On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 16:18, Frank Tanner III wrote:
--- Rui Miguel Seabra <rms(a)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