Closed vs. open development methods (Was DVI output, ATI or nVidia)
walter.garcia at upf.edu
Wed Jun 27 15:35:07 UTC 2007
* Jonathan Dieter [27/06/07 17:23]:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 07:34 -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> > On 6/27/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <mjc at avtechpulse.com> wrote:
> > > Is it good that the kernel bugzilla says "NO BINARY MODULES or other
> > > tainted kernels. Do not file bugs here if you have any binary kernel
> > > modules loaded, reproduce without that module first. NVIDIA users - THIS
> > > MEANS YOU!"?
> > >
> > > In what way is the closed nvidia code and process better than being
> > > open? How does that benefit users?
> > I never claimed that it was better. I just said that its certainly no
> > worse. No one here has yet to provide any concrete evidence to prove
> > otherwise.
It also escapes to me completely why a hardware producer would like to
have close-source drivers, since it does not sell software but
hardware. What does it gain? If the driver was open code, would it
loose any revenues? Is it giving any information to competing hardware
More information about the fedora-list