Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:51:22 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors Message-ID: <20081212224715.P5340@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20081212212552.GF37185@kokopelli.hydra> References: <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> <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212552.GF37185@kokopelli.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> by a larger group of users. If FBSD wants to remain a 'niche' product >> with limited support for third party products, then the question of why >> FBSD is not more popular with hardware vendors has been answered. > > That's exactly what some people want -- though it's not a universal > FreeBSD goal, obviously. there are nothing to stop nvidia to write their kernel module as they like. they may do it good, bad, whatever, just it should be ADD ON. it can't cost very much, while there will be larger market for their product. if they don't like, simply don't buy their hardware and request others to write it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081212224715.P5340>