-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of jdow Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:52 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down.
So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/
That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-)
Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement, particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so?
What has capitalism to do with that? It is about freedom of choice.
If you think you can build something better or cheaper, you must have the freedom to do so. Otoh, if a state-owned-company has "a Plan" to produce the next five years or so, crap at bargain process, so be it.
Just as any customer has the freedom to choose any product. And let the customer decide what is important to him: price, feature, quality, stability, support...
Hw
______________________________________________________________________ Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.
On 2012/10/03 01:13, J.Witvliet@mindef.nl wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of jdow Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:52 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down.
So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/
That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-)
Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement, particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so?
What has capitalism to do with that? It is about freedom of choice.
If you think you can build something better or cheaper, you must have the freedom to do so. Otoh, if a state-owned-company has "a Plan" to produce the next five years or so, crap at bargain process, so be it.
Just as any customer has the freedom to choose any product. And let the customer decide what is important to him: price, feature, quality, stability, support...
Hw
Hw, if there is no incentive to do something, why bother to do it? That dirty rotten awful stinky evil capitalism provides the incentive. If I don't get something additional out of working hard, I don't work hard - indeed, why should I bother to work at all?
{^_^}
Hw, if there is no incentive to do something, why bother to do it? That dirty rotten awful stinky evil capitalism provides the incentive. If I don't get something additional out of working hard, I don't work hard - indeed, why should I bother to work at all?
If nobody needs to work why bother. Read up on the economics of early hunter gatherer societies. Read up on the lives of many of the rich and successful. They'll be awfully relevant as the robots take over.
Executive summary though: people do stuff given the chance because it's what humans are. There are many super rich people who don't just sit and watch TV. A large amount of free software is written by people who aren't paid to do it but who do it for "fun". Hunter/gatherers made stuff that had no functional purpose because they had lots of spare time to just enjoy life (if your environment supports it then it's way more time efficient than agriculture).
Alan
-
Alan Cox -
J.Witvliet＠mindef.nl -
jdow