Originally Posted by
crazycheese
You will have a LOT OF problems, because you forgot that money is only an instrument to motivate people. Nothing more. They are worthless outside of the scope.
If you remove money from people, they get angry.
And you also forgot weapons.
Angry people with weapons vs you with their money - its not going to end up good for you.
They don't give it for free. They develop each series by accurately targeting market demands, starting from initial investment calculation via design, manufacturing up to selling where they get expenses covered and receive profit.
I am buying their cards. They get money from me. Where is "free"? The driver software is in freedom form because its tremendously cheaper to adapt, its secure and it fuels the progress. But its not coming written for free.
I will nothing from you, receiving without giving is a crime.
Communism and capitalism are different approaches to same problematic, to commonwealth society. None of the approaches is flawless.
Also, unfortunately communism has three major flaws that prevent it to apply efficiently on society level - that is - the authority must be equal to citizens(1), material equilibrium renders progress nearly impossible(2), everyone should be open on informational level (means no lying)(3). Capitalism has no less flaws, it forces overproduction, overconsuming, damaging concentration of material wealth, and... slavery by the means of private property. The civil american war between states is a prime example.
If left without state control, both systems will unavoidably lead to power overconcentration and a totalitarian system.
Fortunately, in most countries, regardless of the approach, the offsets are covered by laws. For example, in America, as per constitution, speech and information are discarded from term "capital".
You can't own soul, you can't control speech, you can't own information.
Also, information and information producer or carrier have completely different nature.
Lets take word "apple" and real apple.
If someone consumes word "apple" by mentioning it, the information will multiply. If someone leaves word "apple" alone, the information will vanish as less and less information carriers carry it.
If someone consumes apple, it will be destroyed. If someone leaves apple alone, it will exist further.
Hence capitalism is better applied to material nature (by means of private property and preservation) and communism to informational nature(by means of sharing and reuse).
The problematic reappears again, as everything in IT is information and a process. So, workers, consume material goods to produce information, which in term can't be seen and sold as a capital.
Stallman has already explained by means of GPL, that information must be free, yet production of information should not be(and is never) free.
This is why - don't sell copies, but sell programmer time.
I am nothing, I observe the nature of things and follow it. I don't carry pink or grey glasses, they deviate the observation.
Simple does not apply to term "ideal", it depends on state of things.
In this case, opensourcing the driver will produce vast platform advantage and compatibility of AMD solutions to all current and future systems.
Basically, they have good hardware - if they make it easily supported everywhere, it will act like a glue.
What the danger is, if they do it the wrong way, their investments in RnD will be lost by no one compensating it, but simply reusing - which is why the whole income model should be redone.
Right now, people are purchasing their hardware solutions which compensate the costs for the driver development. Driver and feature customization can also be improved by software as service approach. I have mentioned it long ago, people will gladly pay for good opensource driver development if they see the results. For development outside of this scope they might deploy distributed cost locks - that is, the feature is unlocked once they get enough supporters/purchasers.
Xorg is irrelevant, because it is underway to be aborted (and very probably rewritten). It is natural state of things, that at certain degree of complexity, when lessons are learned, it is better to abort everything and restart from scratch in order to eliminate underlying (architectural) problems. Xorg is no exception - thank you Xorg, bye Xorg, hello new Xorg.
Where did you ask? In a pool of clueless people? To provide educated opinion, one should know BOTH ways equally good.
You asked sheep. Recieved "Meee". Now you claim "Meee" to be the ultimate answer. Meee don't think so.
Also, I repeat - Linux has proven the advantage of opensource. It advances things, where proprietary approach closes them down, separates them, drains their energy and lets them die irrevocably.
Proprietary approach to information is like communism to society.
If people switch to Linux just for the sake of switching, it must be their curiousity. Curiosity is a natural feeling which is HIGHLY DAMAGED by *habit*. And Windows is PREINSTALLED since MSDOS, it puts HEAVY meaning on *habit* - from being preinstalled, up to winapi. Result: windows people do not switch to Linux due to curiosity. Because they have lost it, thanks to microsoft!
If people switch to Linux, because certain game is available there - they shouldn't, because games should be crossplatform and opensource demands that. Windows heavily uses *exclusivity* - a reverse meaning of *restriction*.
Exclusivity is damaging factor, because its a straight way to slavery! However, inventor should be granted exclusivity for acceptable timeline, so he can compensate the costs, but NEVER if exclusivity results in freedom- or possibility reduction.
For example, Siri was originally meant to be available on variety of platforms. Its developers would receive compensation for the work as exclusive inventors.
However, once Siri was purchased by Apple, Apple restricted its usage only to own platform. This is damaging illegal method of "exclusivity".
People actually switch to Linux, because it either fits better for the job, or because they are reverse-forced to - they run from tyranny. It does not restrict their freedom.
Ideally, you shouldn't switch environment, because you have tons of curiosity, was able to compare different systems and current system fits you well. This is valid way.
I don't feel well when a system postulates monopoly, gathers all technologies, destroys companies, drives the market and its users in a totalitarian choiceless way.
For example, google monopoly is based on openness, innovation, absence of limitation and service. That's a good way. You make your choice!
Then come games, yes!
You are one of them? Then I suggest you spend more time to understand the system deeply, just to understand why it has its current form, before you make any claims.
Regarding opensource or not drivers - the formula is easy: More attention equals better driver.
More attention may happen due to personal interest(direct or indirect) or financial interest(money, again direct or indirect). Ideally the code should get maximum attention without blocking the attention from flowing back.
Hence proprietary companies reinvent same bicycles on constant basis instead of working on parts or unique variations.
Recently they learned to lend bicycles though, although now they impose bicycle-lend-tax even on pedestrians, bar none.
Every company wants more money, but forgets that money is only an instrument to provide innovation and commonwealth of the society.
Because AMD agrees only with marketshare approach, but fails to seek ways to gain this marketshare we have a suboptimal drivers.
And opensource driver performance is currently 50-80% of proprietary driver. That ONLY thanks to people not seeking "simple ways". So please suggest ways to improve it. We already have windows and know the damages.
Reply With Quote
