[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: feedback to NVidia [was: Nvidia Drivers]

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 16:18 -0700, Frank Tanner III wrote:
> When proprietary drivers are all that's available you
> use them.  Whether or not you like it.

Not really. I didn't want to use NVIDIA's proprietary driver so I

> It's philosophies like yours that make it so hard for
> any of the "proprietary" companies

No. It's people looking only into their belly buttons...

>  Because the "zealots" will rip them apart for even
> trying.  They dont HAVE to release a video driver for
> their card in ANY format.

Of course they don't have to. I'd be perfectly happy if they released
enough info for driver developers to make one.

>   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.

Getting MACROVISION and unstable boxes is so good, yummy... NOT!

> Believe it or not, companies do deserve to make money
> off of their products.

No. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

They deserve to *try* to make money. There is no reason for you to get
money just because you did something. It has to be worth it for someone.

>   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".

What "free speech" does the driver bring? It EVEN restricts free speech
with it's imposed MACROVISION. You don't even know what you're talking

>   Do you think Oracle
> releases an Open Source version of their high-end
> databases?  Hell no.  It's all "black box".

I don't care about Oracle. There's PostgreSQL.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]