Re: Kernel source -- CASE IN POINT (does anyone remember the original thread?)

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>]

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> no you made the assumption that I was blaming nvidia for not
> keeping the other driver uptodate. I was blaming having a binary
> driver at all (or I could even go as far as having an external
> other driver) for causing users not to report errors or even
> wanting to help fix things.  Different beasts.

Okay, I stand clarified.

But here's the deal.  Users expect it to work "out-of-the-box," so
most users _do_ report the issue.

But don't shoot nVidia for offering another avenue.  In fact, was it
not Intel that did the same with the e100/e1000 drivers, before it
was GPL?  I remember a lot of transmitter problems that were solved. 
;->

Same issue.  And nVidia is quickly moving GPL as fast as they can,
just like Intel did.  It doesn't happen overnight.

There's also the added issue that _unlike_ Intel, nVidia is *NOT* the
800lbs. gorilla that can force everyone to buy _only_ their Intel
product.  Let's remember that not everyone out there can act like
Intel and Microsoft in forcing Tawainese vendors to only use their
MAC+PHY combination.

In fact, using only Intel's single combination of a MAC+PHY is really
more of a side effect of a near-monopoly (Intel) without competition.
 So don't shoot nVidia for not being "big enough" to do what Intel
forces everyone else to do.  ;->



-- 
Bryan J. Smith   Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
I'm a Democrat.  No wait, I'm a Republican.  Hmm,
it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.

-- 

amd64-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list