feedback to NVidia [was: Nvidia Drivers]

[Frank Tanner III]

--- Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 16:18, Frank Tanner III wrote:
> > --- Rui Miguel Seabra <rms at 1407.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 18:14 -0400, Gerry Doris
> > > wrote:
> > > > Wow, don't you ever get off your soapbox? 
> Don't
> > > you think you've made
> > > > your point by now???
> > > > Move on to something else and give it a rest.
> > > 
> > > Will you move on to something else and give it a
> > > rest by not advising
> > > the proprietary drivers?
> > > 
> > > Rui
> > > 
> > 
> > When proprietary drivers are all that's available
> you
> > use them.  Whether or not you like it.
> > 
> > It's philosophies like yours that make it so hard
> for
> > any of the "proprietary" companies (hardware,
> > software, etc) to even WANT to create stuff for
> Linux.
> >  Because the "zealots" will rip them apart for
> even
> > trying.  They dont HAVE to release a video driver
> for
> > their card in ANY format.  They released it
> because
> > they wanted to sell more video cards, and they saw
> > that Linux was a market share that they wanted. 
> > Getting a proprietary "black box" driver is better
> > than getting no driver at all.
> > 
> > Believe it or not, companies do deserve to make
> money
> > off of their products.  So what if their driver
> > contains "black box" proprietary code.  They're
> not
> > charging you for the driver.  Linux is about "free
> as
> > in speech" not "free as in beer".  Do you think
> Oracle
> > releases an Open Source version of their high-end
> > databases?  Hell no.  It's all "black box".
> ----
> We can go around and around on this subject and the
> conclusion is always
> going to be the same. The biggest two video card
> manufacturers, nvidia
> and ati both sell their video cards and make good
> money. The software
> drivers are what they hold as close to their chest
> as possible and do
> not ever release the source code.
> 
> Closed source is what windows is about - not that
> it's bad...it just is
> binary only.
> 
> Open source is what Linux is about. That means that
> it can be altered,
> it can be studied, it can be checked for trojan
> horses/back doors and
> other mischieviousness. It can be maintained and
> even advanced if the
> company goes bankrupt or is purchased and then
> dropped by another
> manufacturer.
> 
> Free isn't even close to open source.
> 
> So ultimately, I disagree with your statement that
> 'philosophies like
> yours make it hard for proprietary companies' - I
> think it's the other
> way around...the proprietary companies make it hard
> for us.
> 
> Rui has it right - you however have the right to
> disagree.
> 
> Craig

And I do, and will disagree.  Just because you would
like to see them Open Source doesn't mean that they
HAVE to be Open Source.  Believe it or not, you're
going to see ALOT more binary only things for Linux as
time goes on and it gets more and more accepted by the
"mainstream" software development houses.

Prime example.  TRY to find a non-binary only version
of Macromedia Cold Fusion for Linux.  You won't. 
Personally, I think CF sucks as a web development
platform.  Others disagree. Another example.  Try to
find a non-binary only release of Lotus Domino/Notes
Server for Linux.  You won't.

Everyone that thinks that everything that runs on
Linux HAS to be Open Source is in for a very rude
awakening and a miserable existance if they don't get
over it.

=====
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never memorize what you can look up."  -Albert Einstein