Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:18:41 -0400 From: Jon Radel <jon@radel.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which OS for notebook Message-ID: <4CAB25B1.6050906@radel.com> In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP206334E008974E47D19DF37936D0@phx.gbl> References: <BLU0-SMTP206334E008974E47D19DF37936D0@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms090302090501070305090702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/5/10 7:31 AM, Carmel wrote: > > I realize that at this point someone will inevitably chime in and play > the "blame the manufacturers" whine. If that were factually correct, > then no one else would be able to supply drivers and support for > hardware that FreeBSD has left orphaned. > I'm somewhat unclear on how that follows. Might it not be that many=20 manufacturers, busily dealing with Microsoft, and easing into Linux now=20 that it has significant "mindshare," have simply decided that there's no = economic benefit to releasing detailed hardware specs in a form that=20 works for FreeBSD developers? I really fail to see why you think the=20 fact that the manufacturer itself has released binary drivers for=20 Windows, and possibly Linux, and/or released hardware specs under NDA=20 (non-disclosure agreement) to certain business partners, has any bearing = on whether sufficient information to write a driver is available to any=20 FreeBSD programmer with permission to use it to write an open source driv= er. --=20 --Jon Radel jon@radel.com --------------ms090302090501070305090702--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CAB25B1.6050906>