A new standards group...

[deanrantala]

I thought this would be interesting to try and start..

I'm thinking of trying to start an international standards group that will unify and level the playing grounds for the great almighty linux. Heres how I forsee it at the moment..

1) A sound card manufacturer has just created a new sound card. In order to legally sell this sound card as a PC compatible, the Manufacturer is obligated by law to supply our organization with *all* the low-level specs needed to biuld full featured drivers and apps for the device.

2) My group would then be responsible for managing and keeping this data centralized and available under GPL.

3) If a manufacturer wishes to develope their own drivers, they may without obligation to create the drivers for another OS. So long as they comply with the release of the specs as mentioned above.

4) We will also aim to reduce the efforts at making OS proprietary parts (can you say winmodem?).

From there on out it would be something like (CVS?). Actually, my proposed group would not even need to be the ones to store and distribute this data, we could ask for the support of CVS or sourceforge. But our sole responsibility would still be to *get* and enforce the freedom of this data. The freedom to use hardware we pay good money for on the OS of our choice - without restraint.

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

This would actually be a neat idea, IMHO.

Multi-platform certified!

How do you like it? I think it would be neat to have a legitimate organization to certify something like your idea.

But, then the legal issues arise. Many times, manufacturers keep their specs secret. Many times, they don't even release a public API for developers to use when creating software for their product. This is because they feel that releasing any information of this kind could damage the integrity of their intellectual property. Many times, the producer could have used components from outside vendors, vendors who only agreed to allow the manufacturer to use the part of they signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement regarding the technology they've acquired.

I think that overall, it'd be a good thing to have, but I doubt that many companies would jump on the bandwagon because of how much information you'd have to release to really allow outside developers to write drivers for a piece of hardware.

[sasKuatch]

Yeah, this might be beneficial, but private entities (businesses or individuals) do not have an obligation to tell you anything. You can't just force it from them. If you can figure out how it works fine, it is yours after all. They are selling you a piece of hardware, not the blueprints for it.

This kind of stuff is nice when thinking about, but can get scary if taken too far.

[deanrantala]

This would actually be a neat idea, IMHO.

Multi-platform certified!
_______________________________________

I like that...

I wouldn't be enforcing release of the blueprints really. What I would enforce is that they at least resealse *all* info needed to biuld a fully functional driver. Besides - they would't have to comply... But after they see many others bearing the proud "MULTI PLATFORM CERTIFIED" badge it would soon become a de-facto standard (remember the intel inside fever?)

Perhaps, it would be more acurate to say that this group would be responsible for seeing to it that PC manufacturers don't help microsoft in their illeagal world domination by the control of PC hardware.:D

Of coarse, this is all still an idea, but something along these lines should be implemented..

I do honestly feel that someone should enforce the right for people to use the hardware they wish with the OS they wish and not be restricted by a companies paranoid marketing department saying you can't or else M$ will send assasins for us:rolleyes:

[El_Cu_Guy]

This would actually be a neat idea, IMHO.

To anyone with any knowledge about computing, standards group and at least half a brain it's rather retarded.

1. Do you own the rights to the term "PC compatible"? Better check the legality of that one. Are you recognized as a standards organisation? Who are your members? Any manufacturers?

No one uses the term "PC compatible" anyway. Who cares if they do? It simply means that it utilizes components found in the architecture of every PC. This could simply mean PCI and has absolutely nothing to do with the OS. Macs have PCI slots too. When stating compatibility manufactures refer more often to the OS rather than the architecture.

2. Standards are developed according to the following principles:

Consensus
The views of all interests are taken into account: manufacturers, vendors and users, consumer groups, testing laboratories, governments, engineering professions and research organizations.
Industry-wide
Global solutions to satisfy industries and customers worldwide.
Voluntary
International standardization is market-driven and therefore based on voluntary involvement of all interests in the market-place.

3. You have no power so who cares?

4. Blah blah blah more stuff that has nothing to do with standards and more about control. Sounds more like you wanna start a consotium. Unfortuanately it would only affe3ct memebers. Do you run a multi-billion doallar corporation? Got buddies that wanna play in your tree house?

You can't just start a standards organisation and expect anyone to care.

Here's a low-down:

The need for a standard is usually expressed by an industry sector, which communicates this need to a national member body. The latter proposes the new work item as a whole. Once the need for an International Standard has been recognized and formally agreed, the first phase involves definition of the technical scope of the future standard. This phase is usually carried out in working groups which comprise technical experts from countries interested in the subject matter.

