From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 18:36:12 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAA3106564A for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D347E8FC17 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LBCru-0000EQ-ML for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:06 +0000 Received: from pool-138-88-90-120.res.east.verizon.net ([138.88.90.120]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:06 +0000 Received: from nightrecon by pool-138-88-90-120.res.east.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:06 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:35:46 -0500 Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <1228733482.4495.14.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081211103742.21621a6d@gom.home> <20081211190951.GB845@comcast.net> <20081211113257.405a082c@gom.home> <20081211202023.GC845@comcast.net> <20081211134622.15c81ecd@gom.home> <20081212002813.GD32300@kokopelli.hydra> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212120437.B3687@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-138-88-90-120.res.east.verizon.net Sender: news Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: nightrecon@verizon.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:36:12 -0000 Chad Perrin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:05:20PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> > >> >So . . . are you saying that increased support for 3D accelerated >> >graphics is not an "improvement", and should therefore not be considered >> >a worthy goal? >> >> full support of open hardware standards is an requirement. >> >> support for closed hardware standards isn't important. > > I disagree. I believe, rather, that support for closed hardware specs > isn't *as* important -- but is still at least somewhat important. > My reservation to the 3D driver thing is it is setting a very dangerous precedent if the solution involves allowing a third party commercial enterprise to dictate features FreeBSD "must include" before they will support it. In this case with NVidia and the amd64 3D driver let's say for sake of argument the developers decide "we want the amd64 3D driver so let's go ahead and add in abc_function() and xyz_function(). Later the situation is repeated with ATI mandating that abc_function() or xyz_function() must be altered to ATI's specs to get ATI 3D acceleration. Now you have two commercial companies using FreeBSD as the mud puddle in a tug of war game. Do we really want third parties to have the ability to dictate to the devs what code goes into FreeBSD? I have doubts that this is a good path. -Mike