5 ms·

What is the point in having all of the drivers be open sourced and mainlined if we're not willing to fix them to support this?

blueflow 4y ago
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  You are free to comment on the question raised, instead of a dismissive empty ad-hom.
  - arghwhat 4y ago
    While tongue in cheek, the answer is accurate: open source does not mean "free service contract", it means that you can take the code and modify yourself (and preferably upstream the fix). Patches come both from vendors and users experiencing an issue. Vendors take care of most things, but for esoteric problems you might only have a handful of people experiencing it. The vendor is unlikely to care, so if you do not write the patch or pay someone to do it, who will? Still better than the competition, where such problems will never be fixed unless it generates sufficient bad PR...
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      You're doing the same thing, dragging the original conversation off into berating the commentor for not fixing it themselves because you owe them nothing and they shouldn't be so entitled. > "Still better than the competition, where such problems will never be fixed unless it generates sufficient bad PR..." The competition comes under "pay someone else to do it".
      - elsjaako 4y ago
        What OS are you using where you can get the vendor to implement kernel features to fix obscure driver issues? I'm sure there's an amount of money you can throw at Microsoft to get something done. I don't know how much it is, but I'm guessing it's more than it would cost to find a vendor to do it for Linux. The serious answer to " What is the point in having all of the drivers be open sourced and mainlined if we're not willing to fix them to support this?" is "There are many points to this, but one of them is that it's possible to fix them to support it, if someone wants to put in the effort. It's worth something that it's theoretically possible if you really need it, even if no one else has done it yet.". The answer "You can do it yourself" is meant to help them understand "Anyone can do it, someone needs to step up to the plate. But it's also true that it costs resources. If you're wondering why no one else has done it yet, it's the same reason you haven't done it yet".
        fragmede 4y ago
        With enough money you can get that kind of support from any Linux vendor, eg RedHat or Oracle.
      - arghwhat 4y ago
        > You're doing the same thing, dragging the original conversation off into berating the commentor for not fixing it themselves because you owe them nothing and they shouldn't be so entitled. Ah, this argument again. Yeah, the maintainers owe you nothing, as they have already worked their asses off to give you something for free. You have the right to make polite bug reports and discuss fixes, but no one is entitled to force volunteers to do work. But, that is not the same thing as everyone having to fix their own shit. 100 million users does not need 100 million developers. What matters is that the users that have issues can fix issues, and if the issue affects enough people, it will eventually affect someone able and willing to fix it. That is why open source works, but it requires that some people put in the effort, and many learn to do it exactly when they get annoyed by a bug. So yeah, if you are not willing to wait for someone else to come around and volunteer to fix it, patch it yourself or pay someone else to do it. That's how the system works, regardless of how demeaning you feel this is to non-developers or developers that feel that their time is more valuable than that of others. > The competition comes under "pay someone else to do it". Sure, if you have enough money to convince Apple or Microsoft specifically to prioritize fixing your issue (which may be in an unsupported or deprecated configuration) above what else they were doing, which would cost a whole lot more than just engineer and manager time. You have no alternative, as only your specific vendor can make the fix. Realistically speaking, if you had that kind of money you probably already have employed engineers that you could get to fix your open source issues for you and would not be arguing on hacker news about the need to write patches. For open source, you don't have to convince anyone in particular. Can't convince the first person you try with money? Just ask the next person, anyone can submit the patch.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        I think you are mixing two arguments. One is a good, valid, argument which is about how volunteer maintainers don't owe anyone anything, and absolutely don't deserve to be harassed, insulted, coerced, guilt tripped, etc. And the other is is about internet Linux commenters (away from bug trackers and issue lists) replying in ways that close down and end conversation of anything which isn't toeing the 'party line' of how great Linux/FOSS/libre/gratis software/etc. is. The parent comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet was not in the context of bug reports filed to maintainers, or insulting anyone, or demanding anything specific. The parent of that said that the patch looked good "but" would need driver support, perhaps suggesting that's a showstopper. AnIdiotOnTheNet asked what the point of having open source