Once agreement has been reached on which technical aspects are to be covered in the standard, a second phase is entered during which countries negotiate the detailed specifications within the standard. This is the consensus-building phase.

The final phase comprises the formal approval of the resulting draft International Standard (the acceptance criteria stipulate approval by two-thirds of the members that have participated actively in the standards development process, and approval by 75 % of all members that vote), following which the agreed text is published as an International Standard.

[deanrantala]

El_Cu_Guy:

That's some deep stuff man..:(

I still feel something should be done to prevent certian practices such as (for instance) EMU does. Creative has gone out of their way to supply the basic control registers for those cards, but the surround EAX? Thats totally at the mercy of EMU. I mean, 'cmon man... If you wont supply others who save money with linux so they can afford your hardware the drivers, at least be DECENT enough to give them the chance to make their own..

Companies do this and it bullies the und-user to use windows.

It sends the mesage:

" If you want the wiz bang features that make this hardware so nice, you better use windows and let microsoft blow their privacy smoke up your but.."

What about Apple? Manufacturers are not shy about giving this kind of stuff to them... Do they hate linux that much?

How about playing dirty and reverse engineereing origonal drivers? Then it would be wrong. Wrong to get the most out of that 200 dollar sound card you *paid* for. A 200 dollar sound card that you paid for to *use*.

[sasKuatch]

Dude, chill out. You don't need to hate linux to respect a company's terms of use. If they would required you to use their own computers and their own operating system to use their sound card for example, then I could understand.

And yes, I understand that you OWN that sound card, but you don't own the patents, plans, tooling, etc. You bought that one, single sound card, not the company, and you bought it to use not to possibly reproduce and to sell cheap knockoffs. You don't have the right to their information, that's just Orwellian.

[El_Cu_Guy]

And yes, I understand that you OWN that sound card, but you don't own the patents, plans, tooling, etc. You bought that one, single sound card, not the company, and you bought it to use not to possibly reproduce and to sell cheap knockoffs. You don't have the right to their information, that's just Orwellian.
According to the courts (MS can sit and twirl) backward engineering is still legal.

[sasKuatch]

As it should be, you have the right to do whatever you want to that piece of hardware you buy.

[deanrantala]

Maybe I am a little overboard here...:)

I still think it is slimy. And I have the right to do so. I have paid *very* hard for my mistakes.(prison sucks), and to see people get away with stuff that is so slimy and have the governments approval (the same government that stuck me) just gets under my skin.

You guys are sorta right. It is not "technically" illeagal to do what these companies do - it IS un ethical, and you all know that. But as always, ethics mean nothing to people who don't care about other people.

You are also right: I do not own the patents, and bluprints. But the company that sold me that hardware does owe me (from an ethical standpoint) the option use that hardware on a non-proprietary operating system.

With the ever gaining popularity of linux these days, I feel hardware manufacturers owe it to consumers to give better support for linux than we have right now.

You know how it goes down? It's like this:
Company X: Well, we should start supporting linux a little better, so we will include some working source drivers on the CD we ship with our products
Microsoft: If you include ANY linux software or even as much as references to linux on the same CD as the windows drivers, we will use our power and influence to totally terminate you and drive your company into the ground.
Company X: Well we can't afford extra CD's for all our products right now!
Microsoft: Well, you'r just screwed then!

While this IS a little exagerated, and not really true for the smaller companies, this can happen in a very real way to bigger companies who are downsizing or on budget cuts. You all have seen M$, and the tactics they have used.

By companies continually taking the PRO-MS stance, it is only making this worse.

And you are right, the companies DO own the design of that card. So they should not be - in the least bit - worried about releasing basic data needed to biuld drivers for the hardware, because no one would be able to copy the hardware anyway! And their original drivers are coptrited as well, so what do they care? I mean, if I wanted the winows drivers, why hack perfectly fine drivers, break the copyright laws, and re-biuld duplicates of the things, when I can insert a CD, make a few clicks, and be done with it?

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

El_Cu_Guy:


To anyone with any knowledge about computing, standards group and at least half a brain it's rather retarded.


