Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:13:46 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors Message-ID: <20081212211346.GE37185@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <ghuau9$juk$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20081211190951.GB845@comcast.net> <20081211113257.405a082c@gom.home> <20081211202023.GC845@comcast.net> <20081211134622.15c81ecd@gom.home> <20081212002813.GD32300@kokopelli.hydra> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212120437.B3687@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> <ghuau9$juk$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081212211346.GE37185>