Re: blobs are bad
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:38:45PM -0700, Rob wrote: On 10/19/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: 2006/10/18, ICMan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? Why? I think anyone who cares about this at all has tried to figure out why vendors take the attitude they do. I have, though I haven't posted much about it. Since you and those you work with on this project have dealt with many different vendors, do you find some common reasons they give? Or when you back them into a logical corner, is there some last refuge they resort to? I'm sure you can guess why I'm asking. Companies don't always do things that make sense to an engineer. Engineers generally make decisions based on what's best for the design; the engineer says, we should open this up, and let other people improve it for us. But, someone in management says, I don't want to open this up, because it's a secret, and it's our secret, and secrets are valuable. You can waste a lot of time attacking someone's attitude with logic, and in the end, it won't change anything because their attitude isn't based on your kind of logic. Sometimes you just have to wait for their attitude to change. And sometimes you have to do things to expedite that change in attitude, like not buy products from companys that don't have your best interests at heart. This thread is boring and going nowhere. -Rick
Re: blobs are bad
2006/10/18, ICMan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? One theory is that the cards are so full of patent violations that opening up the docs would lead to a lot of court orders. And since this applies to all manufactures, the first one to open up looses. Best Martin
Re: blobs are bad
2006/10/18, Damian Wiest [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:19PM +0200, Martin Schr?der 1280x1024. And ATI is as closed as NVIDIA, but the drivers are even more broken. Do you have more details regarding ATI versus NVIDIA video cards? From I just can report tests from magazines and own experience. NVIDIA integrates well into Linux and just works (and is exploitable). ATI is said to be not so fast in releasing drivers and the integration is worse. And of course they actively hinder reverse-engineering. Best Martin
Re: blobs are bad
$Docs $Damage $Sales
This is always true. See the following:
while (runAround)
{
$sales = getSales();
if ($docs){
$costToDevelop = false;
}else{
$costToDevelop = true;
}
if ($costToDevelop){
$costToFix = ($costToDevelop * 2);
$p0wned = true;
}
if ($p0wned){
$sales = $sales--;
}
}
Re: blobs are bad
2006/10/18, ICMan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? One theory is that the cards are so full of patent violations that opening up the docs would lead to a lot of court orders. And since this applies to all manufactures, the first one to open up looses. People who invent random theories which only defend the vendor must have been beaten as children. Beaten with sticks. At least, that's my theory. You say it is a theory. However not ONE vendor who I have talked to has ever told me such things in defence of their position. They've not even HINTED that this might be part of their reasons. Of course they also have never hinted that it could be their evil step-moms are standing behind them holding sticks.. so we should make up a theory about that, right? Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? Why?
Re: blobs are bad
Theo de Raadt wrote: Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? Why? I think that might be my fault. When I ASKED earlier this month if it was a possible excuse, it might have been picked up and run with as a theory. I looked at some of the docs that people forwarded to me and it seems unlikely that said documentation could actually make a patent case any stronger. I should have closed off the thread by saying as much. Anyone who read the full thread and followed through to the example docs should have come to the conclusion that it was a bad hypothesis. A hypothesis labeled as a theory only does harm. This hypothesis has been proven incorrect, which makes it even worse to label it a theory. If people accept this 'theory' as credible, and if Intel neither confirms or denies it, then people will accept it as a valid excuse for why Intel doesn't release docs. We shouldn't be making excuses for Intel. Trying to use it as a tool to shame Intel about their bad behaviour will not work. A corporation does not feel anything, let alone shame. So, to bring this topic to rest: the example hardware documentation which was linked in a previous thread DOES NOT INDICATE that such documentation could be used to bring lawsuits against a company. Such documentation as I have seen only shows how to utilize the hardware. It does not disclose how the intellectual property is implemented, which is what would be required to bring a lawsuit. People who say otherwise have failed to do their homework, or they are liars. I regret bringing up this topic in the first place. In the future I will try to be more clear that I am asking a question, not forwarding theories, and I will follow through to the thread conclusion with the results of the question. There are no valid reasons for Intel requiring NDAs for their hardware documentation. Every single theory and excuse has been proven incorrect. Until Intel provides such documentation they deserve only our contempt, and to have our dollars flow to the competition. Breeno
Re: blobs are bad
