I think some kernel developers take to much responsibility, is there a bug in a
binary driver? Send it upstream and explain to the user that it's a closed
source driver and is up to said company to fix it.
For what it's worth, I don't see any problem with binary drivers from hardware
manufacturers.
Just because nvidia makes a closed source driver doesn't mean that we can't also
create an open source driver(limited functionality, reverse engineered,
etc.,etc.). I firmly believe that the choice should be up to the user and/or
distro. I'm not a kernel dev, I don't know c...but I understand the concepts and
I should have the right to do what I want with this GPL code. Restricting me
only frustrates me. Should the default be open source, definitely; should binary
drivers be blocked from running on a linux kernel...certainly not.
I personally like nvidia's products, they have spent a lot of money in R&D. One
example is SLI, if their spec was open what would stop ATI from stealing their
work(patents?, gotta love those). Personally I think nvidia has excellent
support for linux, I have actually convinced people to use linux(desktop and
server) just by showing them beryl with the nvidia beta drivers.
Lastly I think it's ridiculous to create,diplay, and distribute "Free" as in
freedom and "Free" as in cost software only to later consider limiting my
freedom...want to know why a lot of large companies don't support
linux...exactly threads like this. Why make the effort to use "Free" software
only to have the rug pulled out from under you. This is what makes the BSDs so
attractive.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
