Contributed by grey on from the supporting the cause dept.
When Richard Stallman learned that a compiler architect from ATI would be speaking at MIT, he immediately started organizing a protest against ATI's damaging free software policies.
...
The assistant to the faculty member in charge of organizing the event came over and asked Richard to stand outside the room, away from the people gathering for the speech. He, of course, refused to leave as it was his right as a member of the public (and even more his right as someone with an office in that very same building!) to be there. He informed her that he had no intention of disrupting the speech with his voice. The sign, he said, was loud only visually and would not disturb anyone listening to the speech.
see more
(Comments are closed)
By Archite (17.107.143.93) adam@akarsoft.com on http://akarsoft.com
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
On another note, has anyone considered requesting documentation for the AGEIA physics processor? These may catch on in the future, after which I expect the ATI/nVidea syndrome will quickly set in. Maybe if we get onboard early while the company is looking for market penetration ... Yes, I know the board would be useless at present -- this could be an opportunity to come up with a sane API for wider adoption before a dumb-ass one from some other party fills the vacuum.
Comments
By Noryungi (83.202.90.71) n o r y u n g o @ y ah o o . c o m on
On another note, has anyone considered requesting documentation for the AGEIA physics processor? These may catch on in the future, after which I expect the ATI/nVidea syndrome will quickly set in.
From what I have been able to understand from their web site, this is a co-processor specifically designed for gaming rigs. The web site even proudly announces: Power your gaming rig with the AGEIA PhysX processor.
Based on this information, I really have to ask: why on earth would you like OpenBSD to support something which it is obviously not created to support? Namely: playing games? Supporting crypto, network and other security hardware I can understand, but gaming-related hardware? I don't think so. Do you really want the most secure gaming platform around?
(Not that it should stop interested parties from contacting Ageia, of course... You never know...)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
Your right of course -- it certainly isn't an obvious fit. I was under the impression it was going to be a PCIx card, and I guess I just accept that my imagination may be limited when it comes to the potential uses for a super math processor on card. It wouldn't hurt to led a credible voice for open documentation early on anyway.
Comments
By CITY OF DEATH (70.241.137.149) on
Yes, I will be the one.
LEARN TO SPELL WITHIN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - EVEN IF THE SENTANCE IN QUESTION IS SILLY. ICH BIN EIN BERLINER!
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
>
> Yes, I will be the one.
>
> LEARN TO SPELL WITHIN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - EVEN IF THE SENTANCE IN QUESTION IS SILLY. ICH BIN EIN BERLINER!
You're right of course. Silly me.
By Anonymous Coward (69.193.125.65) on
Lol!
By Jerome (81.57.228.241) on
Well, one may want a secure blobby-windows-rotating-3D-cube desktop.
3D and OpenGL use on desktop apps is becoming more and more popular and ATI / "NVidious" are the leaders on this market.
So it's not stupid to anticipate the upcoming dominion of some technology on the market before it actually dominate it, thus asking the specs to support it in a clean, non-blob way.
By Anonymous Coward (80.137.122.194) on
Because it's not limited to game physics! It could be used by a lot of applications working a lot with floating points.
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
By Fid Copya (67.68.95.199) on
OpenBSD is an OS, games are software; OS's run software. What am I missing here? I use OpenBSD as my 'desktop' OS and I play the occasional game as well. How much happier I'd be with better graphics drivers and such!
> but gaming-related hardware? I don't think so.
Why not?
> Do you really want the most secure gaming platform around?
Well, you've twisted my arm, but ... yes.
By Anonymous Coward (70.74.75.200) on
The article is on undeadly because OpenBSD is fighting the same fight, freeing graphic chipset documentations among others. The Blob song named all sorts of hardware companies who aren't releasing documentations.
> Do you really want the most secure gaming platform around?
I don't want OpenBSD to be a single or a limited purpose OS in which I have to use another "best tool for the job." It would be perfect if OpenBSD is the best tool for all jobs. Yes, reality and perfection doesn't mix well, but it doesn't hurt to hope. Moreover, isn't OpenBSD increasing ports to further the functional in "free, functional, and secure?"
By just a lurker (67.23.94.205) on
>
> From what I have been able to understand from their web site, this is a co-processor specifically designed for gaming rigs. The web site even proudly announces: Power your gaming rig with the AGEIA PhysX processor.
>
> Based on this information, I really have to ask: why on earth would you like OpenBSD to support something which it is obviously not created to support? Namely: playing games? Supporting crypto, network and other security hardware I can understand, but gaming-related hardware? I don't think so. Do you really want the most secure gaming platform around?
>
> (Not that it should stop interested parties from contacting Ageia, of course... You never know...)
>
>
Yes! With the fact that so many games these days require subscriptions, complete with "Enter your credit card number here" websites, a secure gaming platform does, in fact, make sense.
By Anonymous Coward (69.12.168.114) on
> On another note, has anyone considered requesting documentation for the AGEIA physics processor?
have *you* considered requesting documentation?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
> > On another note, has anyone considered requesting documentation for the AGEIA physics processor?
>
> have *you* considered requesting documentation?
>
I suspect any request would have to have some credibility ... I have nothing to offer in that respect 8^)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
By simmel (83.140.211.6) on
> > On another note, has anyone considered requesting documentation for the AGEIA physics processor?
>
> have *you* considered requesting documentation?
>
>
In Soviet Russia the documentation requests *YOU*!
Comments
By Shane (202.45.125.5) on
You are clearly lost. Click your heels three times and say "there's no place like home".
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (216.19.4.35) on
>
> You are clearly lost. Click your heels three times and say "there's no place like home".
>
Hehehe....
By simmel (83.140.211.6) on
>
> You are clearly lost. Click your heels three times and say "there's no place like home".
>
BOO! for no humor!
By cron (24.224.156.15) cron@nerv.tv on
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/04/review_ageia_physx_board/
"Ageia is reluctant to tell us how it works and we're left poking at patents and developer information to glean our ideas about the hardware."
"Outside of gaming there's some scope for the PhysX hardware to be used for general purpose parallel floating-point computation, but the API simply doesn't cater for that in any meaningful way just yet."
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
> "Ageia is reluctant to tell us how it works and we're left poking at patents and developer information to glean our ideas about the hardware."
.. [SNIP] .. but the API simply doesn't cater for that in any meaningful way just yet."
Doesn't sound like a particularly promising documentation prospect already, does it? Most depressing.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (83.70.176.191) on
> > "Ageia is reluctant to tell us how it works and we're left poking at patents and developer information to glean our ideas about the hardware."
