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

[Bryan J. Smith]

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:  
> Under a certain light yes, why should one _have_ to work for a living?
> I'd rather have time to program Free Software :)

But it is still work -- it is an effort that produces something.
Whether you pay for it or work to create it, it's the same balance.
Freedom isn't free, you pay for it differently than in another way.

> I'm entitled to freedom. Signing my soul away isn't freedom, is
> accepting subjugation to power.

Here we go again, the absolutisms ... "signing my soul away"

I am waiting *1* person to tell me how I'm signing my soul away by
using _open_standard_ drivers with an example other than their past
experience with _proprietary_standard_ drivers which is wholly
inapplicable.  The problem is that by not differentiating, you are
making it a 2-choice, 1-dimension issue which it is not.

> I don't mind paying, I'm not talking about software obtained for gratis.
> Hell, I wouldn't mind paying another 100€ for Free Software drivers for
> the GeForce2MX that I don't have anymore instead of having payed another
> 150€ for an Ati Radeon 7500 that has Free Software drivers.

But once you have them, there there go be no restriction on your
distribution.  Basic economies.  Free Software drivers wouldn't cost the
same "per unit" cost, but "per open license."  I.e., instead of $100
distributed amongst 10,000 people, it's a _flat_ $1M!

This basic fact of microeconomics seems to elude so many people in the
open source world.  Of all people, I would assume those on Red Hat's list
would understand the difficulty in competing in an industry where you
have to compete with a competitors per-unit cost of ~$100, in volumes of
the millions when you don't sell even 1/100th of that.  ;-ppp

> Everyone is entitled to freedom. Choosing convenience in spite of
> freedom is absurd, advocating this kind of choice is immoral.

What is one man's convenience is another man's necessity.  Who are you
to dictate what you see as a convenience but others is a necessity as
an "immoral" choice to make?  That is the kind of non-sense that leads
right down to "force community" and radical ideas.

Choice, based on _individual_ perspective.  You can_not_ assert what is
better for someone else -- that is very, very, very _dangerous_!

Now I've shown that my so-called "immoral" selection is _not_ slavery
because I am deploying an open _standard_ solution that can be replaced
by an open _source_ solution if the former option is no longer
available.  What you view as "convenience" others view as "necessity,"
and some would have gone to Windows Hostageware had it not been for
nVidia's Standardware (libGL/GLX) solution on Linux.

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for *1* example of how I am "enslaved"
by temporarily choosing an open _standards_ solution in lieu of a
feasible open _source_ solution.  No more _proprietary_standard_
examples, I would like to see some _real_ examples.

Otherwise, I think I've made my point enough.  I became active again
on this list to work on the init for FC5, not get into this mess.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                     b.j.smith at ieee.org 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you.  Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them).  Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work.  ;->