Re: Atheros Open Hal

Jona Joachim wrote:
> I asked some time if there was any interest in porting OpenHAL to
> FreeBSD. See the archive of the -advocacy mailing list.
> I don't think there is any interest. FreeBSD is using a proprietary
> closed source driver, a so-called blob, for Atheros chipsets and they
> feel comfortable with it. The leaders hardly ever discuss such
> decisions.
>   

I have to correct you on this point: the ath(4) driver source is freely 
available.

I use this driver and I'm comfortable with it. If the use of the Atheros 
HAL is a necessary compromise to get vendor buy-in on the use of open 
source, so be it, at least for the present time.

As you must be well aware, economic competition in the Wi-Fi segment of 
the semiconductor industry is tight, and vendors wish to see a return on 
their investment.

Consider the example of the "One Laptop Per Child" project, who have had 
to make similarly contentious political decisions in their project with 
regards to Wi-Fi provision in their peoject; feel free to read their 
email archives.

Are we as software developers in a position to deny users access to 
technology purely on the basis of an individual's preferred ideology, 
whilst failing to recognise the economic reality of the large amount of 
capital expenditure involved in hardware development?

Whilst I do not agree 100% with either side of the argument, it strikes 
me as unreasonable that you misrepresent FreeBSD's interests and 
objectives here.

You are very welcome to contribute a port of the OpenHAL to FreeBSD on 
your own terms and with your own effort; but perhaps it is a bit 
facetious to condemn the existing work as a "proprietary closed source 
driver" [sic], rather than offering to help port the OpenHAL if that is 
your stated interest -- or even presenting FreeBSD with a "fait 
accompli" to underline the point?

Kind regards,
BMS