> .. [SNIP] .. but the API simply doesn't cater for that in any meaningful way just yet."
>
> Doesn't sound like a particularly promising documentation prospect already, does it? Most depressing.
maybe they need more requests so they can realize there is a bigger market than they thought.
By Anonymous Coward (62.104.131.223) on
By Anonymous Coward (81.57.42.108) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.71.120.74) on
And thankfully unlike RMS, Theo actually steps down off the soapbox and codes.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (212.54.217.53) on
In a war some people can do more good by speaking than by shooting.. ;)
By Anonymous Coward (83.70.176.191) on
> And thankfully unlike RMS, Theo actually steps down off the soapbox and codes.
well, you know RMS has written some pretty good software in the past.
Also, lets be honest - if there are only two people prepared to stand on that soapbox in public, but two thousand prepared to code, you are saying you want them to step off the soapbox?
We need coders, sure.. but we also need people who will speak out and stand up for their rights which also happen to be ours.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Are you on drugs? He has written very little software, none of it good.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.20.180.130) on
>
> Are you on drugs? He has written very little software, none of it good.
He wrote Emacs, which Theo uses to code. So...
Comments
By Terrell Prude', Jr. (151.188.247.86) on
> >
> > Are you on drugs? He has written very little software, none of it good.
>
> He wrote Emacs, which Theo uses to code. So...
>
>
He also wrote gcc. Theo, Linus, Niels, and pretty much everyone else who writes Free Software also uses gcc to code.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
No, he did not. He has had nothing to do with the current gcc implimentation.
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
First, emacs is a pile of shit. Second, Theo does not use it to code.
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (218.214.35.235) on
Dont you use gcc? It must be the single most indispensible bit of code that has ever existed. Without this, where would OpenBSD be, trying to support a different commercial compiler under each hardware platform? Hell no, but no more unthinkable than writing an entire compiler from scratch that works across ppc, ia64, axp, mips, parisc, x86 and which produces quality, stable binaries and libraries.
Whether you love him or hate him, hes fighting the same fight as Theo against Blobs, so that makes him an ally.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
> Its rather a pile of crap actually
I think it's good. As a matter of fact every single opensource OS out there things the same. When you release YOUR OWN free compiler that produces significantly better code than gcc in even a single case you'll look less than a joker :P
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.21) on
Not Minix. It uses ACK.
By Chris (24.76.100.162) on
> > Its rather a pile of crap actually
>
> I think it's good. As a matter of fact every single opensource OS out there things the same. When you release YOUR OWN free compiler that produces significantly better code than gcc in even a single case you'll look less than a joker :P
Have you been paying attention to this site? None of the projects that use it think it's good, espeically not OpenBSD. It's a huge undertaking to write a compiler, and the fact that GCC is around and has a huge userbase who often rely on its idiosyncracies means that no one's going to bother. The fact that it's the only major free compiler has nothing to do with whether or not people like it.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.83) on
Yes, certainly there are complains about both it's direct bugs and it's design orientation towards high optimizations. There would be complains by some side no matter what, openbsd just happens to be on the opposite edge. In the end though, it is good enough and flexible enough for everyone to use, even for openbsd, even temporarilly. History shows that opensource community does never tolerate important software to be represented only by some "piece of crap", especially not for 20 or so years.
People that go out shouting "oh gcc, it's a piece of crap", 99% don't know what they are talking about, not because gcc is perfect but because if they had the technical knowledge to understand it's possible flaws they wouldn't be so absolute in their judgement. Most importantly, they should have the common sense to not insult something that they depend on.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.20.39) on
I will, if you show me some recent technical paper backing this claim.
Comments
By jb (69.239.198.33) on
> I will, if you show me some recent technical paper backing this claim.
It's not proper GNU software unless it works as a mail client.
By Anonymous Coward (24.76.100.162) on
I don't agree with this sentiment. Certainly no one should insult something for no good reason, but there's no logic in not pointing out the flaws in the something just because you use it.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Pointing out the flaws one thing, calling it names WITHOUT pointing the flaws is an other. If you use something free and it helps you in any degree, you should have some respect to it's developers, not calling their software "piece of shit" the moment you use it and depend on it.
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.83) on
You take for granted things that are not. Every free software "gets a cookie for existing", that's all it gets anyway. Gcc is undoubtly a major piece of free software that many people would chose anyway for it's cutting-edge optimization techniques, so it undoubtly gets many cookie for existing, just not your cookie (oh wait, but you're using it, there goes!).
"The fact that no one in the open source world hasn't stepped up to write something useful" means exactly GCC does not "suck shit". If it did, there would be alternatives. "Stepping up to write something useful" would be priority 1, since a good compiler is priority 1 in software development, ergo there would be an other compiler.
If gcc fails your requirements in such a horrible way that you thing it needs redesign, the very least thing you are obliged to do before insulting it, is to write a detailed paper describing the situation. Since you don't, chances are that you just repeat sth that you've heard/read, in which case you make a fool of yourself. End of Story.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
You people make me sick with this attitude. This compiler a poor performer (you know, the compiler on the short bus) for the exact reasons you mention . What I get from your blurb is that you don't use it; but because it's "free" you claim it is "good". It is a classical CS "straight-out-of-college" project, over engineered in areas that are NOT important.
Here is how you develop a project:
1. Make it run
2. Make it run REALLY good
3. Optimize areas that are measurably slow
4. Go to 2 until you have something that is useful
Here is the FSF project for my-first compiler tm:
1. Come up with a requirements document as elaborate as a plan to boil the ocean
2. Start hacking in the "cool areas" e.g. the optimizer
3. Optimize the optimizer
4. Write the rest of the infrastructure
5. Ship whatever works for the testers test cases and let the remaining issues fix themselves over time in the community
6. Get some fanboys to root for you.
7. Start working on the next cooler version well before the one that is being used by the community is mature
For some reason the last process isn't very robust. In my 15 odd years in the industry I have used many compilers, gcc's quality is at the bottom of the pile. It is slow and often (yes often) generates wrong code. You know if --omg-optimize doesn't work, don't include it.
I find writing compilers not very exciting so, no, I won't write my own.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
Except special cases, I always use gcc and I find it ok. I've never hard any strange issues that could not be overcomed. I didn't say gcc is the best compiler and I've seen it produce unexpected output more than once but in practice it works reasonably well and it's free, so I find it good.
> For some reason the last process isn't very robust. In my 15 odd years in the industry I have used many compilers, gcc's quality is at the bottom of the pile. It is slow and often (yes often) generates wrong code. You know if --omg-optimize doesn't work, don't include it.