drivers is if they can't be fixed, or charitably steelmanned read as "the drivers are open so they can be fixed to work with the patch". Blueflow's reply "you are free to submit a patch" is technically correct, but low value - few people on HN aren't aware of that. The following "or request a refund" is conversation ending, "fix it or shut up, stop talking about it". It's a common reply format on internet Linux discussions which is closer to 'silence wrongthink' or 'cancel culture' than tech discussion. > "So yeah, if you are not willing to wait for someone else to come around and volunteer to fix it, patch it yourself or pay someone else to do it." Or ... talk about it, rant about it, 'raise awareness', exercise freedom of speech. "Patch it or shut up" aren't the only options. And look, dkozel replied with a long and technically detailed comment[1] and didn't need anyone jumping in to silence unapproved questions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016094
    - runjake 4y ago
      What it sounds like you’re saying is “If you don’t know how to code, GTFO” because in all likelihood the parent made this comment because they’re not capable.
      - arghwhat 4y ago
        Not quite. If you are a non-developer not patient enough to wait for others to volunteer, or are a developer thinking that your time is somehow more valuable than those of the maintainers, then GTFO. :) Waiting patiently and politely reporting bugs is a fine strategy: If a problem affects enough people, it will eventually affect a developer capable and willing to fix it. If you want it go faster, you will have to get your hands dirty - many contributors acquired the skills exactly because they were annoyed by an issue and decided to fix it.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        Where did AnIdiotOnTheNet's comment include not being a developer, not being patient, or thinking their time is more valuable than others? Why is it so much more important to put someone in their place and win internet points with ad-homs in the "community" which supposedly values freedom?
        blueflow 4y ago
        "Whats the point in ${enormous amount of work others did for me for free} ..." is never a polite move. Neither is your second sentence. You two are just rude. No amount of freedom forces other people to bear with that. And if you think its not rude, still, the world is large enough to avoid each other.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        > ""Whats the point in ${enormous amount of work others did for me for free} ..."" That is the least charitable interpretation of it, and I think not at all what it actually says.A much better reading of it is, paraphrased: "The PCI-e patch is nice, but it would be a dealbreaker waiting on driver support." "The drivers are open source and checked into the same tree, so there's no dealbreaker there in waiting for vendors or coordinating with third party organisations and their release schedules {and that's the point of desiring open source drivers, so the system isn't hobbled by binary blob drivers and vendor release schedules}".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mijoharas 4y ago
    I wouldn't exactly call the comment you're replying to an ad hominem attack.
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      Why not? You don’t think it changes the topic from being about the content of the comment (open source drivers) to being about the person who wrote the comment (what they should and shouldn’t be permitted to say based on how much they paid or didn’t pay)?
      - blueflow 4y ago
        If the problem lies in the entitlement of a person, an appropriate response is going to be an ad hominem, and rightfully so.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        You have not shown any signs of this spectre of entitlement haunting your every comment. If you had, an appropriate response would be educational, helpful, or perhaps a link to Rich Hickey's Gist[1]. By your comments, it would be appropriate to ad-hom you now for your apparent entitlement to controling other people's speech about OSS, right? [1] https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9 https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...
        blueflow 4y ago
        Its simpler: your attitude is bad, i told you off, you have no intentions to change your attitude, neither do i. And if thats "controling other people's speech" to you, then yes, your attitude is the problem. Realistically, i'm just some random dude on this forum, telling you off is the worst thing i can do to you. Enjoy your refund.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
bee_rider 4y ago
Possibly it is hard, tedious, or the people able to fix it don’t think it is worth the effort. Open source projects rely on volunteers mostly so it isn’t like there’s some outside force to appeal to. If nobody volunteers a solution, then it isn’t important enough to solve. The point is that, if it were important enough to fix, anybody with the requisite skills could do so.
lostdog 4y ago
> What is the point in having all of the drivers be open sourced and mainlined if we're not willing to fix them to support this? With open source and mainlined drivers, it's very difficult to change all the drivers and ensure they work. Without open source and mainlined drivers, it becomes impossible.

