Re: [Madwifi-devel] [Fwd: Re: [Madwifi-cvs] revision1532 committed by proski]

[Michael R. <ma...@no...>]

Hi.

> However, I believe that everything that I had stated is factual and if it
> isn't please show me facts from this list that prove otherwise.

Just a few examples:
"If you were to piss him off" - we're not, as you can see if you follow
the discussion that has been started by Sam's initial posting to the list.
If your complain is about the way that this change has been introduced,
then yes, this probably should have been started in a slightly different
way.

"ultimately it will hurt the madwifi community in that we will not be able
to recieve any support or future upgrade from Atheros/Sam." - this is FUD
and as such substantially wrong.

"if you continue to try to do things that Atheros dislikes/disagrees with"
- Sam != Atheros.

"Everybody complains about the HAL being closed source and it is even
stated in this thread the dislike of not having it in the kernel" - read
the passage again. Pavel does not complain about the HAL being closed
source or binary only. He notes the (true) fact that, due to the
binary-only nature of the HAL and license issues, MadWifi can't be part of
the kernel, and that we should do everything that is possible to make it
as easy as possible for interested users to get MadWifi up and running.

"If you don't like the fact that the HAL is closed and ALWAYS will be closed
 source, than use something else...." - if that would be a real issue for
any of the developers you can be SURE that they would not consider to
spend further time on improving the driver. So this sentence is simply
inappropriate. Even more, if I would follow your arguing, I had to start
complaining now about you, since your statements might cause some of the
most active MadWifi developers to quit their job, "which would put a HUGE
damper on developing the madwifi driver for future features". You get the
point.

Last but not least:
"If you would like to complain about how things are done (closed HAL,
uuencode HAL, etc...) why don't you waste your time elsewhere" - Do
yourself a favour and either read (and try to understand) the stuff that
is talked about in a thread before you start contributing to it, or follow
your own advice and consider to waste your time elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong: we're open for any suggestions that come from the
community (and we strongly welcome them). But 98% of your original mail is
made up of trolling, based on wrong conclusions, meant to spread FUD. And
the least thing we need is someone popping up with a posting like this,
telling some of the most active supporters and developers to consider
wasting their time on another project.

>     2. I do believe that this is something that Sam feels strongly about
> as he posted 3 times in one day about it.

We're well aware of this fact, and that is the reason why the discussion
has been started. There is a strong interest from all involved parties to
get this situation cleared in a way that satisfy both sides.

>     3. There has been a lot of accusations/disagreements on this lists
> lately

Huh, "a lot of accusations/disagreements"? I have to admit that I
currently don't follow the lists too closely due to several reasons (for
example, working on migrating madwifi.org to a new server that recently
has been contributed to the project). Can you please point me to (some of)
the threads you're refering here?

> but treat this as my 2 cents on wether or not we should change the way
> the HAL is included.

Again: your 2 cents are welcome, as long as they are submitted in an
appropriate way. You original post clearly failed to match that
requirement.

>     In summary, I respectfully disagree with the change of the packaging
> of the HAL for the reasons previously stated.

Ok. Care to contribute an explanation of your opinion, and/or an
suggestion how to cope with the problem that initiated the changes we're
talking about?

Bye, Mike