OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list]

Paul Iadonisi pri.rhl4 at iadonisi.to
Thu Jun 9 13:05:02 UTC 2005


[Note: This should have been a reply to the Bryan's message, since I
didn't wind up responding to any of Sean's comments.  I was just lazy
and didn't want to change what message I was replying to and
subsequently have to change all the quoting.  Sorry. :-/ ]

On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 07:58 -0400, Sean wrote:
> On Thu, June 9, 2005 6:26 am, Bryan J. Smith said:

> > People aren't picking "nVidia-only" application.  They are picking
> > nVidia to run those _open_standard_ applications on nVidia hardware for
> > now.  They are _not_ tying themselves into nVidia-only applications.
> >
> > I think that's the point I keep seeing people miss.  And why the whole
> > "open" v. "proprietary" can be demonized to make anyone's argument stick
> > to whatever ideal they want.

  I don't think you read my message very carefully.  I know what your
talking about regarding open v. proprietary, but that was not at all the
gist of my message.  I'm talking about Free Software in the FSF sense of
the phrase.  That's what matters to me, and it is what I want to
continue to matter to the Fedora Project and, going forward, the Fedora
Foundation.

> > But I really hate seeing _both_sides_ go at it with *0* understanding
> > and all sorts of _unrelated_ "open" non-sense.  Like talking about
> > proprietary libraries, when we're talking just hardware and drivers that
> > does _open_standard_ GLX!

  Again, I haven't seen many, if any people arguing about whether or not
nVidia is designing their cards and drivers to an open standard.  But
you're starting to sound like Sun's Jonathan Schwartz.  To him, and some
others in the industry, open standards matter more than source code
under a Free license.  That's not the case with the Fedora Project and
I, at least, am going to lobby to keep it that way.  And although that
doesn't mean deliberately breaking closed source kernel modules, it does
mean having zero concern about whether or not they break.  We leave that
completely in the hands of those who have chosen keep their source
closed.
  I make sacrifices when there isn't a Free Software solution for the
job I need to do.  I'm not talking about work here...there, sure, I
don't always have a choice.  But I know the folly of my ways.  I'm a
reluctantly loyal user VMware since version 1.0.  But when it breaks --
which it does just often enough to be annoying after some kernel updates
-- I get to keep all the pieces.  I don't complain on the Fedora lists
that VMware is broken again.  When I get the chance, I bitch at VMware,
where my wrath should be directed.  Even if it was free-as-in-beer
software like nVidia's drivers, I wouldn't be complaining here.  And, of
course, I fully intend to stop purchasing upgrades to VMware when Xen is
a viable replacement for me.
  But I know my folly, and that it is *my* folly.  I help people to get
it working when the latest kernel update precipitates a another
breakage.  Never, NEVER, would I argue that Fedora should make it easy
for VMware to keep their drivers closed.  I want pressure to be placed
on VMware to open at least those kernel modules so that core kernel
developers can help when they break.  EVEN when it inconveniences me.


-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list