--omg--what-an-aggresive-optimization is there if you want to use it, but hard-coded optimizations are reasonably sane. That's not the point however, the point is that GCC is an important contribution to free software (does that need any proof? :P). If you see the thread, for this reason and for this alone it was mentioned here in the first place.
> I find writing compilers not very exciting so, no, I won't write my own.
I repeat, the way free software works, if GCC was that bad and broken by design, like you describe, there would be alternatives. If not by you, by some others of the hundreds of opensource developers with experience in that area. Instead they choose to contribute in making GCC better.
PS. BTW I find it funny that you say I'm whining, the way I see it the whiners are those that only know how to complain about how bad something that does not work perfectly for them. With a negative attribute like yours, it is a wonder that gcc is that good in the first place..
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
And by the way HE DID write gcc, where did you read otherwise?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (65.204.119.134) on
Maybe that's where the confusion comes from.
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
>
> And by the way HE DID write gcc, where did you read otherwise?
No, he did not. He contributed to the original gcc. He has nothing to do with the current incarnation of gcc.
By Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.86) on
First off, yes, he did write gcc. This is well documented all over the place, not just the FSF. And yes, he is a gifted programmer, because he was, by himself, churning out code back in the day to match entire development teams. Can you do that?
Second, where's your Free Software compiler? Show it to us, please, and if it is both Free *and* good, who knows, you might get people, including Theo, to use it and include it with OpenBSD.
Is GCC perfect? Hell, no; nothing created by humans, including OpenBSD, is, hence the team's continuous audit. But until you can produce something better, or at least outline, specifically, what at least some of the problems are with it, *AND THEN* submit patches that fix the problems you point out, your just ranting.
THANK YOU, RMS! Your work enabled any of the BSD's to exist at all as Free Software platforms.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
No, he didn't. He *contributed*, not wrote, the original gcc. Which has nothing to do with the current gcc which he has had nothing to do with. Grow a brain.
> Second, where's your Free Software compiler? Show it to us, please, and if it is both Free *and* good, who knows, you might get people, including Theo, to use it and include it with OpenBSD.
Yeah, this is very original. Nobody can critisize something unless they have already replaced it? Nice straw man, but it has nothing to do with the fact that gcc is a pile of shit.
By Anonymous Coward (82.71.120.74) on
> on that soapbox in public, but two thousand prepared to code, you are
> saying you want them to step off the soapbox?
Pretty much, yeah. Actions speak louder than words and RMS's actions consist almost entirely of telling other people what to do with their code. He should put his money where his mouth is.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
> > on that soapbox in public, but two thousand prepared to code, you are
> > saying you want them to step off the soapbox?
>
> Pretty much, yeah. Actions speak louder than words and RMS's actions consist almost entirely of telling other people what to do with their code. He should put his money where his mouth is.
What money? :D
Even talking about the contribution of RMS to free software is an understimation. The global influence and effects of GNU and FSF can not be measured. For your argument, it is enough to say that the amount of code produced by coders that because joined Free Software DIRECTLY BECAUSE of RMS far surpaces the amount of code that RMS or any human could type in a lifetime. The INDIRECT effects during the last 25 years in the global scale are unconcievable.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
Most of his contributions are negative. Brainwashing idiots like you into thinking that forced GNU/Communist compliance is "freedom". Tricking those new to free software into thinking that the GPL is the only license, and thus locking away tons of code into the useless land of GPL.
His effect has been very big, and it has been very bad.
Comments
By SH (82.182.103.172) on
Yummy, communists! Is that anything left of Atila the Hun?
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.20.39) on
> His effect has been very big, and it has been very bad.
LOL! He's got to be very demonic if he managed to trick all those developers "to lock their work into the useless land of GPL". At least a handfull of enlightened survived that nasty attack :| Come to think of it, he might be antichrist himself, don't you think? I mean there are some pretty charesmatic developers that he tricked :/
There are people out there that want their code to have nothing to do with commercial software, ever, why don't you get it? You can blame them too if you wish.
BTW that has nothing to do with communism, which tries to define an economical - production model. GPL only aims to define information as a resource ment to be free. Shame that you have to apply rules to protect that freedom, shame that you have to apply laws to enforce justice in a society. :P
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Why do you have nothing to offer but strawmen? Sure, some developers want the GPL. That has nothing to do with the THOUSANDS of people who have locked their code into the GPL based purely on the "oh no, evil microsoft will close the source to your small library they don't even want, despite the fact that it is impossible" FUD that RMS spews.
> BTW that has nothing to do with communism, which tries to define an economical - production model. GPL only aims to define information as a resource ment to be free. Shame that you have to apply rules to protect that freedom, shame that you have to apply laws to enforce justice in a society. :P
How does forcing me to restrict my users freedom in any way relate to justice? And I said GNU/communism, not communism.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
Who forced them?
> How does forcing me to restrict my users freedom in any way relate to justice?
If you see it that way, then just don't use GPL. Those that do use GPL, obviously, want to restrict commercial exploitment of their code. That's all.
The comparison I made (to support the logic behind GPL) is that just like laws empose restrictions (that on first side limit some trivial freedoms of ours) in order to ensure we will be free in every meaningful way, GPL emposes some basic rules in order to ensure the same for software. If you do not mind some company to make profit of your code , while you don't, and not even contibute back any improvements, then GPL is not for you.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Either learn to read, or learn not to reply. Nobody said anything about forcing. He spreads lies and FUD to TRICK, FOOL, FRIGHTEN people into using the GPL, without fully understanding what they are doing. Seriously, talk to some of the people who have gotten screwed out of using their own fucking code because they just blindly made it GPL without thinking about it. RMS has done huge damage, just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to you verbally fellating him.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
how about:
>> "How does forcing me to restrict my users freedom in any way relate to justice?"
>He spreads lies and FUD to TRICK, FOOL, FRIGHTEN people into using the GPL, without fully understanding what they are doing. Seriously, talk to some of the people who have gotten screwed out of using their own fucking code because they just blindly made it GPL without thinking about it. RMS has done huge damage, just because you like it, doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to you verbally fellating him.
If they BLINDLY made it GPL, it's their fault and they should learn to read and understand before they agree to something. If they can't do that, I'm sure they will face much more serious problems in the real world that is full of trickery, than the restrictions imposed by GPL to their code. I would be curious to hear some example worth mentioning though, if you have one.
RMS is an honest man that talks what he believes. World would be better if all people did that, regardless if they proved right, wrong or dreamers. Instead all you see every day is lying and deceipt, all to the personal benefit. It is the first time that I see the honesty of RMS being disputed and, honestly, I think you'd had much better chances attacking his ideals than his honest belief in them.
