Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 185399
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 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-26
1. It's bad because it can be taken away. Let's take nVidia or ATI. If both companies would suddenly stop their Linux support, it'd be quite a disaster for Linux. Sure, you could still use nv and vesa, but you wouldn't be able to really have a 3D desktop.
) - but not for the price of binary blobs.
2. Same goes for applications: If Adobe suddenly stopped Photoshop for the Mac - there's nothing, absolutely nothing the Mac users could do (uhm, except switching to their beloved Vista). This cannot hapen to the Gimp. Even if the people responsible today would die or loose interest in their application, there'd soon be others to take over.
3. The GPL argument is a fact. A license is a license . The reasons against binary blobs are not just put forward by Linux - there are others, e.g. the NetBSD community - who vote clearly against using binary blobs. No control, unable to patch anything. Bad, bad, bad.
4. Linux should be as easy as possible (well, Ubuntu, SUSE and Linspire - don't touch Slackware or Debian