is misleading. A more accurate phrase would have been:but still it's open-source hardware acceleration that is really needed to please end-users.
orbut still it's hardware acceleration that is really needed to please end-users.
would be closer to the truth. A vast majority of users just want a working solution regardless of the capability of the source code being open or not.but still it's open-source hardware acceleration that is really needed to please open source graphic driver developers.
we can keep on at this for as long as you wish to continue to be stupid about it, deanjo. i've been involved in free software for over 15 years - long enough to have all these little anecdote sentences available, and long enough really to know better than to respond to this, but every now and then it _really_ gets me that people don't understand why the ethics and principles of free software are important.
perhaps, instead, you might like to read this:
it explains, in quite some detail, logically and simply why it is of benefit - even to the manufacturers of SoCs - to be free from the insane dependence on a proprietary software vendor, and to have the freedom to hire just about anybody off the street, anywhere in the world, to program what is _their_ own chip design.
I was so hoping the first line of the article would say "It's supper effective!"
You do not have the freedom to dictate that the rest of the world should not be able to use open drivers.
You have plenty of closed drivers to choose from, we have nothing. That's why this is important.
It's the Linux users who do not have a working solution -- the reason for this is that some hardware manufacturers hate open source and hate Linux as a result. This is why we need open drivers, instead of hoping that Linux-haters will give us a working driver if we promise to abandon open source.