Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ...
documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on
these lists that I may have offended ... but ... having clean source
code to a driver is not equal to a black box ... is it? I don't
believe I've once advocatged 'binary drivers' ...
a blackbox is not necessarily a binary driver, based on source code
filled with magic values you know nothing about, would you be able to
fix a bug ?
'k, put that way, I retract my original statement and apologize to
those that I obviously offended ... I wasn't thinking it through, and
can understand that adversion that those on these lists had to my
comments :(
I, for one, was not offended by your statements, I don't get offended by
people behind screens. The fact is, it saddens me. I'd continue this
discussion, but it is a waste of time, it has been discussed already a
lot and to sum things up, the fact that some people are willing to
sacrifice the goals of their project and willing to accept anything to
grow a larger user base and make vendors happy is scary. I am an
OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD user, my opinion is not biased as I like
them all, but to be honest the fact that some of them accept blobs or
obfuscate source drivers is at the opposite of what BSD used to mean (at
least for me). no matter the reason, bending to a vendor sets up an
example for others and harms everyone in the end. For each adaptec
hardware supported by blackboxes, how many hardware support have we lost
because vendors feel they can distribute NDA's ?
Anyway, i'm over with this discussion, i got more productive things to do ;)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
