No sure what you mean.
As someone that have to run circles around stupid, generalized software patents I couldn't agree more.2. software patents are stupid and should be removed anyway. If one person had an idea there is sure as hell another person that has the same idea. tbh, the whole patent thing is just considered the "2nd most stupid thing ever 'invented'" by me. Right after weapons.
.... But on the other hand, as long as they exist, unless you plan to face bankruptcy, you have to leave by the law of the land.
Not sure what you mean.3. recursive to my arguments
... You're being very naive.4. in case you really signed a contract about something like that, you should be abandoned in the desert and even if you manage to get out alive, you should be banned from using a computer EVER again. There is not a single good reason why something should be kept secret. If something needs to be kept secret, it's something that shouldn't be done in the first place, since you don't want the public to know about it and if you don't want the public to know about something it must be considered 'bad' by moral implications of society, thus it must not be done.
Obviously you never worked in the company remotely related to the security world or any type of governmental world.
DEV-NG: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX680, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
DEV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 5x320GB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711 (^).
SRV: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 4x2TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64, Dell U2412.
LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.
There is no such thing as "playing fair". There is winning and losing. Collaboration is only done when it suits you to win.
People were posting that Linux is designed to give users their freedom, and I said that is crap, people just want something for free that works. They will gladly download Ubuntu and complain that it doesn't make their randomly purchased laptop look good enough compared to Windows which to them was also free since it came with the laptop.
Companies will buy plenty of servers than load Linux on there, pay nothing for support or development, and contribute nothing to support or development. They only care that Linux was free to them, so they can blow the cash elsewhere.
NVidia has produced a driver that many companies who DO pay for Linux and DO perform high level graphics work need to continue to do so. However, issues like this was why Windows is making up big time in the high end workstation space.
With proprietary drivers. Unless you mean Intel, which is only able to run old games (L4D is an old game.)Valve has shown that gaming on Linux works, showing better performance in their opengl tests compared to Windows.
High performance gaming on Windows means you can get 60FPS with high resolutions and maximum details on a demanding game released this year.
Benchmarks say otherwise.You are obviously the one living in a fantasy world.
I don't buy any of your arguments. With that logic, the kernel should not provide any GPL exceptions at all, so that you wouldn't be able to run GPL incompatible software on it. That way, userspace software vendors would open source their products. Yeah, I can see *that* one working.What? The kernel devs have had the exact same position long before Intel and AMD even started dabbling in GPGPU solutions, the reason Linux enjoys such a strong hardware support out-of-the-box is a direct result of their hardnose stance.
No. The kernel is a required, low level component of the OS. Just like the GPL itself provides a built-in exception for using low-level proprietary OS components with GPL software without resulting in a GPL violation, so should the kernel do the reverse. The NVidia driver is a driver, and thus cannot work reliably outside kernel space. Forbidding them from using kernel interfaces is immoral. Why is it OK that I can run a GPL app on Windows, which links against Microsoft's C library, but I can't have a proprietary driver making use of an interface of a GPL kernel?
In my eyes, what the kernel devs are doing is plain bigotry. The kernel is a required component and you cannot work around it. If you're not allowing proprietary vendors to use it in order to be able to offer support and stay competitive in the licensing policy of their choice, then you're being a bigot. If NVidia isn't allowed to interface with the kernel, then Google shouldn't be allowed either. Much of the Android stack is proprietary, yet no one sees a problem with the Linux kernel sitting at the center of it. And NVidia isn't actually even modifying the kernel, let alone distribute it. It's not like they have changed the kernel and refuse to GPL their changesets. The only thing they're trying to do is to use an interface.
Last edited by RealNC; 10-13-2012 at 11:49 AM.
Now iOS on the other hand is becoming quite a monster of a gaming platform. But that is another thing entirely.
Further, that pre-installed Windows is also configured to work with all the wizz-bang features of the hardware. When someone wipes Windows off the system and replaces it with Linux, they find that not everything "just works". Then Linux sucks to them, and they go back to Windows. Linux is no longer free, because they wasted a bunch of time and effort on it.
Its because the so-called Linux community IS full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else.
Thanks for making that clear again to everyone.
Of course, you can't show me where people can purchase non-Windows bearing hardware which is less expensive than buying a mass-market computer with Windows pre-installed... no, you can only say people are stupid.