Which is only around a couple of percent of all PC users. Translated to Linux that's a fraction of a fraction of one percent. And Nvidia's highest margin customers are those who buy their workstation and GPGPU cards.
They literally have more power than any other company, without exception, when it comes to mindshare of people who actually BUY PC games and games hardware.
The flaw in your logic is that you think that PC gamers are the reason Nvidia makes a Linux driver. It isn't and never has been. Consumers are supported by the fact that Nvidia shares source code between their drivers, but were not the prime motivation. As I said previously, Nvidia made their *nix driver for commercial and GPGPU computing customers.
What clout? Is Valve some sort of major customer of Nvidia GPUs? Valve has no clout over Nvidia.
With Valve pushing for Linux gaming, they need to apply some inside pressure on AMD/Nvidia to make their shit work at 100% with Linux.
Nvidia's drivers do work 100% with Linux.
Since we know neither company is willing to do the work themselves, that means they need to release full documentation so the FOSS people can develop/maintain proper Linux support.
They don't need to do any such thing. Their important *nix customers are people doing CAD, rendering work or GPU computing not the tiny fraction of people playing games.
XNU contains thousands upon thousands of lines of assembly code for both x86 and ARM. Being a microkernel does not preclude the presence of assembly code
The fact is that when a service like Netflix chooses the cheapest ISP, there are consequences. Its Netflix that isnt paying the real costs of its business, and the Net Neutrality zealots have been tricked into thinking its their own ISP thats bad. No, its Netflix and its ISP thats bad.
Netflix was more than willing to provide all those ISPs with CDN hosting so that all the content could have been served from within the ISPs own datacenters. But the thing is that Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. didn't want to take the deal because that would then undermine their own competing service so instead they throttled users in order to get a toll payment.
So why then did you ever want the government, also responsible for phone tapping anyone they like, to have anything to do with your internet?
They won't. The FCC doesn't have the power or the authority to wiretap or monitor anyone's Internet usage. Your argument is fallacious.
The way you wanted it was HOW IT WORKED. Now that is not the case. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that's the way it might have worked more than a decade ago. That hasn't been true since around the time that the ISPs started buying up content companies and then started using their last-mile monopolies to try to stifle competition from Internet VOD/streaming services by throttling users of those services in exchange for toll payments.
Those local governments only gave them those monopolies because the ISPs demanded them to even deliver service. It's not as if the local governments just up and gave the companies those monopolies against the wishes of the ISPs.
No, my sense of humor is just fine. There were jokes I laughed at but Slashdot's have never been funny. The whole point of April Fool's is to be subtle in order to trick people by the joke. Slashdot's "jokes" on the other hand are just beating you over the head.
I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.
They don't need to show financial hardship:
Google argued the point was moot because consumers suffered no financial hardship due to the practice. The UK's Court of Appeal disagreed. According to the court's judgment:
"These claims raise serious issues which merit a trial. They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature [...] about and associated with the claimants' Internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months. The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."
Then require them to sign a non-disclosure agreement if it's really about the proprietary knowledge. A non-disclosure agreement in no way necessitates an 18-month non-compete.
Slashdot Mirror
Valve basically owns PC gaming marketshare.
Which is only around a couple of percent of all PC users. Translated to Linux that's a fraction of a fraction of one percent. And Nvidia's highest margin customers are those who buy their workstation and GPGPU cards.
They literally have more power than any other company, without exception, when it comes to mindshare of people who actually BUY PC games and games hardware.
The flaw in your logic is that you think that PC gamers are the reason Nvidia makes a Linux driver. It isn't and never has been. Consumers are supported by the fact that Nvidia shares source code between their drivers, but were not the prime motivation. As I said previously, Nvidia made their *nix driver for commercial and GPGPU computing customers.
Valve needs to use their clout
What clout? Is Valve some sort of major customer of Nvidia GPUs? Valve has no clout over Nvidia.