By Anonymous Coward (83.70.176.191) on
Seriously, do you have a reference for that? I would like to read something about that..
Since I am ignorant of that issue, I can't really say much about it. I prefer the BSD licence myself, but I don't really understand how the GPL can screw somebody out of their own code. You write it and you release it under GPL, but you are the licencer and the licence does not restrict your own access to the code. So far as I know, you can still use it as you like, and you are still the copyright holder. You can make another release under a different licence if you want (though you can't retract the stuff you released already)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
That's only the case if you are the only one to contribute code. Say you make a lib to do something, and GPL it. Other people help out, improve it, and the project becomes quite nice and useful. Then later on at work you need to do that exact something in a closed source project. You need to get all those contributors to relicense too if you want to use your code in your project. Oops.
Comments
By Alan DeWitt (70.57.117.162) on
> That's only the case if you are the only one to contribute code. Say you make a lib to do something, and GPL it. Other people help out, improve it, and the project becomes quite nice and useful. Then later on at work you need to do that exact something in a closed source project. You need to get all those contributors to relicense too if you want to use your code in your project. Oops.
You're overstating that a bit.
The parts of the code you wrote, you own. You can reuse (or even relicense) those parts yourself for any purpose without reference to the GPL, because you are the copyright owner. Any licensing problem is not with *your* contribution, it's with the other contributors' code and changes.
Of course, in the scenario you outline above, other people's contributions would have to be stripped out... which probably would mean a rollback to and fork from some earlier point. But if those other contributions are so valuable that your new project can't live without 'em, you need to give the other contributors due respect. So yes, you would need the other contributors to relicense their work, or your new project would need to comply with the GPL.
Certainly that's inconvenient, but it is what people sign up for when they use the GPL. It's kinda the point, actually. :-) You're right to be cautious of it, but it's not as dire as you make it sound above.
By Anonymous Coward (67.170.176.126) on
AC
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (85.218.24.194) on
huh?
Did you read the article ? That's exactly what he did. Look at the sign :
http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.170.176.126) on
>
> huh?
>
> Did you read the article ? That's exactly what he did. Look at the sign :
> http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
>
you are right, I had not read the article (in fact I am not too interested in RMS day-to-day moves) but in addition to the bashing of the bad guys I would like to start seeing some positive promotion of the good guys. ok, you do not want me to buy a laptop from vendor X because it has components that are non-free ok _then_ tell me what other alternatives I have. Tell me what other laptop vendors are cogniscent enough to engrace themselves to the opensource market by using components that are open and documented. I just don't see anybody doing that (and, unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do it myself).
AC
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (64.92.167.26) on
By Chris (24.76.100.162) on
Looking like a jerk is an option too.
By Anonymous Coward (140.99.30.238) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (212.54.207.79) on
>
>
Same applies to FreeBSD fanboys of course ;)
By Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.86) on
>
>
"Linux fanboys", properly known as "gamer fanboys", don't really care about freedom anyway, so your statement is certainly correct. However, "Free Software fanboys" *do* care about freedom, first and foremost. I am an example of the latter. To that end, I refuse to buy either nVidia or ATI cards anymore, precisely because of their blob mentality. Same with anything that I learn contains Broadcom wireless gear. However, I have no problem purchasing the older ATI Radeon cards, since ATI did provide specs for those. They're not the most recent models, obviously, but they work just fine for me.
My rule for buying hardware is carved in granite: if there is no Free Software driver (blobs, obviously, don't count) for it, then I will not purchase it. Period.
BTW, I use Slackware most of the time and OpenBSD some of the time.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
By Anonymous Coward (194.109.21.4) on
>
> AC
Did you try the card featured at kerneltrap.org? The OpenGraphicsproject?
Comments
By tedu (71.139.182.193) on
> Did you try the card featured at kerneltrap.org? The OpenGraphicsproject?
how much does it cost? how do i buy one?
By Anonymous Coward (70.66.3.210) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
>
> Has anyone had experience with how open these guys are?
>
> S3
Not open at all. Email them anyways, tell then your company would love to buy a few hundreds cards, but they have to release docs to make that possible.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (202.6.138.33) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
No, lots of people are really in situations where they effect large purchases like that. Even if you are only gonna buy one card, tell them they are losing business by not opening up docs.
By Anonymous Coward (194.186.36.225) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.72.98.45) on
Check the list at http://www.openbsd.org/i386-laptop.html
By Lars Hansson (203.65.245.7) lars@unet.net.ph on
By Alan DeWitt (70.58.207.244) on
Heh. I bet he didn't like it. "So, what you're telling me, ma'am, is that you called me here for no good reason, and this is all a complete waste of my time? Do I have that right, ma'am?"
By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.21) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (67.64.89.177) on
By Anonymous Coward (82.43.92.127) on
>
Drama? All the guy did was hold up a sign with his opinion on it. Whatever else you think of RMS, he's one of the few people who, like Theo, will stand up and criticise the vendors openly.
The drama was caused, and all ridicule deserved, by the clown who tried to kick him out and called the police.
By Anonymous Coward (212.54.217.53) on
>
Huh? How is GPL hypocritical and discriminatory?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on
> Huh? How is GPL hypocritical and discriminatory?
not sure ( as I never wrote that, ) but it could be seen as discriminating against anyone who does not want to use the GPL
as for why it could be seen as hypocritical, I have no idea
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (212.54.207.79) on
> > Huh? How is GPL hypocritical and discriminatory?
>
> not sure ( as I never wrote that, ) but it could be seen as discriminating against anyone who does not want to use the GPL
>
> as for why it could be seen as hypocritical, I have no idea
The way I see it, only supporters of closed software could see GPL as discriminating. As for hypocritical, I won't even comment, if a man that has dedicated his life and carrier (and a very bright one mind you) to live up to his beliefs with no compromises is a hypocrit, then what are the rest of us? ;P
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
That's because you're stupid. Lots of open source software, that is available under more free terms than the GPL, cannot use GPL software. Even a project that releases their code under the LGPL is "discriminated" against by the GPL.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
>
> That's because you're stupid. Lots of open source software, that is available under more free terms than the GPL, cannot use GPL software.
Sure they can, whether they choose not to is a different matter. If you do not intend to sell the code of others, GPL does not limit you in any way. Now, unless you feel GPL discriminates against and limits YOU personally, do yourself a favour and save the know-it-all attribute for your friends.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
> >
> > That's because you're stupid. Lots of open source software, that is available under more free terms than the GPL, cannot use GPL software.
>
> Sure they can, whether they choose not to is a different matter. If you do not intend to sell the code of others, GPL does not limit you in any way. Now, unless you feel GPL discriminates against and limits YOU personally, do yourself a favour and save the know-it-all attribute for your friends.
You are *really* stupid. The GPL doesn't say anything about selling. If I have a LGPL licensed open source project, I can not use GPL code. Period. If I have a BSD licensed open source project, I can not use GPL code. Period. The GPL does not discriminate against closed source software, it discriminates against ALL non-GPL software.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.20.39) on
That is not true. A program does not need to have all of it's parts licenced under the same licence. This might seem unflexible to you, but it's perfectly viable when it involves free licences that allow you to modify the code as you please, like GPL and BSD. It won't get any messy if commercial use is not involved, I promise :). If it does, obviously, the code fragments licenced under GPL will have to be removed but, hey, that's the problem of him who wants to make money from the program, not the developer that develops free software :)
If you don't like this option, then it's your choise (and, with the same logic, it can be viewed as discrimination on YOUR part).
PS. Why many of you BSD people are so inclined to think others are stupid? Puh.. complexion syndrome perhaps..
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
> PS. Why many of you BSD people are so inclined to think others are stupid? Puh.. complexion syndrome perhaps..
I don't know. I am just inclined to think stupid people are stupid. You have proven over and over that you are stupid.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.20.39) on
Your code is yours and free to licence as you wish. Obviously. You can take it appart, distribute under BSD licence or do wtf you want. That is what being the author means. Of course, if your code is useless on it's own, that's your problem.
The fact that the derived project AS A WHOLE will need to comply to the GPL licence is irrelevant and does not affect you in any meaningful way, since BSD posses less restrictions than GPL and, like already said, you get to licence and distribute YOUR code under any licence you please anyway. It is not reasonable to complain that when merged with GPL code it will have to follow the GPL, this will have any practical effect ONLY in case someone decides to base his own commercial project on yours, in which case he will only have the right to use YOUR parts of the code (provided that you have dual licenced them to BSD). So.. essentially, you are complaining because you can not relicence the work of others.!!
If you don't see that I'm sorry, either you chose to play with words and miss the meaning, or it's just beyond you.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
> You have to fucking change the license on all the LGPL files explicitly now to comply with the GPL.
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Completelly ignoring your capability in affecting reality doesn't make you look better either.
SUPPORT for mysql means nothing, it is an open standard and you are welcome to make your implementation. But if you rip the whole fucking libmysql code and put it in your project, you'll have to respect the choise of the authors of mysql that THEIR code will never, ever, be able to be sold or made closed. It might be phrased otherwise, but in effect that is the only real restriction it imposes.
Is that unfair and discriminating? I don't think so. If GPL took away YOUR code and limited it in some way, then it would be. If YOU were able to take GPL code and relicenced it as you wished then it would be as well, on your part. If you had any plans on making profit on free software, of course, I can see how that would bother you. Otherwise why should you give any shit if people that will want to profit from your project will find inconvenient having to replace all the GPL parts? They are the ones affected in a meaningful way, that's what I'm trying to say in the whole fucking thread..
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
You are delusional. I am not ripping anything anywhere. Simply by calling the functions in libmysqlclient in my code, I am now forced to GPL my entire project. Its very simple, and yet you choose to offer up ridiculous nonsense like this since you can't accept reality.
> Is that unfair and discriminating? I don't think so. If GPL took away YOUR code and limited it in some way, then it would be. If YOU were able to take GPL code and relicenced it as you wished then it would be as well, on your part. If you had any plans on making profit on free software, of course, I can see how that would bother you. Otherwise why should you give any shit if people that will want to profit from your project will find inconvenient having to replace all the GPL parts? They are the ones affected in a meaningful way, that's what I'm trying to say in the whole fucking thread..
Yes, it is discriminating. Its saying you cannot use our code in any way unless you GPL your code too. I didn't say its unfair, you can do whatever you want with your code. But quit trying to pretend you are altruistic and giving your code away for everyone to use. You are giving it away ONLY FOR GPL NUTS to use. Its effecting me the same way it effects a closed source project. I either have to GPL my code (no fucking way) or not use any GPL code (see, its discriminating against any non-GPL code).
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Well, I assure you I want my code to be used by everyone, as long he does not profit behind my back. Show me a way to achieve this, without imposing the restrictions of GPL, and I'll follow it (like many others). Otherwise, I think you are just prejudiced against GPL for no reason, sticking to trivialities and avoiding to see the big picture. That BSD and GPL are *in essense* compatible licences for any open application, by considering them incompatible, you either measure things very shallow or you admit wanting to keep your doors open for commercial use.
Anyway, I've described my view in many different ways but I get the feeling we'll never agree so I quit. You would do me a favour, though, in helping me understand your position, if you replied without abstract terms to the following question:
What is it that you want from a licence and why do you consider BSD licence the best choise?
Thank you
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
I don't. I didn't say the BSD license is the best choice, it depends what I want to do with my software. I use the GPL when I want to force people to buy a license to use my code in non-GPL software. I am simply not delusional, and I understand that when I license code under the GPL, I am discriminating against all non-GPL code. I don't blindly use it for trivial things that nobody would pay for anyways.
Certainly I use the GPL for purposes that RMS and friends dislike, but that's the only real use for it. When I just want to make code free for people to use, I either BSD/ISC license it, or make it public domain if its trivial. Because then its free for people to use. Why would I care if they use my code in their closed-source software? How does that hurt me? If my code was worth enough to be sold as-is, I wouldn't be giving it away to begin with, I'd be selling it.
Nobody is going to buy libreadline, nobody would be harmed by libreadline being used in closed source projects. So why is it GPL? Because RMS wants to force everyone into using the GPL. His goal is to make all software GPL. Pretending otherwise is just being delusional.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Only one note. I don't think RMS wants to force everyone into using the GPL for any particular reason. He wants to make all software free and the most drastical way to accomplish that is through a licence like GPL. The man is an idealist, call him a dreamer if you want, but his motives are not selfish. If people that are not idealists/dreamers get trapped into GPL, they get trapped on their own, because they did not understand what they were getting themselves into not because RMS deceived them anyhow (like it was said some place else).
I realize you are a developer by profession, that's why you are down to earth. I am a developer by hobby (I think that applies to most supporters of GPL), intending to keep it this way, and that's why I have the luxury of dreaming a world where all software (if not all information) will be free. Might never happen and as a matter of fact if it happened it could have some bad effects, but I like the idea enough to support it with my code (that I would write anyway because it's fun). Puh.. in ten years time reality might have landed me down to earth too -hope not :P
Sorry for wasting your time, I think I see why we could not agree.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
They did not understand because RMS and his legions have spent so much time and effort spreading FUD to convince people that if they don't use the GPL, evil corporations will magically make their code closed.
> I realize you are a developer by profession, that's why you are down to earth.
No, I am most certainly not. I am a network admin by profession. I code when I want to, because I want to. If I happen to code something I think is worth trying to sell, then I sell it. Otherwise, I let anyone use it for whatever they want. If someone uses my code in a closed source project, then that helps them, and hurts nobody. My code is still there and still free (actual free, not GNU/free) for everyone else to benefit from too.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Not exactly that.
Large corporations grow absurd policies to maximize their profit. Policies that indirectly force the user to pay for things that do not interest him and that also indirectly drive his future choises (what software and what hardware he choses to buy). These policies harm the end user in many ways, they harm his pocket more than they should and in many cases they harm him because he is forced to use software of inferior quality, only because there can be no viable alternatives (thanks to how evil and nasty these policies are). Quite often they threaten to harm even more important things, like through the abuse of patents.
The only way the end user will not fall victim to these absurd policies, is to have the choise of using free software, software that is not controlled by any corporation and is not tied to any profit. But in order for this choise to be viable, the free software needs to be at least as good as the not-free.
Since this puts free software in the situation of antagonizing commercial software, and since free software can not profit in any way from commercial software, it's only natural and fair that the opposite is prevented as well. When you antagonize someone, you don't want to give him any advantages if you can help it, even if these advantages don't seem important or likely to enforce his position at some particular moment.
GPL is based on the theory that things would be better if there was no closed source software at all and it does it's best to work towards that direction. It is possible that anyone who does not agree with this theory, or does not think it's worth supporting it, faces practical problems after chosing to use GPL. Of course, if he is thoughtful he can even use it for his own purposes, like you admited to do, with no problems. In any case, no one gets TRICKED. RMS has written multiple times his (extreme for many) views very very detailed and anyone who has read them should know if GPL is for him or not.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
It's not about the code! It is about weakening the position of commercial software and enstregthening the position of free software. And increasing it's userbase. Obviously the most important think is that good free code exists, without it GPL would be completelly useless. But if good free code exists and is licenced under GPL, it should in effect make it more antagonistic to commercial software, and that's RMS purpose. I don't need RMS to tell me how bad effects the policies of software companies can have, I see i.e. the negative effects that Microsoft's moves have every day.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
Again you are ignoring reality. It does not strengthen the position of free software. It hinders free software. It strengthens the position of GPL software, and GPL fanatic idiots.
> I see i.e. the negative effects that Microsoft's moves have every day.
Me too. They have the same effect as the FSF actually, making software that is totally useless. How is Microsoft's locked-up, unusable software worse than locked up, unusable GPL software? Either way its proprietary, restricted code that can't be used in free software.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.133) on
Well it is bad that GPL appears restrictive enough to send away so many great developers. I think the loss actually harms GPL software more than it harms BSD software, since BSD software with less developers working on it, proves better in most cases. This fragmentation certainly hinders free software as a whole badly :(
However GPL has the advantage that if some company uses some code, it will have to contribute back any changes. Which means some company can not just base their software in free code to offer something more complete and attractive than the original free software. That's why I say it aims to strengthen the position of free software (GPL software is free software too). Perhaps in practice though that proves a minor advantage in comparison to the disadvantage of fragmentation, I don't have the experience to know.
> Me too. They have the same effect as the FSF actually, making software that is totally useless. How is Microsoft's locked-up, unusable software worse than locked up, unusable GPL software? Either way its proprietary, restricted code that can't be used in free software.
That is a huge exageration. Proprietary software is totally and essentially locked up in all ways. More importantly, it provides the means for a company to take advantage of it's increased market share in some particular moment to lock the future choises of users and establish a monopoly. GPL software is only locked up in a status of limited freedom (which is still free enough for any use that could be beneficial to it and to the end user).
I am problematized on how effective GPL can be in reality and what unpleasant side-effects it has. Unfortunatelly I don't have the experience to weigh these. It just seems in principle like a way to make free software more antagonistic to proprietary, sooner, which is what I want. So that one day I don't have to be alienated from the majority of IT industry -i.e. the fact that I refuse to work with windows has severelly limited my work opportunities here in Greece. Nor to have to see the field of IT (which I love) suffer because of monopolies, company tactics and stupid restrictions of information. RMS views has touched exactly my concerns, that's why I believe in his theory. BSD licence just seems like a licence without a plan.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
You refuse to listen, this is a waste of time. GPL software is not free, it is restricted. The GPL is a large pile of legalese restricting you. That is not free. And even if it were free, it only stengthens OTHER GPL SOFTWARE, NOT FREE SOFTWARE. This is the simplest thing to understand, quit being so damn thick. GPL software does not strengthen BSD, ISC, MIT, artistic, LGPL, MPL, etc, etc, etc software. It ONLY strengthens GPL software. Very simple, the GPL only helps the GPL. This is not altruistic, and it is not helping everyone. So quit fucking pretending it does.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.133) on
I thought you had something to say about how harmful in effect can the restrictions of GPL be and why a developer should care about them, like through an example, that's why I continued the conversation. However all I hear is the same blund statements with no practical value. So we have nothing more to say.
By Anonymous Coward (198.208.159.19) on
>
> That's because you're stupid. Lots of open source software, that is available under more free terms than the GPL, cannot use GPL software. Even a project that releases their code under the LGPL is "discriminated" against by the GPL.
Agreed. I think some users confuse 'Free' with 'Freedom'. There is a very fundamental difference between the freedom of BSD licensed code, and the free cost of GPL licensed code with restrictive legal bindings. All GPL has done for us is make programmers poorer.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.83) on
> >
> > That's because you're stupid. Lots of open source software, that is available under more free terms than the GPL, cannot use GPL software. Even a project that releases their code under the LGPL is "discriminated" against by the GPL.
>
> Agreed. I think some users confuse 'Free' with 'Freedom'. There is a very fundamental difference between the freedom of BSD licensed code, and the free cost of GPL licensed code with restrictive legal bindings. All GPL has done for us is make programmers poorer.
GPL did that to you or the authors that chose to licence their code ander GPL? Apparently, those who chose to licence under GPL (happens to be the majority) think otherwise. But hey, they don't want to use the code of others and sell it :/ Could be it :p
Don't like it, don't use it & don't discriminate against those that do :)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Nobody is discriminating against you. If you like the GPL, then fuck off and go use it. Pointing out that the GPL is not free, and that is discriminates against any non-GPL software isn't discriminating against you.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
>
> Nobody is discriminating against you. If you like the GPL, then fuck off and go use it. Pointing out that the GPL is not free, and that is discriminates against any non-GPL software isn't discriminating against you.
Might not be "free" in some things that do not matter to most, but that's to make sure what's free will only be used for free. If you see this as an unbearable restriction, obviously, don't use it, however do not act as if GPL surpresses any meaningful freedoms to someone that is only interested in developing free software (thus "discriminates" against him)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.27.15.123) on
Speaking as someone who is interested in developing free software, and is in fact actively prevented from using GPL code in my free software right now, every day, I would have to say you are wrong. Go look at every single non-GPL project out there, and how they cannot use GPL code. If you don't call a license that says "you can't include this code with yours unless you use the GPL" discriminating against non-GPL licenses, then you are stupid. Plain and simple. There is nothing else to say. The license says very clearly that it discriminates against non-GPL licenses, read it.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Speaking as someone who develops free software that wants it to remain free, I feel I'm right. If you use GPL code, your project must use GPL, because if it did not, it would be possible for someone to violate the rights of the authors of the GPL code you included. Your rights are not violated, since you are the author of your code and can dual-licence it in any way you want.
Just like you wouldn't want someone to take your project and relicence it or claim it, GPL authors don't want any part of their code to be used for someone to make money selling it, even in some derivative work. We DO want BSD authors to use our code, because BSD is a free licence, but we don't want someone else to sell it, like BSD allows. Things would collapse otherwise. A little no one could take a large GPL project, make some trivial changes, and make fortunes advertising it as something different. Marketing moves the world, and free software all it has is it's code. Sorry if that discourages you, it was not ment to. And I don't have to be stupid to disagree, I just have different views..
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
You have to be stupid to keep ignoring simple facts. The question is not wether you like the GPL or not, I'm sure you do. The question is does it discrimate against closed source code, or all non-GPL code. And according the GPL license itself, it is that latter, not the former. Since you refuse to acknowledge this, you are stupid.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
I may keep ignoring simple facts, but you definetely keep ignoring more complex factors. Anyway, whatever makes both of us happy.
By sthen (81.168.66.254) on
GPL does allow that, as long as the people selling it provide source code, upon request, to the people who bought it (who can then pass it on to others for free).
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.225.86) on
Indeed, incomplete argument on my part, I should have mentioned it (even though it would not change the point of the argument).
By Anonymous Coward (70.74.75.200) on
RMS wants hardware freedom, OpenBSD want hardware freedom, and most of us (if not all) at undeadly want hardware freedom. Thus, we should stand together for hardware freedom despite our software licensing differences. We need all the support we can get. Why divide ourselves on this very important matter?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.65.145.30) on
Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.74.75.200) on
>
> Listen.
> The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
Do you need reassurance or something? I didn't think I need to ask permission to come here before, and that may be why (I didn't think,) so I might as well ask for your permission to come here to read and to post in hopes of helping OpenBSD. This is your site after all, and if I am not welcome here, then leaving is no big deal.
Anyway, I have my reasons to use Windows, and I thought OpenBSD wouldn't get all political about using the best tool for the job. I am not a "free hardware" wannabe, or else I'd be upgrading.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.65.145.30) on
I don't know why you'd think the comment was directed against you, your post, or (least of all) against Windows, it wasn't.
You asked the (reasonable) question why small groups fail to cooperate against larger common enemies, and that movie scene has always illustrated that effect for me in a funny way. Think ATI/rich hardware vendors=Romans, OpenBSD=PFJ, FSF=JPF (or maybe RMS=JPPF)
Maybe that analogy is too much of a stretch. In that case, I'm sorry. Here, have a free bag of otters' noses :)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.74.75.200) on
> Maybe that analogy is too much of a stretch. In that case, I'm sorry. Here, have a free bag of otters' noses :)
No worries. I tend to overreact. I saw that movie too long ago, and reading the script didn't bring back the humour as I might have remembered.
By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.21) on
You're right in principle, but I'm just really uncomfortable supporting someone who says "freedom" when it isn't. That's not the kind of person I want speaking for me, personally. *shrug*
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (70.74.75.200) on
I don't think he's lying; however, his GPL users are lying, when they say the GPL offers them the freedom to dual license (GPL on one hand, and EULA on the other.) Is RMS lying about the GPL granting freedom to others' derivative works? I don't think so. He may not put it like that though.
> That's not the kind of person I want speaking for me, personally.
I don't see this as RMS speaking on behalf of anyone. Instead, he's asking people to boycott ATI. As you can see, his boycotting isn't enough.
I prefer results than personalities because the longer without results, the harder the fight, but that's just me. Let's hope the OpenGraphics Project get their investment/funding soon.
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.83) on
This the same like saying "Democracy is famous for promoting our freedom, however democratic laws limit our freedom by making people do things they don't want to do". Think of it..
By Alan DeWitt (70.57.117.162) on
> promoting "free" licenses, and then he simultaneously brags about those licenses making
> people do things people don't want to do.
If I understand things correctly (and I might not) RMS is not talking about freedom for people. He's talking about setting the code itself free. GPL code and all its child copies are free, and no one can legally "enslave" the code or its derivatives once it is emancipated. This is a somewhat strange and anthropomorphic view, but it does have the useful side effect of making the code easily available to people for many (but not all) purposes.
The BSD license, on the other hand, maximizes the freedom of people to use code, not the freedom of the code itself.
So it seems to me that RMS is being consistent, he's just looking at it from a point of view that seems strange to fans of freedom for people. I suppose this is a sign of RMS's genius, lunacy, or both. :-)
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (62.1.20.39) on
> > promoting "free" licenses, and then he simultaneously brags about those licenses making
> > people do things people don't want to do.
>
> If I understand things correctly (and I might not) RMS is not talking about freedom for people. He's talking about setting the code itself free. GPL code and all its child copies are free, and no one can legally "enslave" the code or its derivatives once it is emancipated. This is a somewhat strange and anthropomorphic view, but it does have the useful side effect of making the code easily available to people for many (but not all) purposes.
>
> The BSD license, on the other hand, maximizes the freedom of people to use code, not the freedom of the code itself.