blueflow 4y ago

jodrellblank 4y ago
You are free to comment on the question raised, instead of a dismissive empty ad-hom.
- arghwhat 4y ago
  While tongue in cheek, the answer is accurate: open source does not mean "free service contract", it means that you can take the code and modify yourself (and preferably upstream the fix). Patches come both from vendors and users experiencing an issue. Vendors take care of most things, but for esoteric problems you might only have a handful of people experiencing it. The vendor is unlikely to care, so if you do not write the patch or pay someone to do it, who will? Still better than the competition, where such problems will never be fixed unless it generates sufficient bad PR...
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    You're doing the same thing, dragging the original conversation off into berating the commentor for not fixing it themselves because you owe them nothing and they shouldn't be so entitled. > "Still better than the competition, where such problems will never be fixed unless it generates sufficient bad PR..." The competition comes under "pay someone else to do it".
    - elsjaako 4y ago
      What OS are you using where you can get the vendor to implement kernel features to fix obscure driver issues? I'm sure there's an amount of money you can throw at Microsoft to get something done. I don't know how much it is, but I'm guessing it's more than it would cost to find a vendor to do it for Linux. The serious answer to " What is the point in having all of the drivers be open sourced and mainlined if we're not willing to fix them to support this?" is "There are many points to this, but one of them is that it's possible to fix them to support it, if someone wants to put in the effort. It's worth something that it's theoretically possible if you really need it, even if no one else has done it yet.". The answer "You can do it yourself" is meant to help them understand "Anyone can do it, someone needs to step up to the plate. But it's also true that it costs resources. If you're wondering why no one else has done it yet, it's the same reason you haven't done it yet".
      - fragmede 4y ago
        With enough money you can get that kind of support from any Linux vendor, eg RedHat or Oracle.
    - arghwhat 4y ago
      > You're doing the same thing, dragging the original conversation off into berating the commentor for not fixing it themselves because you owe them nothing and they shouldn't be so entitled. Ah, this argument again. Yeah, the maintainers owe you nothing, as they have already worked their asses off to give you something for free. You have the right to make polite bug reports and discuss fixes, but no one is entitled to force volunteers to do work. But, that is not the same thing as everyone having to fix their own shit. 100 million users does not need 100 million developers. What matters is that the users that have issues can fix issues, and if the issue affects enough people, it will eventually affect someone able and willing to fix it. That is why open source works, but it requires that some people put in the effort, and many learn to do it exactly when they get annoyed by a bug. So yeah, if you are not willing to wait for someone else to come around and volunteer to fix it, patch it yourself or pay someone else to do it. That's how the system works, regardless of how demeaning you feel this is to non-developers or developers that feel that their time is more valuable than that of others. > The competition comes under "pay someone else to do it". Sure, if you have enough money to convince Apple or Microsoft specifically to prioritize fixing your issue (which may be in an unsupported or deprecated configuration) above what else they were doing, which would cost a whole lot more than just engineer and manager time. You have no alternative, as only your specific vendor can make the fix. Realistically speaking, if you had that kind of money you probably already have employed engineers that you could get to fix your open source issues for you and would not be arguing on hacker news about the need to write patches. For open source, you don't have to convince anyone in particular. Can't convince the first person you try with money? Just ask the next person, anyone can submit the patch.
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        I think you are mixing two arguments. One is a good, valid, argument which is about how volunteer maintainers don't owe anyone anything, and absolutely don't deserve to be harassed, insulted, coerced, guilt tripped, etc. And the other is is about internet Linux commenters (away from bug trackers and issue lists) replying in ways that close down and end conversation of anything which isn't toeing the 'party line' of how great Linux/FOSS/libre/gratis software/etc. is. The parent comment by AnIdiotOnTheNet was not in the context of bug reports filed to maintainers, or insulting anyone, or demanding anything specific. The parent of that said that the patch looked good "but" would need driver support, perhaps suggesting that's a showstopper. AnIdiotOnTheNet asked what the point of having open source drivers is if they can't be fixed, or charitably steelmanned read as "the drivers are open so they