Keeping the Kernel Klean
Operating systems drive devices. Linux is driven by open-source imperatives. So, naturally, Linux's kernel developers have a problem with closed-source kernel modules. And, just as naturally, they've hacked up a statement they hope will discourage the closed and encourage the open.
On his blog, Greg Kroah-Hartman explained, “As part of the Linux Foundation Technical board...we wanted to do something that could be seen as a general 'public statement' about them that is easy to understand and point to when people have questions”. Here it is:
Position Statement on Linux Kernel Modules, June 2008
We, the undersigned Linux kernel developers, consider any closed-source Linux kernel module or driver to be harmful and undesirable. We have repeatedly found them to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses and the greater Linux ecosystem. Such modules negate the openness, stability, flexibility and maintainability of the Linux development model and shut their users off from the expertise of the Linux community. Vendors that provide closed-source kernel modules force their customers to give up key Linux advantages or choose new vendors. Therefore, in order to take full advantage of the cost savings and shared support benefits open source has to offer, we urge vendors to adopt a policy of supporting their customers on Linux with open-source kernel code.
We speak only for ourselves, and not for any company we might work for today, have in the past or will in the future.
Below that are 176 names.
The Linux Foundation has a slightly broader statement:
The Linux Foundation recommends that hardware manufacturers provide open-source kernel modules. The open-source nature of Linux is intrinsic to its success. We encourage manufacturers to work with the kernel community to provide open-source kernel modules in order to enable their users and themselves to take advantage of the considerable benefits that Linux makes possible. We agree with the Linux kernel developers that vendors who provide closed-source kernel modules force their customers to give up these key Linux advantages. We urge all vendors to adopt a policy of supporting their customers on Linux with open-source kernel modules.
Either way the message is clear.
Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal
- Android Browser Security--What You Haven't Been Told
- Epiq Solutions' Sidekiq M.2
- Readers' Choice Awards 2013
- Nativ Disc
- The Many Paths to a Solution
- Synopsys' Coverity
- Securing the Programmer
- RPi-Powered pi-topCEED Makes the Case as a Low-Cost Modular Learning Desktop
- Identity: Our Last Stand
- Download "Linux Management with Red Hat Satellite: Measuring Business Impact and ROI"
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide