OT: nVidia driver -- everything but open source is slavery?

[Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

From: Rui Miguel Seabra <rms at 1407.org>
> Chosing slavery is not a freedom, it's waiving freedom.

This is _exactly_ the type of non-sense I'm talking about!
By the same definition, you can call "working" as "slavery."

Are you entitled to free drivers that are Open Source?
Or should you have to _work_ to ensure Freedomware drivers?

Either you pay ATI, Matrox, nVidia, etc... for their latest efforts.
Or you wait on the efforts of others in the community, possibly
helping them as well.

You are _not_ entitled to "free money" by not working anymore
than you are _not_ entitled to Open Source on every, latest
innovation.

> Likewise, accepting non-Free(dom) terms is not freedom of choice, but
> subjugation to somebody else's power over you.

Because you are looking at this as a "Microsoft" type problem --
complete proprietary/unmaintained source/standards.  You don't
see any middle ground -- you think everything is "slavery."

> In the case of 3d binary drivers, they're exploiting your craving for
> 3D, and providing it at cost of your loss of freedom.

No I'm not.  I'm free to choose whatever video solution I want.

If I choose nVidia, I am saying that I trust them to continue their
outstanding GLX support for Linux.  I do the same when I choose
Matrox as well, and ATI as of more recent.

At any time I can choose another libGL/GLX solution.  I'm not tied to
choosing nVidia.  I choose nVidia because they provide _value_
in a libGL/GLX solution in lieu of an adequate one when necessary.

That's the difference when you look at "open" v. "proprietary"
_standards_.  Yes, open source is typically ideal.  I don't dispute that.
But this "absolutism" as shown as "slavery" has gotta go!

> It is your choice, in fact, but not much different than the choice a
> chemically (3D) addicted person has over buying the chemical to the
> local dealer.

Then engineering firms are all addicts then.
This is they type of "radical" non-sense I'm talking about!

> You may get the appeasing visions, but in the end you'll eventually
> suffer, and you seem to like enticing others to do it, which is
> reprehensible.

No I won't!  I can switch to a Freedomware solution when *I* feel
it's viable.  nVidia is creating a libGL/GLX solution that offers value
over what is available in open source.  When I feel it no longer holds
value over Open Source, I'm free to switch!


From: "Sean" <seanlkml at sympatico.ca>
> Bryan,
> I agree with much of what you said; forgive me for focusing on only the
> things where we differ:

I appreciate that.  I'm not here advocating that "open standards" are
_better_ than "open source."  I'm just saying there is a balance sometimes.

> People who understand the distinctions you draw, may still conclude that
> their own best interest is served by focusing on open-source, and
> rejecting the rest of your categories.   This does not make them radical
> or narrow minded.

And I'm one of them.

But when I see the "slavery" comments that are clearly based on
Commerceware/Hostageware -- that _is_ radical!

> But you're advocating for what others should do too!  You're no different
> than the people who are advocating for open source.  You might think your
> criteria is based on sounder reasoning, however we think ours is based on
> even more sound reasoning ;o)

My reasoning is choice.  I have praised Red Hat for their choice and hope
others follow.  But don't go off the "radical deep end" when you do.

You don't have to stretch the truth to get people to only use open source.
But that's what I saw in the nVidia thread, hence why I entered it.

Let's be _factual_.  I'm not saying anything but _factual_.
But some people still want to make it "absolutism" and that's _wrong_.

> Yes.  But other than the technical arguments against using binary-only
> drivers, nobody is telling you what is best for you.

But they are calling those who do a "slave."  That's what I'm talking about.
It's "us" or "them" and there's only 2-sides, 1-dimension -- non-sense!

You either choose to pay for value, or you either help or wait on the
community to increase its value.  I agree, open source is best!  That's why
I call it "Freedomware."  But sometimes I'm willing to use "Standardware"
because it offers values while _not_ making me a slave to some proprietary
standard.

That's the bane of Commerceware and intentional Hostageware.  _Huge_
difference.

> Only what, in our opinion, is best for the advancement of open source.

I'll take opinions.  But what I will _not_ stand for is "guilting" like I'm seeing.
That is just wrong, demonizing and is no better than some of the things
Microsoft does.

It's people "caught in the middle" that get expensed in this absolutism war
of non-sense.

> You're free to use whatever criteria you want in making your own choice.
> That doesn't mean we should be silenced when suggesting to people that
> they consider their choice in a broader context.

Please do not lecture me on not being "silenced" given some of these
comments made by others.  Think about it.  ;->  


From: Rik van Riel <riel at redhat.com>
> I've seen no evidence that software patents actually
> promote innovation, and neither have the various
> studies commissioned by a number of governments.
> Also, I can't think of a single piece of software
> that wouldn't have been invented if it weren't for
> the existance of patents.  Not a single one...

And thus we have the epitome of the argument.  ;->


From: seth vidal <skvidal at phy.duke.edu>
> I think that's b/c the driving force behind a lot of software creation
> is 'boy, this would be cool'.

The majority are evolutionary.  A very few are innovative.
The key is to only allow the very innovative details to be patented.
Especially when research and other costs are involved.

That was a major reason for the system, to recoup costs.


From: Paul Iadonisi <pri.rhl4 at iadonisi.to>
> And those who think otherwise seem to hold the view that direct
> financial gain is the only thing that motivates anyone to produce any
> ideas of worth.  It's a cynical and bogus point of view.  For every
> programmer that insist on patenting his novel software ideas and won't
> program otherwise, there are many, many who will come along and produce
> what he wouldn't for the love of 'promoting the progress of science'.
> Hmm, where have I heard that before. ;-)

The key is when there is financial cost involved to innovate.
The problem is that the current system fosters "patents on a dime."
But that doesn't mean there aren't patents that don't require research.
And those costs should be recouped.

Again, some people are thinking of "worst case scenarios."
I see the same thing when I see comments like "slavery."
That seems to be the majority of thought.
But no, the whole system should not be brought down.


From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
> Bogus because no real programmer will know or want to know how to deal
> with patents, so they don't figure in his thinking. 

Wow!  That's a nice, broad assertion!
More "we know better than anyone else."

> And people who know how to file patents have historically been more
> interested in registering the obvious than new ideas (this part would
> require lawyers and developpers to talk with each other, which is a
> social impossibility)

Then change the system to discourage that!  I've already talked in
length on peer review processes and other ways to limit these in
many other posts and threads.

The problem is that when you have a system that is not working, you
don't just tear it down.  You fix the problem.  That seems to be a
recuring trend in the US, possibly elsewhere.  It's a radical viewpoint
to think that the entire system is flawed when it worked very well
before some people starting abusing it.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org