Don't you think this is a little harsh? You sure do have a way of dropping the hammer of GET REAL when people are using their imagination... :rolleyes:

But personally, without using all of the words that you did, I do agree that you can't just whip up a standards organization and have people abide by it. Technical Data regarding a company's hardware is often the only thing that keeps the company afloat. If only that company can make a specific product, then that helps maintain their livelihood. At least, that's how I understand it.

I envision something like this. And, this is just in general terms, so please don't hammer me for little inaccuracies:

A group that maintains a database of the technical interface specifications like deanrantala was talking about. Any company that were to submit a set of data that met the criterion of allowing others to write drivers or accompanying software would have their product identified as Multiplatform Certified.

If that's a consortium, so be it. If it's a standards organization, whatever. I still feel that some organization maintaining such a database would benefit not just the Linux community, but the entire world of computing in that anyone could access the needed information to write a driver for whatever platform they choose to develop for.

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by deanrantala
And you are right, the companies DO own the design of that card. So they should not be - in the least bit - worried about releasing basic data needed to biuld drivers for the hardware, because no one would be able to copy the hardware anyway! Well, actually, yes, they own the design of the cards. They probably have the blueprints copyrighted (if not officially, then implicitly, when the blueprints were put down onto a <whatever copyright law calls it> medium -- the CAD software on their computers, that is).

However, the ideas behind the card, if they aren't patented (and patents open up another whole can of worms) are only protected by trade secret law. Which says that as soon as you release data on a trade secret, it's no longer a trade secret. If it's not patented, it's instantly public-domain and anyone can use it for anything.

So releasing data on how they got their hardware to go so fast (for example) would most definitely not be in the company's interest. If they did that, then their ideas would instantly, and legally, be copied (again, unless there's a patent in effect -- but if there's a patent, then as part of the patent application, they released all relevant data anyway).

However, this doesn't mean they can't release, or support, open-source drivers. Drivers, contrary to popular opinion, do not reveal how the hardware works -- all they reveal is what values to poke into what data ports (or what values to write to what memory-mapped device registers) to get the device to do what you want. This is of very close to zero help in reverse-engineering the actual hardware. They could do this without actual economic loss, however, most places still don't believe that to be true, regardless of evidence otherwise (ATI and their earlier video cards, for example -- they released all the specs needed to make the card do 3D to the public).

They could also use the GPL to its full, intended effect -- if they were to GPL their driver code, then anyone else using it in a non-open-source product (for example, the competition's Windows drivers) would be FORCED to make that driver open -- which makes finding out when people steal your ideas very, very simple.

The original company could still distribute alternately-licensed copies, of course, since it's (presumably) their code.

[deanrantala]

I do not know how everyone assumed that I was implying that companies hand over the design specs for the hardware. It is as Alax said, just the common specs needed to INTERFACE with the hardware.

Also, maybe I was also a little overboard if I implied that companies be required to comply. This is america (regardless of what M$ wants you to think) and that means certian freedoms. But I do not, nor will I ever see something wrong with a group of people who would be willing to dedicate their time to something like I said (like Alex said?).

[sasKuatch]

Originally posted by deanrantala
Maybe I am a little overboard here...:)

I still think it is slimy. And I have the right to do so. I have paid *very* hard for my mistakes.(prison sucks), and to see people get away with stuff that is so slimy and have the governments approval (the same government that stuck me) just gets under my skin.

You guys are sorta right. It is not "technically" illeagal to do what these companies do - it IS un ethical, and you all know that. But as always, ethics mean nothing to people who don't care about other people.

You are also right: I do not own the patents, and bluprints. But the company that sold me that hardware does owe me (from an ethical standpoint) the option use that hardware on a non-proprietary operating system.

With the ever gaining popularity of linux these days, I feel hardware manufacturers owe it to consumers to give better support for linux than we have right now.


No, I don't see why that company owes you anything besides the hardware, a driver CD, a manual, box and shrinkwrap. That's all you paid for. Sure, I agree with you that it would be nice if companies would be more generous. id software comes to mind with their release of the Doom, Quake1 & 2 (and hopefully Quake3 soon:)) source code. This makes a company nice. This is generosity, and they do it because they value their customers. I am absolutely opposed to new half-socialist, intrusive legislation that would make it mandatory to do these things. Yes, I read what you wrote later, but you original post was downright scary.

