Like detecting a crack or fault in the tube structure shortly ahead of the current location and it needs to come to an immediate stop.
That's different from an impact-style deceleration, which all of your examples involve. I suppose it depends on what kind of fault is in the tube, unfortunately there are so many that there are a number of different scenarios including: not stopping, allowing the increase in air pressure to slow the car, slamming into a fractured tube and crashing, etc.
Actually almost None do, a plane becomes a glider when it's engines quits and glides to the ground.
Oh right, they tend to fail in the sky then either explode, break up, lose engine power at low altitude then drop from the sky at odd angles or glide to the ground. And when you hit the ground, if you're lucky, they won't collide with something, break apart, and burst into flames (if there's fuel left.) There's a reason air crashes are so terrifying despite being relatively uncommon.
I suppose I'm struggling to see your point, given that this project hasn't gotten much past the concept phase.
Because it's attacking a stereotype and completely disregards the civil rights of the people you search. The police can't possibly have reasonable suspicion that every black person in NYC is a potential criminal. It's the same bullshit that the TSA uses to search/scan everyone who comes through, and it's broken there as well.
Because it's interesting, and the guy who thought of it has a decent track record?
There's plenty of people dreaming, my 6 old daughter thinks there should be an emergency slide to get from a space station back to earth. Where's her article?
Because your daughter's idea is an uneducated flight of fancy. Given she's 6, it's forgivable. This is hypothetical, but not as silly as an emergency slide from the ISS to the ground.
A fast deceleration caused by what? Most fast-decelerations that planes suffer are imposed at 9.8m/s^2 and kill a good chunk of the passengers as they slam into the ground, so I don't see how accidents could be much worse given how few people ride per pod.
So... it does GSM and CDMA? Or did the submitter not do their homework?
Carriers whose protocols give them total control over the phones on the network don't count. Particularly when virtually the entire rest of the world utilizes GSM-derived protocols that leverage SIM cards.
I would assume that they have some haha-nominally-GPL-compliant shim for interacting with the Linux kernel
They do, and they've tried pushing it upstream. It was rightfully rejected because without the closed source blob that Qualcomm controls tightly it's useless.
So you honestly think that no-one at all should pay attention to a person who:
Has done nothing warranting attention? Correct.
A) Searches for pressure cookers
Shit, I better not buy one at the local store!
B) Searches for backpacks
OH FUCK BACKPACKS! SO VERY SUSPICIOUS....
C) Searches for how to make bombs from pressure cookers (read the article)
I've looked up bits about pipe bombs before. Doesn't mean I'm a threat. Or do you think that the FBI fishing at libraries for people who check out suspicious books is reasonable too?
And even those 3 all combined aren't remotely suspicious. I imagine there were lots of similar searches in the wake of the Boston attacks by people who were simply curious.
D) Has a number of visits to China/South Korea (which borders another country you may have heard of).
Completely fucking irrelevant.
The feds are rightfully being criticized for not scooping up the Boston bombers when they had enough information beforehand they might be a problem.
Yes, they had explicit warnings delivered from other governments about the brothers. These two? Google searches?
I wouldn't rule out copycat bombings - would you?
Which is not grounds to do blanket searches and interrogations of anyone who happen to be unfortunate to look at sparse keywords.
I'm not even saying it's right to gather the search data
But you defend the abuse of that data.
Why the hell are you and others so afraid of simply being asked questions?
Because the "authorities" have no business poking into ours unless they can show probable cause and justify a warrant. This mewling "just answer their questions and they'll go away" nonsense simply puts you beneath them. Your pathetic rationalizations make me sick.
it's what you and others voted for when you voted for Obama
How in the royal fuck can you possibly claim to know who I voted for? Oh right, you make assumptions about others then attack accordingly. It's amusing that you defend these abuses yet claim to have voted libertarian. If you actually were a libertarian you'd understand why people would resist unwarranted questioning and searches.
So really you come off as pretty hypocritical whining about this.
And you come off as a arrogant, subservient asshole. Fuck you.
Because you'd be remembered as someone incapable of anything but spitting out slurs? Unable to present a level of commentary exceeding that of a homophobic 14 year old on XBox Live?
It was what they were given. They didn't write the code. Who says they even know how to compile it themselves?
