From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 21:14:10 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 B3AA8106567B for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:14:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from outbound-mail-319.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-319.bluehost.com [67.222.54.251]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85C4D8FC0C for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:14:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: (qmail 15005 invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2008 21:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box183.bluehost.com) (69.89.25.183) by outboundproxy6.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2008 21:12:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=jaQnM1jaI7PWmoQIc3YC+U6qEs2Q7Yq20FZ3uJumXRNn7DyZrNFI1s2F4rbyl5MXAgiSGL9fNunJqDpEX77RH5h8c1MbSHjf8OL/2yhf8gehjG00Lcn6W9j+qqOup/Re; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kokopelli.hydra) by box183.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LBFKr-0000I0-Sw for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:14:10 -0700 Received: by kokopelli.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:46 -0700 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:46 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20081212211346.GE37185@kokopelli.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cPi+lWm09sJ+d57q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {737:box183.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:14:10 -0000 --cPi+lWm09sJ+d57q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 01:35:46PM -0500, Michael Powell wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: >=20 > > 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 conside= red > >> >a worthy goal? > >>=20 > >> full support of open hardware standards is an requirement. > >>=20 > >> support for closed hardware standards isn't important. > >=20 > > I disagree. I believe, rather, that support for closed hardware specs > > isn't *as* important -- but is still at least somewhat important. > >=20 >=20 > 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. I agree with you on that matter. Third parties like commercial hardware vendors should not be *dictating* FreeBSD design. I understand wanting to take a careful approach to working with hardware vendors, particularly when they make such demands. I just don't think that one hardware vendor saying something like that is a good reason to abandon all hope of 3D accelerated graphics support beyond what's already there. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. No, we don't. When did anyone say otherwise? --=20 Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth McCloctnick the Lucid: "The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." --cPi+lWm09sJ+d57q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAklC1AoACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVHlwCfTHlsBDVURO6XQ4W+8rJMc3cK L3YAoMdn9XOuDdOcqCq2ngbhSXVv2GAv =GxNc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cPi+lWm09sJ+d57q--