some closure on the xorg updates issue

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 06:53 -0700, Oisin Feeley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/10/06, Max Spevack <mspevack at redhat.com> wrote:
>         
>         So there is a balance to be struck -- on one side you have the
>         desire to
>         not make concessions to proprietary software vendors, but on
>         the other
>         side you have the very real problem of unnecessarily breaking
>         the systems 
>         of users.
> 
> I think this is a loaded way of framing the decision. It's nothing to
> do with a "desire not to make concessions to proprietary software
> vendors".  From my point of view - on the one side you have the desire
> to provide an incremental improvement to the experience of Free
> Software users and on the other is the desire to not scare away users
> of non-Free Software. 
> 
> This decision places the convenience of users of non-proprietary
> hardware and software lower than the convenience of people that bought
> hardware that (everyone should know) is not and cannot be supported by
> a Free operating system. 
> 
Thank you for reframing the question in a light that many of the rest of
us are seeing as well!

Put yet another way, upgrading X.org isn't about punishing vendors of
proprietary drivers, it's about _rewarding_ vendors of open source
drivers.

If you were the owner of a company that had just announced plans to open
source your drivers, would you feel you had made the right decision if a
major linux distribution announced it was planning not to release the
software that enabled your driver to run because there were still
vendors who hadn't open sourced their drivers?  Where's the creme
filling?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060811/4ad1a408/attachment.sig>