Then what are they doing in business? If they're making and selling media players, they should have someone on hand to manage the software, right? No? Then they're a worthless entity whose lawyers should all be fired for incompetence.
They're distributing something they paid someone else to write for them.
A fool's errand.
The third party they contract violated the GPL license.
Yes, they did as well. Chinese ODMs do constantly and it's shit.
Fantec is distributing the binary with the source code they were supplied with.
Thus they are not innocent, but also in violation due to a lack of due diligence.
If they didn't alter anything, how are they violating anything?
For one, if they didn't alter anything then why do they bother to exist? No value add, no reason to exist. Second, they are still redistributing which puts them under the terms of the GPL.
This has to be a logical fallacy of some sort. "I can't be arsed to back up my claim, so go find proof of my claim for me." I see it used in so many context, virtually always by someone who has no actual evidence for it.
Wow check out the FOSSies above you, if you dare say ANYTHING other than "Gee isn't GPL great? why it sure is Skip and RMS' farts cure global warning" they literally foam at the mouth like rabid dogs...too bad they can't seem to parse a sentence or understand basic language.
I see that you can't stand being corrected or having the (deliberate?) flaws in your argument pointed out to you.
Because GPL and proprietary don't play nice with each other, again that is by design
Despite the fact that the LGPL exists? Despite the fact that there is a lot of proprietary running on GPL platforms? Despite the fact that your point rings completely hollow?
as it was designed to further RMS political agenda
Of course it was. You act like he's not allowed to have one.
just look at how TiVo was named in GPL V3 because by following the license to the letter they still pissed off RMS because they didn't follow his agenda.
Yes, DRM and one-sided lock down is shitty. Unless you're the one with the keys.
what everyone here seems incapable of grasping is that not every company wants to be a FOSS company
Err, how is "everyone here incapable of grasping" this? Oh right, you're attacking a stereotype and ignoring valid counter-arguments because you've already arrived at a conclusion.
its pretty damned obvious since this was NOT THEIR FIRST OFFENSE that this company does NOT want to be a FOSS company so...why?
Because the reality is that their suppliers find it easy to use GPL code because a lot of the work is done for them, and this company has failed, repeatedly, to ensure compliance with the license. The GPL isn't the relevant aspect here (but of course, that doesn't matter to you.)
Why do these coders keep risking the companies they work for by taking GPL code when there is no need?
Why do companies fail to ensure compliance with licenses? Because they're incompetent. Again, this has nothing to do with the GPL, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Have you had fun attacking the stereotypes in your mind today?
Even after posting all the code they have online for free access, they get sued.
Are you illiterate? They got in trouble precisely because they failed to comply with the license by blindly posting something that didn't actually work i.e. it was missing code.
If it was all proprietary, no one would be in court now.
Or they would be in court for violating someone else's license.
Later a GPL zealot finds the code in a commercial project and runs around like a chicken with it's head cut-off. Later still it's explained to them what happened and they disappear, never to apologize. Rinse, repeat.
If this happens so often you'd have an actual, concrete example of this happening, right?
It probably wouldn't have cost them as much as most likely it would have been settled out of court without the need for lawyers and court fees, the BSA just wants to get paid after all and will negotiate,whereas with the GPL there is NO negotiation nor compromise because like it or not that is the way RMS designed the license.
Nonsense. With the BSA it would have cost thousands in licensing fees as they dug into the entire company. The vast majority of GPL-related incidents are resolved out of court.
What I personally don't get when it comes to these cases is...why?
Why? Why do people enforce the license their software was released under? Gee, I have no idea. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people like to have the terms under which their software was made available respected, like any other license?
Why would you bother taking the risk of using GPL code when you aren't a FOSS company and risk possible lawsuits like this?
Because the software is useful and the likelihood of suits like this is low?
If you don't want to be a FOSS company there is BSD
There might be BSD for whatever solution you're looking at.
there is plenty of proprietary solutions
There might be a proprietary solution, at significantly increased costs.
