Here is the mail I received this afternoon from Synaptics regarding the petition:
The open source Linux kernel currently has a PS2 touchpad driver from the third party open source community which was not developed, reviewed, or tested by Synaptics. Based on industry and customer pull, we do not support PS2 interfaces for Linux as it is not a strategic fit for our roadmap or support model. In general, the trend in the PC industry is HID/I2C, for which we do offer driver support. Our intent is to submit our HID/I2C driver to Kernel.org as time, resource allocation and customer project prioritization allow.
Here is what I sent in response:
It would be great if you were to get working on submitting a driver to the kernel. People will help you find bugs in the code as part of this process, and improve it in ways you hadn’t considered. It occurred to me over Thanksgiving after your last email that writing a Linux driver but not freely releasing is like cooking that big meal and not eating it. Proprietary software was one of the big mistakes of the baby boomer generation.
I will pass this information along to the petitioners with some questions / comments. When you make something public, I hope you make a public announcement as well because it will be read more than your average one. People care about companies that share their values. Here is a video of Steam’s recent announcements regarding Linux that I thought you might appreciate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Unfortunately, I’m not knowledgeable about the benefit of supporting the PS2 interface vs HID/I2C. However, I can say that not every trend in the industry is a good one. IPv6 is a trend that still hasn’t arrived. I think UEFI as implemented is of dubious benefit. Can you please explain in more detail why HID/I2C is better? I may do some more research on this topic and ask other people, but I can say that the existing venerable standard has gotten us a long way including multi-touch and gestures. So I wouldn’t recommend supporting only the new trends which are sometimes fads. The Linux kernel supports 60 file systems. Can you consider to support the extremely popular as well as the latest?
When you think about getting code into the kernel, I want to emphasize making good default configuration values. You didn’t mention that aspect so I raise it again in hopes of a response. I’m sure your driver will have interesting knobs people will want to tweak, but you are the best people to know what they should be by default for your devices. So can you please commit to providing a great out of the box experience by including tested and tuned configuration data along with code?
2. Getting 10,000 lines of code into the kernel could take a year. For example, it took quite some time for Google’s wakelocks code to make it upstream. In that case, there were big disagreements about the design which may or may not apply to your code, but unforeseen things like that do happen. Also, your lawyers end up taking time and I’m sure your kernel developers are already busy and possibly understaffed. As this is your first big contribution it will take even longer.
So in addition to the question of whether supporting only one standard is good enough, there is a question of timeframe. That is why I created the #2 item. I realize you didn’t write or review any of the existing code. However, because you hadn’t released any code publicly in the past other people have written it for your customers. The kernel is filled with code written by other people but this module has your name on it and is depended on by millions of people.
Here is the key point. By fixing that code, you will help many customers today. A 10 line fix to a driver would quickly be accepted and deployed to millions within a few weeks and the entire community within 6 months. It would possibly be backported to older releases as as your hardware is so popular and important.
I read a line that a good way to judge an airline is by what happens *after* they lose your luggage. If they were to tell you that yes, they’ve lost your luggage, but they are implementing a new baggage tracking system that will give it to you in a year, you might not be so happy with that answer.
I believe if you were to ask your Linux customers whether they would want you to fix 20-30 bugs in the existing already-upstreamed code or work on some big chunk of new code whose date for delivery is very uncertain, they would want you to fix the existing code first. So this strategy is faster for us and cheaper for you and could even be a useful learning process on the way to the HID/I2C utopia. Once all your customers are no longer frustrated you can run the process for your new driver at your leisure. So can you re-consider your priorities in light of the situation that currently exists?
3. Also, you didn’t mention the #3 issue about providing a UI to configure your devices. Can you please think holistically about the end-user experience and realize that as your hardware gets more sophisticated, a UI to configure the device becomes more necesssary? You could provide a good value for palm detection by default, but a UI allows me to test and change it if the default did not work for my situation. It is quite difficult to tweak a knob without a UI.
In this code as well, people will help you here, by for example suggesting gestures to be added or turned off by default. By not working on freely-available configuration code, you are missing feedback loops everyone will benefit from. It is overall easier to write UI code on Linux versus Windows. There are more Environments / toolkits, but only 3 are used by 90% of users, and the code will be debugged for you, compiled, deployed and translated for you, etc. You don’t need to start from scratch as these environments have code, but it just needs to be improved. Can you please reconsider this end-to-end aspect as well? It is also easier to find people qualified to write UI code versus drivers and I think most people would judge this to be more important than a HID/I2C driver.
Thanks again for your mail. I hope you will consider these issues and respond soon. It is great to hear of a new path, but I can recommend you verify it is what your customers actually want as opposed to what some people say they ought to want. I will post a request for feedback on your ideas, but these are my initial thoughts.
Please post your thoughts about this, preferably on the petition page.