Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jun 2012 22:21 UTC, submitted by Valhalla
Thread beginning with comment 521921
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
that He did more harm than good in some areas (i.e. allowing binary blobs... or refusing to define an stable ABI in the name of change).
That is a matter of opinion. IMHO it was a positive thing he did those things, not a negative thing. We wouldn't for example have Android if binary blobs weren't allowed.
I'm very happy for the pragmatic inclusion of binary blobs and such, it's the only reason I am able to run Linux on all of my hardware. Otherwise I'd be stuck using a completely closed OS. I'd much rather compromise on a few little things (like firmware) than have to use an entirely locked down OS.
People who think a completely free Linux would cause the adoption of open drivers and firmware are seeing things backward. First the open system gets popular, then people start catering to it. Linux needed to be adopted in order to get hardware makers to become flexible, adoption required compromises.





Member since:
2005-09-27
I like this guy, he is so down on earth.
Edited 2012-06-13 22:41 UTC