can be fixed to work with the patch". Blueflow's reply "you are free to submit a patch" is technically correct, but low value - few people on HN aren't aware of that. The following "or request a refund" is conversation ending, "fix it or shut up, stop talking about it". It's a common reply format on internet Linux discussions which is closer to 'silence wrongthink' or 'cancel culture' than tech discussion. > "So yeah, if you are not willing to wait for someone else to come around and volunteer to fix it, patch it yourself or pay someone else to do it." Or ... talk about it, rant about it, 'raise awareness', exercise freedom of speech. "Patch it or shut up" aren't the only options. And look, dkozel replied with a long and technically detailed comment[1] and didn't need anyone jumping in to silence unapproved questions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016094
  - runjake 4y ago
    What it sounds like you’re saying is “If you don’t know how to code, GTFO” because in all likelihood the parent made this comment because they’re not capable.
    - arghwhat 4y ago
      Not quite. If you are a non-developer not patient enough to wait for others to volunteer, or are a developer thinking that your time is somehow more valuable than those of the maintainers, then GTFO. :) Waiting patiently and politely reporting bugs is a fine strategy: If a problem affects enough people, it will eventually affect a developer capable and willing to fix it. If you want it go faster, you will have to get your hands dirty - many contributors acquired the skills exactly because they were annoyed by an issue and decided to fix it.
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        Where did AnIdiotOnTheNet's comment include not being a developer, not being patient, or thinking their time is more valuable than others? Why is it so much more important to put someone in their place and win internet points with ad-homs in the "community" which supposedly values freedom?
        blueflow 4y ago
        "Whats the point in ${enormous amount of work others did for me for free} ..." is never a polite move. Neither is your second sentence. You two are just rude. No amount of freedom forces other people to bear with that. And if you think its not rude, still, the world is large enough to avoid each other.
        jodrellblank 4y ago
        > ""Whats the point in ${enormous amount of work others did for me for free} ..."" That is the least charitable interpretation of it, and I think not at all what it actually says.A much better reading of it is, paraphrased: "The PCI-e patch is nice, but it would be a dealbreaker waiting on driver support." "The drivers are open source and checked into the same tree, so there's no dealbreaker there in waiting for vendors or coordinating with third party organisations and their release schedules {and that's the point of desiring open source drivers, so the system isn't hobbled by binary blob drivers and vendor release schedules}".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mijoharas 4y ago
  I wouldn't exactly call the comment you're replying to an ad hominem attack.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    Why not? You don’t think it changes the topic from being about the content of the comment (open source drivers) to being about the person who wrote the comment (what they should and shouldn’t be permitted to say based on how much they paid or didn’t pay)?
    - blueflow 4y ago
      If the problem lies in the entitlement of a person, an appropriate response is going to be an ad hominem, and rightfully so.
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        You have not shown any signs of this spectre of entitlement haunting your every comment. If you had, an appropriate response would be educational, helpful, or perhaps a link to Rich Hickey's Gist[1]. By your comments, it would be appropriate to ad-hom you now for your apparent entitlement to controling other people's speech about OSS, right? [1] https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba9519972d9 https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...
        blueflow 4y ago
        Its simpler: your attitude is bad, i told you off, you have no intentions to change your attitude, neither do i. And if thats "controling other people's speech" to you, then yes, your attitude is the problem. Realistically, i'm just some random dude on this forum, telling you off is the worst thing i can do to you. Enjoy your refund.
        jodrellblank 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago

Possibly it is hard, tedious, or the people able to fix it don’t think it is worth the effort. Open source projects rely on volunteers mostly so it isn’t like there’s some outside force to appeal to. If nobody volunteers a solution, then it isn’t important enough to solve. The point is that, if it were important enough to fix, anybody with the requisite skills could do so.

lostdog 4y ago

> What is the point in having all of the drivers be open sourced and mainlined if we're not willing to fix them to support this? With open source and mainlined drivers, it's very difficult to change all the drivers and ensure they work. Without open source and mainlined drivers, it becomes impossible.