On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:16:51 -0600 (CST) "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Melchior FRANZ writes: > > ... which doesn't buy them anything, if MS owns important patents and > > wants to push DirectX and hurt other OSes. And don't tell me that they > > wouldn't! Neiter Nvidia nor SGI is in control then, and certainly not > > the "owner" of a Nvidia card. > > I am not paranoid and I don't think that my scenario will become reality > > soon, if at all. I just wanted to explain why it =does= make sense to > > prefer open solutions over closed ones. As long as you don't get the specs > > you are not really owner of your graphics cards. You depend on the > > good will of your 'master'. Nvidia decides what you can do with the > > product that you paid for. It's like if your only rented it. No problem > > for Windows users, of course. They are used to it and don't deserve better. > > But there's a better world out there. :-> > > I think the only thing that would change nVidia's approach right now > would be if ATI (or someother 3d card vender) started kicking nVidia's > butts and if open-source opengl drivers were perceived to be a > contributing factor. Otherwise I think nvidia will be quite happy to > continue doing things how they are doing them now. > ..here is where we play the FAA card: AN hardware (rivets, bolts etc.) is FAA-certifiable because _anyone_ who pleases to to so, may _legally_ test and verify the hardware. Open source software may also be tested, legally, also to airworthiness standards. And, by the FAA too. ..which leaves closed source software behind as, _un-certifiable_. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-) Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
