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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