BSD is good enough for fricking Apple and the PS4 so its not like its not got plenty of support
BSD is almost exclusively the user-space command line tools and some minor aspects of the platform's behavior. They also have resources to throw around. And while it has support, it doesn't have nearly the support that Linux has.
one would have to be blind not to see you really need to base a company around FOSS if you are gonna be using it as it doesn't play nice with proprietary, again by design
Oh hairyfeet, lying again. Are you going to delve into the mad conspiracy theory that Torvalds et. al. are secretly integrating code into the kernel to cause proprietary userspace apps to misbehave?
Its when these companies try to mix GPL and proprietary that it bites them in the ass.
No, it's when companies don't pay attention to the licenses the software they get from ODMs and violate the terms that they get bit in the ass. But please, deliberately misrepresent the situation more.
if you are gonna use GPL make sure its no problem for your company to abide by the terms, otherwise choose something else
And it is very, very easy to comply with the GPL.
These cases show that stealing GPL code will end up costing you no different than if you stole proprietary code
Precisely!
So the irony here is that your takeaway is "don't use GPL code" when the real lesson here is "pay attention to the license and abide by the terms." Now shall we see you lie through your teeth some more?
Assuming the edge sparks development of Ubuntu touch
Why would it? Ubuntu Touch is a terrible hack better supplanted by the platform offered by Ubuntu Edge.
why tie up $800 into a phone that doesn't even exist yet, built for a platform that isn't even close to mature?
Because independence from incompetent handset vendors (which adequately describes virtually all Android vendors except Google, seeing how rapidly they abandon their devices) is a valuable thing.
when exactly did it become ok for these for-profit companies to start exploiting crowd sourcing
Since forever. I've never seen a "code of conduct" for crowdsourcing that has said "for-profit companies are not allowed to crowdsource," irony given how many for-profit companies are started by crowdsourcing.
I believe Ubuntu has single-handedly done more to bring down the quality of Linux on the desktop than any other distro.
Please. Other than Unity, using Ubuntu has been the least painful experience I've had using Linux. Fedora just pisses me off, Debian seems non-functional, and other sparse distros aren't worth the effort (gentoo, arch, etc.)
The Ubuntu derivatives that push past Unity have learned well from this and as a result suck significantly less than they likely would have otherwise.
Android, as a platform, is independent from Google's ecosystem. Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes, but nonetheless the platform is not fundamentally tied into Google's services.
Since we're going to be dragged totally off topic...
You know why you hate TMRepo, which BTW you should be fucking ASHAMED of comparing a JOKE SITE to Stromfront you douchebag
Back to the childish insults I see. I compared it because that's what it comes down to. They pigeonhole everyone that disagrees with them into a stereotype and attack that with all the same fervor. It's a joke site to them, because they sit back, stereotype people, and mock them because of it, all the while believing themselves to be superior.
Because like all good jokes its FUNNY BECAUSE ITS TRUE.
Stereotypes have some kernel of truth to them, doesn't make them good or justification for entire sites where people basically pat each other on the back because they disagree with people who hold other opinions.
I can answer ALL of your arguments with the top 20 TMRepos, you know why?
Answer? Or just provide a pathetic contradiction?
Its the SAME FUCKING EXCUSES the FOSSies have been using for a fricking decade, that's why!
Excuses? Or the same answers to the same questions?
How do you think TMRepo came to be? a guy got tired of hearing the same old FOSSie bullshit and decided to just start listing them and tada! TMRepo.
So one guy decided that he didn't like a handful of people and decided to stereotype everyone that he could pigeon hole under that banner. Sadly, more people joined him because they have the same sad lack of maturity.
And now we get your spew of links. I'll ignore the one from TechnoStormfront, since it isn't relevant outside that site.
As for your second, Project Sputnik is still alive and well. Of course, the OEMs mostly focus at the enterprise level because the Windows monopoly on the desktop persists. It's one of the downside of a monoculture: one vendor gets all of the attention and the rest languish. Your third link I answered many, many months ago, specifically that the unit discussed in the article was never supported by Ubuntu because it used the old GMA500 chipset, one that even Intel did a shit job supporting.
ESR and CUPS
So for your argument to be relevant we have to assume it's 2004 all over again and that absolutely nothing has changed. Yet right after ESR posted his article things started changing. But the most important thing about his article is that it is constructive criticism and not antagonistic name calling and venom spitting.
X.org
So we're going to blame Linux, as a whole, for the failings of what is generally regarded as a decrepit graphics stack with replacements on their way? I mean, don't go thinking that people are blind to this, if they were then things like Wayland wouldn't be getting done (and before you bitch about them taking a long time, consider how long X11 and the X.org codebase have been around. Would you prefer it done shitty and fast, or take a little while and get done right? Unfortunately, I suspect that for you it's wrong no matter what and the Linux world can never do anything right.)
I mean for the love of God fricking God Windows 8, the most hated windows since MSBob, got more users by its second month than Linux has in its entire history, what more proof do you fucking need that your current bullshit direction ain't working?
Considering that Windows 8 was guaranteed to get that many, this is a non-sequitur. Again, the advantage of a monopoly where the OEMs will, in accordance with your licensing agreements, switch fully over to the new platform the moment it is released.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result
Embedded and mobile is actually a great example of major hardware vendors who don't actually cooperate with the upstream Kernel. They fail to upstream a lot of their drivers and, as a result, have to spend time porting them forward when Google moves to a new kernel.
The sad bit is that all of that forward porting would be done for them if they went upstream, but since the hardware vendors integrate all sorts of custom Android-isms and they don't focus past the time their dev teams transition to the next handset, they end up expending more resources for no good reason.
Linus Torvalds gives more care about religious dogma than designing an OS that works
Not only is this ridiculous hyperbole, it's hyperbole that isn't even remotely true.
since the vast majority of the public are NOT what I call "FOSSies" and do not give a rat turd about GPL purity Linux goes nowhere.
Actually, it's why the silly FSF-approved distros will go nowhere.
not even the other free as in freedom OSes like BSD and Solaris
Coincidentally, the BSD kernels have moved nowhere near as fast. And solaris is not "Free as in Freedom," Oracle cut it off so at best you have the kernel from Solaris 10 - an OS that was closed source for ages.
You have MAYBE 400 guys working with Torvalds and qualified to write and debug low level systems drivers, following so far?
Not when you're blatantly pulling bullshit numbers out of your ass.
Now add in the fact that there is probably a good 10,000 new devices coming out per quarter MINIMUM and a good 100,000+ drivers that are ALREADY in the tree....see the problem yet?
10000? I doubt that. But the difference is that they know that they have to support Windows, so they write Windows drivers (it's the advantage being a monopoly gets you.) Of course, the drivers in the tree don't need -constant- maintenance. And virtually every one of them who is qualified as an owner, most of which are employed by the company that produced the device.
But what do we get when we point this out, and what I'm sure to hear here? We don't need no steekin ABI and then you expect
Well:
- You link to "tmrepository," a site pretty much the geek equivalent of Stormfront, just about as twisted in upon itself, irrational, ignorant and hateful.
- The stable ABI argument is nonsense because you then bind yourself to whatever the closed source vendors are using. You are hamstrung for the sake of a bunch of driver writers who refuse to cooperate for no good reason and you don't dare fix it for fear of breaking some proprietary driver the vendor hasn't updated in years.
> The primary reason it's bullshit is because if you're so insistent on being proprietary, you target a specific distro's kernel, say, RHEL 6.3 or Ubuntu 12.04. Upstream is an entirely different beast, but given your ignorance I would assume you know nothing other than what the hate-filled people at "tmrepository" have cherry picked to mock.
> Conversely, what you're saying is that the Linux team shouldn't do it their way, they should do it a different way. One that gives 100% of the benefit to proprietary vendors and zero benefit to vendors that actually cooperate and upstream their drivers.
- You're in over your head in making this argument and resort to CAPS, name calling, and constant vulgarity while completely failing to present anything resembling a convincing argument.
Nvidia is the only company it seems willing to blow that much money supporting Linux
Yeah, they're the only company pushing a binary driver that actually puts money into supporting Linux. It's not like driver development is free, it costs money to support Windows too. Interestingly, Nvidia also has lots of customers on Linux, so unsurprisingly they invest in the drivers and make sure it works.
Whereas with my employer, we work and push directly to the kernel, in addition to supporting the specific kernels of select distributions. Net result is that the driver is better than it was before we released it - not that there was anything special about it before. I suspect the same is true for most drivers.
