[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, Frank Tanner III wrote:
> --- Rui Miguel Seabra <rms 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



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