On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:02:58PM +0200, Matthew wrote:Hi Greg,
I largely agree to this statement,
there are however some downsides if you're preventing driver
manufacturers (e.g. nvidia, ...) from the possibility to offer their
customers proprietary drivers:
1) One big and important point for me (and more and more future
linux-users) is powersaving features on GPUs like powermizer (by
nvidia) and powerplay (by AMD/ATI) or other hardware. I haven't seen
this working on newer graphics cards models with the opensource
drivers to the present day :(
I think that's one of the reasons of Greg's post.
(...)if those companies can't use their own closed proprietary drivers
utilizing patented routines they are "forced" to use
You're wrong here. If they have patented routines, they don't need
their drivers to be closed, since there routines are protected by
patents. And even if they are not patented, not releasing the source
will not prevent a competitor from disassembling the code anyway.
So there's really no point in remaining closed. Some of them might
have signed NDAs before using some technologies, but by this time,
they should have sorted that our.
they might think over it and switch to another operating system ...
Do you know many products with closed Linux drivers which are not
supported by at least one closed OS ? If they chose to support
Linux, it's not for your pleasure, just because they know they will
sell 5-10% more when a penguin is stuck on the box.
Willy