"...while the American people see a tyrannical government as the
greatest potential threat to democracy, mainstream journalists
are inclined to see democracy menaced by free enterprise -- and
the people themselves -- and government as 'the instrument to
control that threat.' "

-- Edward Zehr

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

Originally posted by sasKuatch
. I am absolutely opposed to new half-socialist, intrusive legislation that would make it mandatory to do these things. Yes, I read what you wrote later, but you original post was downright scary.



By all means, I am as well. I'd consider quitting computing if the government started to mandate such legislation. The government likes to do funny things like tie in school lunch funding to whether or not you have a sex education class. I'd hate to see the government withholding such a certification because they didn't like a product's implementation. Or, can we say RIAA puppets?

Okay... maybe that was a little bit of a rant...

I do agree that the manfacturer owes you nothing but what you paid for: a box, the device, a driver CD, and maybe some documentation. Personally, you know what I do if I find a piece of hardware that doesn't or won't have linux drivers? I DON'T BUY IT The only reason why I'd support a multiplatform certification is if I knew that somebody could write drivers for my OS of choice, then I might look at that product a little more closely.

[deanrantala]

No, I don't see why that company owes you anything besides the hardware, a driver CD, a manual, box and shrinkwrap.

___________________________________

Once again, it isn't what they owe me by law - but what they owe me from an ethical point of view..

But you all know what? You are all right: They all deserve to make closed hardware. It is perfectly OK for them to release the info to M$ (wich they did for the release of XP) and tell us to screw off. The fact that they are hindering the wide spread use of linux for the avarage desktop user is also fine. And for companies to limit your choice of OS by limiting available features is also OK. I was wrong all along...

I belive AT&T did something similar: it was illeagal for anyone else to make a phone capable of hooking up to AT&T's phone line. But that was OK also, right? I mean, after all - it WAS leagal for some time. But that doesn't matter, does it?

Am I the only one to notice this, but... If you look at the growth at wich Computers have found uses between the 60's, up to the late 80's it was quite a bit. But haven't you all noticed the decrease in this since windows has taken over? These manufacturers are so consumed in trying to figure out what they can make their hardware do with windows, that they never stopped to think:

What can our stuff do under another OS? What new tricks would we be able to pull off under this new OS? Can't we take advantage of these features, and do something more? I think we could produce a richer experience (and far more functional) under this OS.

Instead people who try to invision this and bring it to others are the ones who are wrong. Then again, AT&T is now under control of socialists now, arn't they? Boy, I mean they are just devestated and it just totaly turned the phone industry into an awfull place of government control that has hurt consumers and manufacturers ever since.

Or did it rather produce millions of new jobs and lower costs? Oh, of coarse not....

BTW: Is anyone here on dial-up at the moment? If so, you should count yourself lucky that uncle sam did what he did to AT&T. Otherwise you might not be enjoying the luxury of internet at this very moment...

[sasKuatch]

Alex, that's a very good point: voting with your wallet. deanrantala, maybe you should try it sometime. You won't end up with hardware that you can't use. Just take a few minutes and shop around for linux-friendly stuff before you buy.

A) you won't give away your hard-earned money to such evil companies that don't make linux drivers,

B) you'll have something that works, and

C) you won't find yourself among the forgotten few that feel the need for yet *another* law. Like we don't have enough, sheesh.

Really, if the card doesn't work in linux, why'd you buy it in the first place? If you didn't know that it didn't work, why'd you keep it after you found out? Or, if you didn't care about its linux support when you first bought it, why do you care now? It's easy to buy something then demand others do something to make it work.

[deanrantala]

That is a verg good point. I am also glad you brought it up. While that is my general practice now, I have found that there are just certian peices of hardware that it is a real shame to be supported the way they are. The SB Live, Audigy, and Extigy are prime examoles. I mean, here you got some of the finest sound cards that reasonable money can buy (especially the 24 bit Audigy) with an proffesional/audiophile quality DSP engine but it is yet so limited in functioality by the linux drivers.

So who do I go to if I want 5.1 sound, multiple sounfonts / surround effects, and advanced 24 bit resolution? I'm asking this not to spark flame, but because I really DO want to know! I know what the Audigy is capable of (I install them regulary), and while people have done a damn good job on some of the latest ALSA drivers, there is still quite a bit missing, simply because EM-U's PR and marketing departments are so friggin paranoid of releasing too much data.(all we are asking for is for EM-U to tell us how to comunicate with their DSP, we are not asking for blueprints)

I belive the awe 64 is to this day in the same boat. In fact, under linux, there is no difference between the AWE 32 and AWE 64 because (once again) EM-U refuses to release further info. This really suprises me too - considering if they released the entire blueprints now it would not matter: the AWE is rather outdated.