But here we are again, another unsupported, empty, emotional spew from hairyfeet about things he doesn't actually understand.
Slashdot Mirror
That's different from an impact-style deceleration, which all of your examples involve. I suppose it depends on what kind of fault is in the tube, unfortunately there are so many that there are a number of different scenarios including: not stopping, allowing the increase in air pressure to slow the car, slamming into a fractured tube and crashing, etc.
Oh right, they tend to fail in the sky then either explode, break up, lose engine power at low altitude then drop from the sky at odd angles or glide to the ground. And when you hit the ground, if you're lucky, they won't collide with something, break apart, and burst into flames (if there's fuel left.) There's a reason air crashes are so terrifying despite being relatively uncommon.
I suppose I'm struggling to see your point, given that this project hasn't gotten much past the concept phase.
Because it's attacking a stereotype and completely disregards the civil rights of the people you search. The police can't possibly have reasonable suspicion that every black person in NYC is a potential criminal. It's the same bullshit that the TSA uses to search/scan everyone who comes through, and it's broken there as well.
Because it's interesting, and the guy who thought of it has a decent track record?
Because your daughter's idea is an uneducated flight of fancy. Given she's 6, it's forgivable. This is hypothetical, but not as silly as an emergency slide from the ISS to the ground.
A fast deceleration caused by what? Most fast-decelerations that planes suffer are imposed at 9.8m/s^2 and kill a good chunk of the passengers as they slam into the ground, so I don't see how accidents could be much worse given how few people ride per pod.
Carriers whose protocols give them total control over the phones on the network don't count. Particularly when virtually the entire rest of the world utilizes GSM-derived protocols that leverage SIM cards.
No, you don't turn UEFI off. What you do is activate the CSM, which emulates older BIOS calls and maps them to UEFI functionality.
They do, and they've tried pushing it upstream. It was rightfully rejected because without the closed source blob that Qualcomm controls tightly it's useless.
Has done nothing warranting attention? Correct.
Shit, I better not buy one at the local store!
OH FUCK BACKPACKS! SO VERY SUSPICIOUS....
I've looked up bits about pipe bombs before. Doesn't mean I'm a threat. Or do you think that the FBI fishing at libraries for people who check out suspicious books is reasonable too?
And even those 3 all combined aren't remotely suspicious. I imagine there were lots of similar searches in the wake of the Boston attacks by people who were simply curious.
Completely fucking irrelevant.
Yes, they had explicit warnings delivered from other governments about the brothers. These two? Google searches?
Which is not grounds to do blanket searches and interrogations of anyone who happen to be unfortunate to look at sparse keywords.
But you defend the abuse of that data.
Because the "authorities" have no business poking into ours unless they can show probable cause and justify a warrant. This mewling "just answer their questions and they'll go away" nonsense simply puts you beneath them. Your pathetic rationalizations make me sick.
How in the royal fuck can you possibly claim to know who I voted for? Oh right, you make assumptions about others then attack accordingly. It's amusing that you defend these abuses yet claim to have voted libertarian. If you actually were a libertarian you'd understand why people would resist unwarranted questioning and searches.
And you come off as a arrogant, subservient asshole. Fuck you.
None of which is grounds for visits from the Feds, particularly on terrorism grounds.
Because you'd be remembered as someone incapable of anything but spitting out slurs? Unable to present a level of commentary exceeding that of a homophobic 14 year old on XBox Live?
Then go buy one instead of commenting on an article about something that is of no interest to you.
They do? I've heard them claim several numbers of stopped plots, and yet the most visible was missed completely.
Then what are they doing in business? If they're making and selling media players, they should have someone on hand to manage the software, right? No? Then they're a worthless entity whose lawyers should all be fired for incompetence.
A fool's errand.
Yes, they did as well. Chinese ODMs do constantly and it's shit.
Thus they are not innocent, but also in violation due to a lack of due diligence.
For one, if they didn't alter anything then why do they bother to exist? No value add, no reason to exist. Second, they are still redistributing which puts them under the terms of the GPL.
Hey look, there it is again:
This has to be a logical fallacy of some sort. "I can't be arsed to back up my claim, so go find proof of my claim for me." I see it used in so many context, virtually always by someone who has no actual evidence for it.
