On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:57:15 +0800 Christopher Chan <cchan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What, may I ask, do the developers of Linux have to do with this? The developers of Linux may get round to writing a driver they have specs for. How am I ungrateful if there is nothing on which the developers can work on and the company goes/has to go binary driver path?
The developers gave you the operating system you seem to enjoy.
They did it with a commitment to open source that didn't falter
the second something wasn't quite as good as was available elsewhere.
There is a need to support those companies that respect Linux and its development process. An eager willingness to embrace binary only solutions suggests a lack of respect for Linux and misunderstanding
of how it was created.
I guess you are able to list companies that have a commitment to open source drivers for graphic solutions that cover the needs of most people. No? Too bad. I'll take whatever is there.
Which planet do you live on? Like there is a lot of open hardware around to pick from. I've done what I can as I am able/allowed to but I sure am not turning down the only alternatives to non-existent 'open hardware' and going around saying you should not buy/use them when there are no alternatives.
Yes. There still is a lot of open hardware. No thanks to people who say they don't care one way or the other if an open source
solution is available. The following comment from you suggests a lack of real support for open source and a lack of respect for the process
that created Linux:
"stable drivers is all that matters to me. GPL great but not required."
Oh really. I guess you have been willing to take flak and try stuff and then work with the developers so that things get fixed.