EM-U (and a few other manufacturers I won't mention) makes what I feel to be some of THE FINEST DAC's and DSP engines available for PC based audio cards. And it is a shame they can't provide the level of excelency that you can enjoy under winows....

[sharth]

What I would like to say are a few things on the matter.

First is that you have not thought this through. Linux is not the only kernel that exists. there are the bsds, minix, unixs, windows, windows nt, os/2, etc. are you planning on making the drivers available to everyone, or just the information? it sounded as if you were doing a pro-linux screw the rest approach.

second is that i pretty much agree with el cu guy. skimmed some, so i can't say that I totally agree. but from what i did read, i agree. (not that it makes any differance)

third, and i think that this was partially mentioned, is that when you buy your hardware off the shelf of frys or best buy, do you see that it says windows xp, 98, 95 compatible, but it doesn't say linux compatible? well, shouldn't that tell you something about buying it unless you plan on reverse engineering it?

[sharth]

Originally posted by deanrantala
Also, maybe I was also a little overboard if I implied that companies be required to comply. This is america (regardless of what M$ wants you to think) and that means certian freedoms. But I do not, nor will I ever see something wrong with a group of people who would be willing to dedicate their time to something like I said (like Alex said?). Its not always america, sometimes its the uk, sometimes its ireland, sometimes the netherlands. think outside the laws of the US, and realize that although our government tries, we don't control other countries' policies

[deanrantala]

Originally posted by sharth
What I would like to say are a few things on the matter.

First is that you have not thought this through. Linux is not the only kernel that exists. there are the bsds, minix, unixs, windows, windows nt, os/2, etc. are you planning on making the drivers available to everyone, or just the information? it sounded as if you were doing a pro-linux screw the rest approach.

second is that i pretty much agree with el cu guy. skimmed some, so i can't say that I totally agree. but from what i did read, i agree. (not that it makes any differance)

third, and i think that this was partially mentioned, is that when you buy your hardware off the shelf of frys or best buy, do you see that it says windows xp, 98, 95 compatible, but it doesn't say linux compatible? well, shouldn't that tell you something about buying it unless you plan on reverse engineering it?

_____________________________________

You are right - and I did start this thread a little pro linux, but my poposition was not only linux as you thought it was. I am thinking about the other OS's as well. Of coarse, for you too mantion all the windows flavors was (in my opinion) not really needed since there isn't a peice of hardware I can think of that is not compatible with windows (minus a few multimedia boards with XP).

But think about what you said about the "made for windows 98, me" thing on hardware you buy. I want you to pick ANY peice of new hardware out and tell me it does not say that on the box. All hardware says that - even linux compatible hardware for wich the company makes drivers for. So I find that somewhat irrelevent.

So considering this: every peice of hardware on the market should not be used on linux - since it does say "designed for windows".

Why is it that I start a thread in a LINUX forum that suggests various ways to bring a better experience to multi-platform users with their hardware, and I'm rather criticized for it? Maybe I should have proposed that all hardware be *totaly* closed to windows - maybe I would have had a more positive response....

[mage492]

Here's an option that we may be overlooking...

I liked the idea of the database. What if it was a bit less formal, though. We make the database, cvs, whatever, and publicize its existance. If companies WANT to add their data to it, they can. If not, they're not forced to.

Companies that DO will probably find increased market share as developers and programmers can now add support to their products. Those that don't might, eventually, see the wisdom of this.

This way, everybody wins! Open companies have a centralized place to put their information, developers can easily access this information, and we'll have better support all-around! In the long run, it might even open up closed companies, as they realize that they're losing sales.

Admittedly, this probably sounds a bit idealistic. Still, what can it hurt to try? We get openness without losing economic freedom.

[AlexPlank]

How will you enforce that requirement for companies to release low level specs? DO you have a guerrilla unit of the group to attack high level employees of companies that dont comply?

[Sepero]

Deanrantala, dude! I say ...

GO for it!

