Says who?Originally Posted by mugginz
This is clearly for every user to decide individually.
I can't play the Doom3 and Quake4 games I purchased several years ago using free drivers. I still bought an ATi this time.
Everybody has different requirements, and this is exactly my point.But the world doesn't revolve around the same feture set that you require. When someone needs hardware to run the software that they need to run then they have to buy hardware that will run it. If you have minimal requirements then you have more flexibility in which hardware you can purchase.
And for many people, the openness of the software is a very important consideration, far more important than running Windows games through an emulation layer mapping Direct3D calls to bad OpenGL calls.
This is why a discussion about open drivers is certainly important in principle, even if it doesn't apply in every single case.
Sure. I've never claimed that they were.And many are not in that same boat.
No, that's what you're saying. You are saying that if a computer can't run OpenGL3 through wine, then it's worthless, and anyone who isn't doing this is a fundie.Are you saying that all anyone ever needs a computer to do is the same things that you use a computer for.
Come on, this level of discussion is childish.
Open drivers are clearly sufficient for a huge number of tasks at the moment, and the number of people using Linux who want open drivers is also a very significant number.
Because of this alone, a discussion about the merits of open drivers cannot possibly be unimportant.
Sure! For some specific use cases.And the advantage of the closed drivers is that they support more software and where that software is the software that you need to run then that makes the choices clearer.