Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:49:05 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Announce: ndiswrapper |
| |
Neil Brown wrote:
>On Thursday November 20, piggin@cyberone.com.au wrote: > >>You have to admit its good for end users though. And indirectly, what >>is good for them is good for us. Take the nvidia example: end users get >>either a binary driver or nothing. If we were somehow able to stop >>nvidia from distributing their binary driver, they would say "OK". >> > >Is it good for end users? It allows them to buy a computer with an >nvidia graphics controller because "NVidia supply drivers", and then >discover that support is only as good as NVidia are willing to make >it. I'm still waiting for some sort of power management support for >the nvidia controller in my notebook. If the driver and the specs >were open, I could possibly do it myself. On the other hand if there >were no NVidia drivers, I never would have made the (arguable) mistake >of buying this notebook. >
I'm all for open specs, but in reality that doesn't always happen. (out of interest, are there any OS 3d drivers for any current cards?)
I know what you mean, but I would find nvidia more at fault for not providing power management than no OS drivers.
> >Ofcourse we cannot and should not stop people from providing the >option of binary only drivers, but I'm not convinced that we should >acknowlege that people who provide binary-only drivers are doing a >useful service for anyone but themselves. >
No I wouldn't say that, I meant the Linux Kernel is doing the end users a favour by allowing binary modules.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |