On Sun, November 28, 2004 12:44 am, Rodolfo J. Paiz said: > 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 This just seems silly. What is wrong with promoting companies that support Linux and making sure that the companies that are doing a substandard job understand why they are not being promoted in the same way? > time. I do believe the specific text you quoted was not well-chosen. *shrug* I believe that your reaction and accusations were unfounded and over emotional. > [snip] > 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. It is reasonable and it's not negative. It seeks to have the positive effect of *encouraging* Nvidia to provide a better product. It's one way to use the free market process you said you believe in. > 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. You're being very protective of Nvidia. There's every reason to believe that if they drop their support for Linux tomorrow that other companies would fill the void. I have to agree with you that it would suck to be stuck with an Nvidia card that no longer worked under Linux. But this is one of the risks anyone who buys a card that only has binary drivers takes. > 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. You mischaracterize and misunderstand the goals of such an effort. It's not to punish Nvidia "just because". It seeks to send them a message that they're not doing a good enough job and the positive message that they could earn more money by doing a better. Yes there are other companies doing worse, but we can send them a message at the same time. [snip] > 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. The main thrust of Bill's post was that Nvidia is causing a lot of problems, as evidenced by the number of posts about such issues. Perhaps Nvidia is not doing Linux any favors? How much negative press does Linux get as being too difficult just because of Nvidia support issues alone? Hard to say, but you're discounting such issues totally to support your position and feel like you have the moral high ground and anyone who disagrees with you is just a zealot. > 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. Good stuff, glad that we at least agree on something. > 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. Well their competitors are already not getting any Linux business. Frankly I don't think it hurts to keep the market pressure on Nvidia too. > 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. Huh? The point is to raise awareness in Nvidia and in the community in general that buying Nvidia products is in essence rewarding a company that is doing a substandard job of supporting Linux. The fact that there are other companies also doing a crappy job just means they shouldn't be rewarded either. > 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. So, according to you, it's "radical" to support open source? It's "radical" to suggest that we reward companies that provide open-source drivers? > 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. I've not twisted your words or your point, just disagreed with you. You obviously want Linux to succeed and feel strongly about this issue, but to label people that don't agree with *your* methods as radical zealots isn't going to help your position. Cheers, Sean
