On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 18:36 -0500, Sean wrote: > On Sat, November 27, 2004 1:57 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz said: > > I quoted you accurately. I quoted the portion to which I wanted to > respond. Please read back and you'll see that the quote didn't injure > your point. I disagree. My first response was based on the premise that taking positive action to help Linux gain wider and deeper support was better than taking negative action to damage a company, as well as the premise that *if* someone were so bloody-minded IMHO as to actively seek the widespread reduction of a company's products, then in that case other targets could be found which would be more appropriate choices at this time. I do believe the specific text you quoted was not well-chosen. > What you seem to be missing is that it is a reasonable desire to promote > better choices for the open source world. That's a remarkably unintelligent comment, considering that my original post you critiqued specifically dealt with my opinions on how to promote those better choices. You may or may not agree with my opinions on how to promote better choices, but to claim that I am not aware of this option is either clueless or willfully blind. > To that end, it is reasonable > to look for ways to motivate companies that aren't providing open source > solutions. Asking people to think carefully before they support Nvidia is > a reasonable thing to do. The OP never used the word boycott. His post > seemed rational and thoughtful. Personally, I do boycott Nvidia because > they don't provide what open source solutions. I quote from Bill Gradwohl's original post: "Trade papers like Computer Reseller News, Infoweek, E-Week, etc. regularly report on Linux, so why not give them an article that factually portrays Nvidia issues in an attempt to "influence" Nvidia's sales. If the Fedora Project were to put out a press release stating their concerns the major publications would likely print it, and purchasers could be better informed leading to fewer problems on this list, happier end users, and lowered sales for Nvidia." It would seem clear that Bill is looking for the maximum possible negative impact on Nvidia's sales, by seeking a way to have major industry publications report (note, factually) on what he sees as "a major problem area". This is not what I consider reasonable or advisable. It is not what I consider an effective path of action. And it is not AT THIS TIME in the best interests of Linux, IMHO, since at the high end there simply ARE NO ALTERNATIVES that will work well to the best of my knowledge. It used to be "Windows or SGI". It is now "Nvidia on Linux with closed-source drivers or Windows". We are trying to get to "Open-Source drivers on Linux with no need for Windows". And destroying Nvidia's sales, if some such effort were successful, would damage Linux more (by reducing the early adopters of Linux in such markets) than it would help by increasing the purity of the distro. If you choose to believe the opposite, that is your choice and your opinion. But I do not think it correct, nor do I think it makes the idea of deliberately campaigning to reduce Nvidia's sales beneficial to Linux, hence a reasonable option. Claiming a moral high ground will not help you promote this opinion of yours... I find it short-sighted and still choose to disagree. Furthermore, I again quote from one of Bill Gradwohl's posts: "Actually, I don't care if they have open source, closed source, or no source." Your whole argument is based on the desire to promote the Open Source movement, and you have consistently argued in other threads that the nature of the closed source driver is what you find objectionable. Clearly Bill just wants the thing to work properly and couldn't care less whether the source is there or not. Hence, *you* are putting words in his mouth, not I. > > If someone chooses a better option and that means less business for > > Nvidia, so be it. That's the free market at work and I like that. And > > part of what you missed is that I advocated finding, choosing, and > > supporting those "better options" wherever possible. > > Yes, indeed. Thanks for agreeing with the main idea behind my post. > Would be nice to hear more from you on what open-source video card > solutions you promote and suggest for people. Odd, this. Bill says we should go reduce Nvidia's sales. I respond advising him to "convince people to issue that press release, but focus on the needs of the users. Focus on getting more support, on highlighting the number of people who use this. Make the manufacturers *want* to support us. And then, of course, actually buy the stuff that supports us." Now, all of a sudden, you're happy that you convinced me? Please... no taking credit for something I already said. As for what I recommend, when someone says they would like to use Linux but they *need* absolutely top-of-the-line graphics, I recommend Nvidia on Linux rather than telling them to stick with Windows. I also recommend that they pressure Nvidia to release open-source drivers since, until they do, the user is going to get stuck with some kludges and problems every so often. I do *not* turn away someone who wants to try Linux as an early adopter just because Nvidia offers only closed drivers. Especially since no other company offers any supported high-end drivers at all. When someone does not need those capabilities, I recommend lower-end Nvidia or ATI boards that *are* supported by open-source drivers, as well as Matrox or S3 boards that have worked beautifully for me with open-source drivers as well. Most anything works really. Today, there are lots of choices in the middle to lower levels of the market. Someday, we hope the same will be true of the high end. But I believe that Nvidia is the lesser of many evils, since I believe that they are making more and more of an effort to support Linux whereas many of their competitors are not making *any* effort. So it seems that all they've managed to do is raise their visibility to zealots who will leave a company in peace for not helping Linux one tiny bit, but who will actively seek to damage them for offering Linux drivers, support, and an upgrade path on all their devices but using a closed-source driver. Personally, I think you're being radical, unrealistic, and in the end harmful to the Linux cause. You may think whatever you please about me. We both want Linux to succeed, and we disagree violently about the best way to do that. Agree to disagree. Just don't try to twist my words around as I feel you've done in this discussion. -- Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
