Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 116304
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You should read more on the subject. It's extemely difficult or costly to develop for closed hardware. It goes against the open source business model of recycled software from the community or others who don't have that much money to fix things. Where is the innovation?
Why do you want some large corperation to control and do everthing for you? Repairmen and startups need to work as well not just some large company.




Member since:
2005-07-06
This discussion goes to highlight one of the problems with the FSF. They're all for providing you with freedom, but if you want to exercise that freedom you have to do it on their terms. Freedom on someone elses terms doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Why should it matter if the ATI/nVidia drivers are closed source? As long as they comply with the driver API then you should be free to use them as you see fit. The average user couldn't care less if the source code for the drivers is available. It's this kind of attitude that stops Linux making much headway into the desktop market.
Perhaps the FSF and RMS should focus their efforts more on getting the Hurd out the door instead of interfering in a kernel that isn't developed by them...