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
didn't.
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
about.
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.
Rui