I mentioned it in another thread, but I'll write it again:
Software -- especially operating systems -- is becoming a commodity. Companies that maintain "90% of users only want..." or "Best viewed with..." policies will not survive.
Yep. It basically comes down to the cost of getting the changes YOU need in the drivers. With open-source drivers and a good set of specifications, if your drivers are missing some functionality or you need a really annoying bug fixed, you can:
Pay a programmer to fix the problem. Assuming that programmer makes $60/hour, and the changes will take 30 hours, the cost to you is approximately $1800.
Fix the problem yourself, if you are able. Only costs your time.
Ask someone else to fix the problem with your help. For example, making a polite request on the mailing list for someone to help you. Many open-source developers will help you with the problem, especially if you buy/lend them the card you're using, which would cost no more than $400 (and that's an expensive card).
Wait until someone else encounters the same problem and gets it fixed using the methods above. This is a risky option, since it may never happen, but it still does happen quite often for widespread bugs.
If nVidia doesn't think it's worth it to fix the problem, you can:
Nag nVidia, talk to a salesman, try hard to find the right person to call, call that person, find out that you have to pay a large sum of money to licence nVidia's source code (which you may not have -- most people stop at this point, if not sooner), then use the methods above to solve the problem, then figure out how to get nVidia to roll the changes back into their version. You can estimate the cost of that.
So, given nVidia's model and the open-source model, which would you take?
That's a nice excuse now, but when software -- especially operating systems -- becomes a commodity (and it's already happening), that kind of attitude will lose you your job or your company.
nVidia's drivers are crap. They're always behind, and the last I used them (before I dumped my NV card for a real one due to too many hassles), they didn't even support DRI.
... and CodeWeavers has some software that can fill in some of the gaps. Granted, it's proprietary software, but it's probably one hell of a lot cheaper than the alternative...
Microsoft was found to be an abusive monopoly that engaged in illegal activity, yet we're somehow supposed to care when Gates whines that the proposed remedies would hurt Microsoft? Isn't that one of the main purposes of the remedies -- to set an example for others to notice?
IIRC, under Copyright, you are allowed to distribute (buy books and sell them), and you are allowed to make copies (putting your book into a photocopier for your own use), but you are not allowed to make copies and distribute those copies without permission from the Copyright holder.
Re:Its Not Challenged Because Nobody Uses It
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
If someone can prove it, the entire product is GPL,
Not quite. If someone can prove it, then it is illegal for the company to distribute the software, especially if they licenced code from third parties who do not approve of applying the GPL to their software.
Re:You've answered your own question.
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2
The BSD, Apache, X style licenses say you can't plagiarize but can do anything else you want.
Finally! Someone who understands the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement!
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
See, we have crappy software in linux land too.. Just like that mis-behaved windows apps that de-stablize the system we have those same idiots writing software for linux (and making distros..)
This is the best form of Linux advocacy. People will see us, and see that we know Linux has tons of problems, and we still prefer it.
Pretending that Linux is perfect just makes people think we're ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
Software -- especially operating systems -- is becoming a commodity. Companies that maintain "90% of users only want..." or "Best viewed with..." policies will not survive.
If nVidia doesn't think it's worth it to fix the problem, you can:
So, given nVidia's model and the open-source model, which would you take?
That's a nice excuse now, but when software -- especially operating systems -- becomes a commodity (and it's already happening), that kind of attitude will lose you your job or your company.
nVidia's drivers are crap. They're always behind, and the last I used them (before I dumped my NV card for a real one due to too many hassles), they didn't even support DRI.
Do an lspci -vv (or something like that) and send the results to the driver's maintainer. It's probably a 1- or 2-line patch.
They give us ammunition to prove to everyone why EULAs simply cannot be allowed to be enforcable.
But does NP = 7 ?
... and CodeWeavers has some software that can fill in some of the gaps. Granted, it's proprietary software, but it's probably one hell of a lot cheaper than the alternative...
Microsoft was found to be an abusive monopoly that engaged in illegal activity, yet we're somehow supposed to care when Gates whines that the proposed remedies would hurt Microsoft? Isn't that one of the main purposes of the remedies -- to set an example for others to notice?
"Americans for Consumer Freedom" has my vote.
IIRC, under Copyright, you are allowed to distribute (buy books and sell them), and you are allowed to make copies (putting your book into a photocopier for your own use), but you are not allowed to make copies and distribute those copies without permission from the Copyright holder.
Not quite. If someone can prove it, then it is illegal for the company to distribute the software, especially if they licenced code from third parties who do not approve of applying the GPL to their software.
Finally! Someone who understands the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement!
Kudos!
s/or modify//
The canned meat is "SPAM".
The theft of resources is "spam".
and Gnome and KDE would be fully compatible with packages completed for everything from Debian to Red Hat to *BSD.
You assume Slashdot is full of skilled developers, which I highly doubt.
"Please..." doesn't mean "you are bound by law to..."
Theoretically?
Now how long until we get KDE for Emacs?
MySQL isn't for real database applications, it's for 90% of the weblog-style applications that don't need a true ACID database.
Don't get discouraged by the moderator(s) who said that this is a troll. I know what you are saying.
This is the best form of Linux advocacy. People will see us, and see that we know Linux has tons of problems, and we still prefer it.
Pretending that Linux is perfect just makes people think we're ignorant.
Smarter server-side sanity checking works much better.