I see that you can't stand being corrected or having the (deliberate?) flaws in your argument pointed out to you.
Despite the fact that the LGPL exists? Despite the fact that there is a lot of proprietary running on GPL platforms? Despite the fact that your point rings completely hollow?
Of course it was. You act like he's not allowed to have one.
Yes, DRM and one-sided lock down is shitty. Unless you're the one with the keys.
Err, how is "everyone here incapable of grasping" this? Oh right, you're attacking a stereotype and ignoring valid counter-arguments because you've already arrived at a conclusion.
Because the reality is that their suppliers find it easy to use GPL code because a lot of the work is done for them, and this company has failed, repeatedly, to ensure compliance with the license. The GPL isn't the relevant aspect here (but of course, that doesn't matter to you.)
Why do companies fail to ensure compliance with licenses? Because they're incompetent. Again, this has nothing to do with the GPL, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Have you had fun attacking the stereotypes in your mind today?
I see the liars are out in force today.
As much of a risk as any copyright violation is.
Are you illiterate? They got in trouble precisely because they failed to comply with the license by blindly posting something that didn't actually work i.e. it was missing code.
Or they would be in court for violating someone else's license.
I see that Stormfront and its sociopathic, nerd-focused sister sites are starting to make themselves apparent on Slashdot.
If this happens so often you'd have an actual, concrete example of this happening, right?
Nonsense. With the BSA it would have cost thousands in licensing fees as they dug into the entire company. The vast majority of GPL-related incidents are resolved out of court.
Why? Why do people enforce the license their software was released under? Gee, I have no idea. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people like to have the terms under which their software was made available respected, like any other license?
Because the software is useful and the likelihood of suits like this is low?
There might be BSD for whatever solution you're looking at.
There might be a proprietary solution, at significantly increased costs.
BSD is almost exclusively the user-space command line tools and some minor aspects of the platform's behavior. They also have resources to throw around. And while it has support, it doesn't have nearly the support that Linux has.
Oh hairyfeet, lying again. Are you going to delve into the mad conspiracy theory that Torvalds et. al. are secretly integrating code into the kernel to cause proprietary userspace apps to misbehave?
No, it's when companies don't pay attention to the licenses the software they get from ODMs and violate the terms that they get bit in the ass. But please, deliberately misrepresent the situation more.
And it is very, very easy to comply with the GPL.
Precisely!
So the irony here is that your takeaway is "don't use GPL code" when the real lesson here is "pay attention to the license and abide by the terms." Now shall we see you lie through your teeth some more?
Why would it? Ubuntu Touch is a terrible hack better supplanted by the platform offered by Ubuntu Edge.
Because independence from incompetent handset vendors (which adequately describes virtually all Android vendors except Google, seeing how rapidly they abandon their devices) is a valuable thing.
Since forever. I've never seen a "code of conduct" for crowdsourcing that has said "for-profit companies are not allowed to crowdsource," irony given how many for-profit companies are started by crowdsourcing.
Please. Other than Unity, using Ubuntu has been the least painful experience I've had using Linux. Fedora just pisses me off, Debian seems non-functional, and other sparse distros aren't worth the effort (gentoo, arch, etc.)
The Ubuntu derivatives that push past Unity have learned well from this and as a result suck significantly less than they likely would have otherwise.
Android, as a platform, is independent from Google's ecosystem. Replicant has little to no control over their future due to Google being a largely insular upstream that dictates where it goes, but nonetheless the platform is not fundamentally tied into Google's services.
Since we're going to be dragged totally off topic...
Back to the childish insults I see. I compared it because that's what it comes down to. They pigeonhole everyone that disagrees with them into a stereotype and attack that with all the same fervor. It's a joke site to them, because they sit back, stereotype people, and mock them because of it, all the while believing themselves to be superior.
Stereotypes have some kernel of truth to them, doesn't make them good or justification for entire sites where people basically pat each other on the back because they disagree with people who hold other opinions.
Answer? Or just provide a pathetic contradiction?
Excuses? Or the same answers to the same questions?
So one guy decided that he didn't like a handful of people and decided to stereotype everyone that he could pigeon hole under that banner. Sadly, more people joined him because they have the same sad lack of maturity.