With Valve pushing for Linux gaming, they need to apply some inside pressure on AMD/Nvidia to make their shit work at 100% with Linux.
Nvidia's drivers do work 100% with Linux.
Since we know neither company is willing to do the work themselves, that means they need to release full documentation so the FOSS people can develop/maintain proper Linux support.
They don't need to do any such thing. Their important *nix customers are people doing CAD, rendering work or GPU computing not the tiny fraction of people playing games.
That sounds like they are doing you a favor. Java web plugin is an insecure pile of shit.
To add your claim that XNU does not follow any microkernel rules is simply false. XNU uses microkernel-style message passing.
Yep, XNU is a hybrid kernel. It has microkernel parts and monolithic kernel parts.
XNU contains thousands upon thousands of lines of assembly code for both x86 and ARM. Being a microkernel does not preclude the presence of assembly code
The only way to truly understand C code is to read the disassembly. Otherwise you are only assuming what the compiler is emitting.
You think this is all being created in order to save you money? You're joking, right?
It doesn't even sound like a good solution assuming there was a real problem.
The fact is that when a service like Netflix chooses the cheapest ISP, there are consequences. Its Netflix that isnt paying the real costs of its business, and the Net Neutrality zealots have been tricked into thinking its their own ISP thats bad. No, its Netflix and its ISP thats bad.
Netflix was more than willing to provide all those ISPs with CDN hosting so that all the content could have been served from within the ISPs own datacenters. But the thing is that Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. didn't want to take the deal because that would then undermine their own competing service so instead they throttled users in order to get a toll payment.
So why then did you ever want the government, also responsible for phone tapping anyone they like, to have anything to do with your internet?
They won't. The FCC doesn't have the power or the authority to wiretap or monitor anyone's Internet usage. Your argument is fallacious.
The way you wanted it was HOW IT WORKED. Now that is not the case. Good luck with that.
Yeah, that's the way it might have worked more than a decade ago. That hasn't been true since around the time that the ISPs started buying up content companies and then started using their last-mile monopolies to try to stifle competition from Internet VOD/streaming services by throttling users of those services in exchange for toll payments.
1. Only $25M for that egregious violation??
2. And that is the *LARGEST* penalty ever????
Token penalties like that are equivalent to declaring a free-for-all-big-corps.
Yeah it's basically .018 cents per dollar revenue and .4 cents per dollar of net income. AT&T must be smarting!
Amicus, thatis.
Doesn't matter much since Apple isn't part of the case. They just submitted an amiscus backing Microsoft.
Those local governments only gave them those monopolies because the ISPs demanded them to even deliver service. It's not as if the local governments just up and gave the companies those monopolies against the wishes of the ISPs.
Cool story, brah. Will you also regale us with stories about how you don't own a TV as well?
No, my sense of humor is just fine. There were jokes I laughed at but Slashdot's have never been funny. The whole point of April Fool's is to be subtle in order to trick people by the joke. Slashdot's "jokes" on the other hand are just beating you over the head.
No, the references are pretty obvious. It's just not funny.
No. When did that ever happen?
And that was 9 years ago. Everything before or since was 99.99% stinkers.
Just put Slashdot in your hosts file until tomorrow. Today's going to be a groan-worthy day of Dice.com trying too hard to be funny.
They were practically handed the opportunity for a perfect untraceable crime, yet screwed it up.
Bitcoin is not untraceable. Never has been. Anyone who still believes that is an ignorant chump.
They were never going to to begin with. You're an ignoramus to believe otherwise.
On what grounds could one sue?
Probably under data privacy laws.
I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.
They don't need to show financial hardship:
Google argued the point was moot because consumers suffered no financial hardship due to the practice. The UK's Court of Appeal disagreed. According to the court's judgment:
"These claims raise serious issues which merit a trial. They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature [...] about and associated with the claimants' Internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months. The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."
Then require them to sign a non-disclosure agreement if it's really about the proprietary knowledge. A non-disclosure agreement in no way necessitates an 18-month non-compete.