Almost no one believed most of America's biggest successes when they first got started. Look at Babe Ruth, a fat kid that was sent off to a orphanage, later to become a baseball legend. Abraham Lincoln, failed in business AND politics several times, only to become one of the most remembered presidents in history. And let's not forget Mr Bill G. himself! Some dork working from out of his garage, selling a garanteed to crash operating system... about 20 years later, he's now the world's richest man! (and probably most hated man) If you know about history, then you know that the list goes on and on...


So don't listen to everyone that critisizes! If you have a feasible idea, and you really believe in it, there's no limit to how much you can achieve.



P.S.
Forgive my spelling.

[AlexPlank]

Originally posted by AlexPlank
How will you enforce that requirement for companies to release low level specs? DO you have a guerrilla unit of the group to attack high level employees of companies that dont comply?

That wouldbe kind of cool though. Are you interested in lobbying? I like this idea but I believe you will probably need backing from another well established company or group. I hope this will work. GO FOR IT!!!!

[sasKuatch]

Can't speak for the rest, but I'm not critisizing. I just don't want you to do anything rash in the name of Linux. Last thing we need is people resenting linux for something that leads to higher costs, etc.

I like mage's idea of a voluntary scheme though. If it could become something companies can brag about on the box, it will work. No question. The problem is doing just that.

deanrantala, I'll take your word on the quality of those sound cards. I've never noticed the difference between sound cards, ever (unless it was noisy or something). As long as I can hear whether the baddies are sneaking up to me from the left or right, I'm happy. And I don't know what half the stuff you mentioned is. So as you can imagine, if I ever need a soundcard, I'll just buy the cheapest soundblaster compatible that I can find, knowing fully that I has to work in linux.

[deanrantala]

QUOTE]Originally posted by AlexPlank
How will you enforce that requirement for companies to release low level specs? DO you have a guerrilla unit of the group to attack high level employees of companies that dont comply? [/QUOTE]

_________________________________

YES. I have a unit of the best trained mercenaries standing by at this very moment. So to all companies ready to give me hassle: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

Ok, on a more serious note... Was mage492 the first to now start getting what I was getting at here?

I will say this again: I did start this post a little radical - I had just gotten of work and had not had the most rewarding experiance repairing 16 windoze boxes:rolleyes: But if you read on, I did level out and I thought (and still think) that the more "informal" plan just like mage492 just said was - in my opinion - a very good idea that would be of great benifit. In fact, I mentioned something along the lines of a CVS style layout on my very first post.

Alex: Maybe I should clear up with you and the others who might not still understamd what *actuall* info that my proposed group would be asking for. It is not the actual blueprints or architecture that I am asking for, it is info on the basic control registers - the part of the hardware by wich the drivers interact with. In other words, I am asking the companies to only tell me how I am able to *communicate* with their h

[sasKuatch]

I understand what you're saying, it's just a matter of how you're going to get that info. A voluntary approach sounds good, but again, how are you going to convince them to do it? Anyway, I'm all for the voluntary approach, or else I'll have to get my riot gear back out.:D

[sharth]

hmm.. well, first off, I didn't mean that anything designed for windows should not be used in linux. Just because it was designed for one os, doesn't mean that it will work equally well, or better, or worse in a different os.

What I think would be a better, long-term, goal is this. Create a "Certified for Linx by LS" logo, that hardware manufactures can put on their products. That way, they don't have to worry about being sued, since they didn't certify it. You would be the ones more likely to be sued (but even then... i dunno how likely or possible that would be). This way, we are added on to more products.

seagate for example has on its box for its hard-drives, OS compatibility : win xp, me, 2k, 98, NT. and then may be used with linux, mac os, and netware.

thats all i think we really need...

[deanrantala]

Yeah.. I'm still thinking this through. I am seriously thinking of starting (or esablishing) a small group for this cause. But like quite a few of you have said, I don't want to be the bad guy: I'm just trying to help the rest of the *nix community and open up better support for a lot of the software thats out there right now. I guesse there are alot of politics involved in this - I just gotta do my research.

Also, I'm thinking of implementing an on-line driver installation system that would intergrate with this whole plan: Got a new peice of hardware? Then it would be as easy as what the "emerge" thingy is with gentoo. The system would log on to our driver database, download the proper source (as well as any other dependencies), configure, make modules, install modules, and so on automatically. Of coarse, this would only be an option, if someone still wanted to just download the source - or even just the low-level info for the control registers, then they could do so. This IS the free software community after all...:)

Still much to be thought out, but the idea is a very achiveable reality that I want to see succeed.

Any suggestion?