And now we get your spew of links. I'll ignore the one from TechnoStormfront, since it isn't relevant outside that site.
As for your second, Project Sputnik is still alive and well. Of course, the OEMs mostly focus at the enterprise level because the Windows monopoly on the desktop persists. It's one of the downside of a monoculture: one vendor gets all of the attention and the rest languish. Your third link I answered many, many months ago, specifically that the unit discussed in the article was never supported by Ubuntu because it used the old GMA500 chipset, one that even Intel did a shit job supporting.
So for your argument to be relevant we have to assume it's 2004 all over again and that absolutely nothing has changed. Yet right after ESR posted his article things started changing. But the most important thing about his article is that it is constructive criticism and not antagonistic name calling and venom spitting.
So we're going to blame Linux, as a whole, for the failings of what is generally regarded as a decrepit graphics stack with replacements on their way? I mean, don't go thinking that people are blind to this, if they were then things like Wayland wouldn't be getting done (and before you bitch about them taking a long time, consider how long X11 and the X.org codebase have been around. Would you prefer it done shitty and fast, or take a little while and get done right? Unfortunately, I suspect that for you it's wrong no matter what and the Linux world can never do anything right.)
Considering that Windows 8 was guaranteed to get that many, this is a non-sequitur. Again, the advantage of a monopoly where the OEMs will, in accordance with your licensing agreements, switch fully over to the new platform the moment it is released.
S
Embedded and mobile is actually a great example of major hardware vendors who don't actually cooperate with the upstream Kernel. They fail to upstream a lot of their drivers and, as a result, have to spend time porting them forward when Google moves to a new kernel.
The sad bit is that all of that forward porting would be done for them if they went upstream, but since the hardware vendors integrate all sorts of custom Android-isms and they don't focus past the time their dev teams transition to the next handset, they end up expending more resources for no good reason.
Not only is this ridiculous hyperbole, it's hyperbole that isn't even remotely true.
Actually, it's why the silly FSF-approved distros will go nowhere.
Coincidentally, the BSD kernels have moved nowhere near as fast. And solaris is not "Free as in Freedom," Oracle cut it off so at best you have the kernel from Solaris 10 - an OS that was closed source for ages.
Not when you're blatantly pulling bullshit numbers out of your ass.
10000? I doubt that. But the difference is that they know that they have to support Windows, so they write Windows drivers (it's the advantage being a monopoly gets you.) Of course, the drivers in the tree don't need -constant- maintenance. And virtually every one of them who is qualified as an owner, most of which are employed by the company that produced the device.
Well:
- You link to "tmrepository," a site pretty much the geek equivalent of Stormfront, just about as twisted in upon itself, irrational, ignorant and hateful.
- The stable ABI argument is nonsense because you then bind yourself to whatever the closed source vendors are using. You are hamstrung for the sake of a bunch of driver writers who refuse to cooperate for no good reason and you don't dare fix it for fear of breaking some proprietary driver the vendor hasn't updated in years.
> The primary reason it's bullshit is because if you're so insistent on being proprietary, you target a specific distro's kernel, say, RHEL 6.3 or Ubuntu 12.04. Upstream is an entirely different beast, but given your ignorance I would assume you know nothing other than what the hate-filled people at "tmrepository" have cherry picked to mock.
> Conversely, what you're saying is that the Linux team shouldn't do it their way, they should do it a different way. One that gives 100% of the benefit to proprietary vendors and zero benefit to vendors that actually cooperate and upstream their drivers.
- You're in over your head in making this argument and resort to CAPS, name calling, and constant vulgarity while completely failing to present anything resembling a convincing argument.
Yeah, they're the only company pushing a binary driver that actually puts money into supporting Linux. It's not like driver development is free, it costs money to support Windows too. Interestingly, Nvidia also has lots of customers on Linux, so unsurprisingly they invest in the drivers and make sure it works.
Whereas with my employer, we work and push directly to the kernel, in addition to supporting the specific kernels of select distributions. Net result is that the driver is better than it was before we released it - not that there was anything special about it before. I suspect the same is true for most drivers.
But here we are again, another unsupported, empty, emotional spew from hairyfeet about things he doesn't actually understand.