev 6y ago
Maybe it's not a problem for you if you upgrade your hardware frequently (and don't care that it stops working on newer versions of Windows because the vendor couldn't give a shit about keeping the driver up to date), and buy exclusively high quality (and high price) parts. I had enough fun with Realtek / GPU drivers (from all three major vendors) on Windows to hate the very concept of a proprietary driver to the end of my life. The very same hardware somehow works perfectly fine on Linux. No kernel panics (not a single one in 12+ years of running it on Realtek crap), no intermittent connectivity problems, no weird GPU bugs, nothing of the sort.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  My netbook still has working drivers for Windows 10 with DX11 and GL 4.1 support, whereas the super cool open source AMD driver doesn't offer anything better than GL 3.3 with hardware video decoding that kind of works on full moons.

spijdar 6y ago

We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere. Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it. Others ship minimal shims in the kernel, and put the proprietary bits in userland code or some such. This seems to be more common, where vendors will technically release their kernel fork, but the code will be obfuscated or just generally useless without the proprietary blob that goes with it. I'd much rather the kernel just have a stable ABI so these kernels could at least be freely updated instead of being stuck with the hacked together fork with its proprietary shims.

bscphil 6y ago
> We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere. Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it. Sometimes I wonder if Linus could go back and do it over, if he would license Linux under the BSD license instead of GPL. He's never seemed like a particular stickler for free software ideology, and has welcomed connections between Linux and industry. I don't know that it bothers him that much to see Linux used in proprietary software. Not trying to start a flame war over licenses here, just speculating. And maybe this could be easily refuted by a link to one of his email rants, who knows.
- ByTheBook 6y ago
  His own words: "I love the GPL and see it as a defining factor in the success of Linux" So I very much doubt he would license it under BSD or similar. Having said that, he has also stated that he is glad he stuck to GPLv2, as he is not a proponent of the TIVO clause, IIRC his words were something to the effect of 'I just want the code contributed back to the kernel'.
  - jsmith45 6y ago
    My own impression has been that he does not really care one way or the other about tivoization. If that clause had been present in the GPL since the beginning, it would not have stopped him from using it. However, he sees things like adding it as being a pretty significant change to the GPL, and does not like the fundamentally changing the deal. If GPL v3 consisted only of wording clarifications to ensure it worked properly in more regions and perhaps to allow apache license compatibility, he would presumably have had no objections, but of course, would be unlikely to have been able to relicense the kernel, given the kernel's numerous contributors and lack of "or later version" clause.