>
> So it seems to me that RMS is being consistent, he's just looking at it from a point of view that seems strange to fans of freedom for people. I suppose this is a sign of RMS's genius, lunacy, or both. :-)
Well said. Somewhat utopic when you can not feed with code, but good for those that have the stomach :)
Perhaps in a better time, in a better world there won't be a need for a GPL to force sharing of information. Today it's the only thing keeping companies from making even more money from the work of free software developers, giving them nothing in return.
By Anonymous Coward (84.188.243.229) on
Just in THEORY.... ofcourse...
*hint*
Lets say I signed all the NDA-Stuff f.e. to get Docs from ATI....
And I would start writing a mini-BLOB wich gets rejected by the project.. (that*s sad.. or?).
So I tell ATI this and stop developing...
But damn hell I stored all these PDFs at my Windows-machine and I had a trojan so the stuff "leaked" to some guys who now use these docs and their skills to improve the real open drivers....
Damn all those preconfigured NetBus-Versions.. realy....
And damn the law here in germany wich makes me not responseable for such stuff as private Person (compared to a company.. privat persons don`t have to care for security).
And yeah.. if ATI blames me... I would tell them: Hey I used Windows because there`s no Open driver for OpenBSD.. On openBSD I wouldn´t have lost your docs. Shit happens....
*hint*
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
> Just in THEORY.... ofcourse...
>
The first time you pulled such a scam would probably be last time anyone outside of Microsoft saw the documentation ... hardly a sustainable way to get documentation. Perhaps if we kidnapped the CEO's dog, or wired an executive's car to blow up ....
By Herman der Cherman (218.214.194.113) on
> Just in THEORY.... ofcourse...
>
> *hint*
> Lets say I signed all the NDA-Stuff f.e. to get Docs from ATI....
> And I would start writing a mini-BLOB wich gets rejected by the project.. (that*s sad.. or?).
> So I tell ATI this and stop developing...
> But damn hell I stored all these PDFs at my Windows-machine and I had a trojan so the stuff "leaked" to some guys who now use these docs and their skills to improve the real open drivers....
>
> Damn all those preconfigured NetBus-Versions.. realy....
> And damn the law here in germany wich makes me not responseable for such stuff as private Person (compared to a company.. privat persons don`t have to care for security).
>
> And yeah.. if ATI blames me... I would tell them: Hey I used Windows because there`s no Open driver for OpenBSD.. On openBSD I wouldn´t have lost your docs. Shit happens....
> *hint*
Yeah, righto Sebbie,
You do it anonymously (like your message above) and we all know who you are by your spelling and grammar and then.....
"Ve haff vays off making you talk!" says der Achtung Technikal Idioten (ATI) und den dey hass sie unt stringen sie up by der nuss!
Comments
By Luis (68.8.130.215) on
haaa, good one :)
By Anonymous Coward (62.252.32.11) on
Comments
By tedu (71.139.182.193) on
uh, for doing what exactly?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
>
> uh, for doing what exactly?
I thought he behaved rather well considering: I'm sure he was very disappointed -- having been promised a group of peaceful student protestors to trudgen, and only found one grey-bearded hippie with a sign who wasn't even worthy of the opening of a new bottle of pepper-spray....
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (213.5.161.17) on
> >
> > uh, for doing what exactly?
>
> I thought he behaved rather well considering: I'm sure he was very disappointed -- having been promised a group of peaceful student protestors to trudgen, and only found one grey-bearded hippie with a sign who wasn't even worthy of the opening of a new bottle of pepper-spray....
ROFL ! ! ! They should have brought the SWAT, that would be fun! Now if only the assistant that called the police had mentioned sth like that the big-bearded man appeared to be wearing explosives .. :P
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (156.34.218.80) on
'trudgen' = 'truncheon' + 'cudgel'
(nothing to do with walking or swimming)
By Anonymous Coward (209.91.48.119) on
The problem was not the officer, but the person who requested the officer's presence. She should have been charged with falsly reporting a crime. At this point she not only owes RMS an appoligy, but financial reimbursement of taxpayers costs to have law inforcement investigate a non-existant crime. The photographer should have published her photograph for all the world to see a budding tyrant in action.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (195.74.229.83) on
Or she could just give a nice blowjob to both RMS and the officer, hell to the audience too for the disturbance, and to us for wasting our time judging her stupid behaviour. Bitch, where's my bjob?? :P
By Anonymous Coward (68.165.27.172) on
- Software patents.
Some software in the Blobs is patented, that reminds me Solaris, Solaris wasn't 'open' for so many years because it contained proprietary code from AT&T licensed by Sun (to name a few). Sun could not open Solaris because it didn't own the AT&T code, it licensed it.
Before opening Solaris Sun had to get rid of this proprietary code, and that took a while (basically recode some stuff, and that's expensive, and it has to be done right to avoid a possible legal issue, so it even has to be audited by a third party and so on...).
Therefore I believe that fighting Blobs is a great idea, but this is just a part of the problem.
Comments
By Sam Chill (68.53.205.186) on http://www.vendorwatch.org
>
> - Software patents.
>
> Some software in the Blobs is patented, that reminds me Solaris, Solaris wasn't 'open' for so many years because it contained proprietary code from
> AT&T licensed by Sun (to name a few). Sun could not open Solaris because it didn't own the AT&T code, it licensed it.
Developers aren't asking for code. Developers want documentation of how the hardware works so they can write drivers for the hardware themselves.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (68.165.27.172) on
> >
> > - Software patents.
> >
> > Some software in the Blobs is patented, that reminds me Solaris, Solaris wasn't 'open' for so many years because it contained proprietary code from
> > AT&T licensed by Sun (to name a few). Sun could not open Solaris because it didn't own the AT&T code, it licensed it.
>
> Developers aren't asking for code. Developers want documentation of how the hardware works so they can write drivers for the hardware themselves.
>
This is a fine concern, but in *most* of cases hardware vendors do not publish documentation to kill the competition in the egg. ATI and nVidia have a bunch of secrets to hide from eachother. I perfectly understand that this is completely unfair, and it's even worse, in *some* cases, they offer internal documentation to large corporations (Microsoft) and not small ones/opensource'd projects (Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.).
This, of course reminds me Adaptec and other companies, this is really annoying as it affects us badly. Kudos to Stallman for stepping up.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (66.11.66.41) on
Stop repeating their lies. The documentation required to write a driver for a video card will not expose anything that would give competitors any edge. It is simply a list of how to tell the card to do different things. The competitors already know what things the card is capable of doing, as they advertise its capabilities. And knowing how to tell it what to do does not in any way give you any idea how the card actually does its job.
The reason they will not release specs is that open source developers would write a driver, and that would make ati and nvidia look really bad. Because their products are buggy, and they use their drivers to compensate and hide the bugs.