Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 20th May 2006 23:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 126856
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-01
Not that I follow that reasoning but to make discussion fuller, kernel devs see it as follows:
Only OSS drivers guarantee necessary quality "certification". Allowing close source will poison linux waters with loads of piss-poor 3rd party drivers that are mostly half hearted WDM ports while removing incentive for supporting continous OSS develpement by current important linux server partners like Adaptec.
So they fear that you may end up present quality oss drivers replaced by lots of medicore at best (and mostly useless in reality) closed drivers. So your choice is in fact removed. Additionally Linux's image as stable system can be seriousely hurt. (MS's been figting this problem for years and only recently've seen some positive outcome).
Linux is still boldest on the server (depite press coverage) and there is a lot to be lost there (which MS awaits eagerly).