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: 2006/10/18, ICMan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? One theory is that the cards are so full of patent violations that opening up the docs would lead to a lot of court orders. And since this applies to all manufactures, the first one to open up looses. People who invent random theories which only defend the vendor must have been beaten as children. Beaten with sticks. At least, that's my theory. You say it is a theory. However not ONE vendor who I have talked to has ever told me such things in defence of their position. They've not even HINTED that this might be part of their reasons. Of course they also have never hinted that it could be their evil step-moms are standing behind them holding sticks.. so we should make up a theory about that, right? Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? Why? I think anyone who cares about this at all has tried to figure out why vendors take the attitude they do. I have, though I haven't posted much about it. Since you and those you work with on this project have dealt with many different vendors, do you find some common reasons they give? Or when you back them into a logical corner, is there some last refuge they resort to? I'm sure you can guess why I'm asking. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ |
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/19/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 11:34:49AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: 2006/10/18, ICMan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? Why do some people feel the need to make up utter bullshit defences for the vendors, when there is not one ounce of fact to back it up? Why? I think anyone who cares about this at all has tried to figure out why vendors take the attitude they do. I have, though I haven't posted much about it. Since you and those you work with on this project have dealt with many different vendors, do you find some common reasons they give? Or when you back them into a logical corner, is there some last refuge they resort to? I'm sure you can guess why I'm asking. Companies don't always do things that make sense to an engineer. Engineers generally make decisions based on what's best for the design; the engineer says, we should open this up, and let other people improve it for us. But, someone in management says, I don't want to open this up, because it's a secret, and it's our secret, and secrets are valuable. You can waste a lot of time attacking someone's attitude with logic, and in the end, it won't change anything because their attitude isn't based on your kind of logic. Sometimes you just have to wait for their attitude to change. - R.
Re: blobs are bad
Ingo Schwarze wrote: I just spent an hour ssh'ing from Linux box to Linux box, editing XF86Configs and restarting X servers. That's hardly fun if the hardware configurations vary such that you must decide for each case whether Driver nv or Driver vesa is the way to go... I hope you put a comment next to it which explains why people should not put nvidia in there. Because I bet there will be a lot of people who will miss features and will look for the cause. And then the module is still loaded and /dev/nvidia probably still exists with permissions 666. # Han
Re: blobs are bad
Theo de Raadt wrote: But Craig, it's the same with women. They'll only hang out with you if they feel there is enough positive vibe in you. And since you so clearly show that you are a pessimist at heart, you're out of luck too! If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen. Theo, you aren't planning on becoming a motivational speaker, are you? ;) Breeno
Re: blobs are bad
Hi Eliah, This discussion is starting to lean not to OpenBSD but life in general. ;-) Karma and the law of abstraction are very abstract. In my view, they are most certainly not. It's the law of attraction, btw, not abstraction. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction Yes, there's a lot of New Age bullshit floating around. It's your choice to look beyond that and see the practical implications of it. On the other hand, suppose vendors who support open source only do so because they believe that it profits them, and the only arguments they take seriously are those involving their profit. This is at least highly plausible. Should we then not say that because it's not functionally useful to do so? I am assuming you mean monetary gain in respect to shareholders when you talk of profit. Yes, that most certainly must be communicated. But that was not what this part of the thread was heading towards and there are other definitions of profit which are gaining momentum at this point in time. The bulk of the matter is, that if we, as OpenBSD's userbase for instance, but also the free software community at large, keep on hammering the fact that most vendors suck hairy moose balls, they will keep on sucking hairy moose balls. Theo said earlier: If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen. That is the Law of Attraction in full swing right there. HTH... Nico
Re: blobs are bad
On 18/10/06, Nico Meijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there's a lot of New Age bullshit floating around. It's your choice to look beyond that and see the practical implications of it. They do tend to get everywhere, don't they... MC
Re: blobs are bad
Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? Maybe the AMD / ATI merger will yield some results in the future, if i am not mistaken AMD has been a *decent* company as far as docs go. AMD won't change a thing. But the minute people who really want this stop being vendor-lickers and engage the vendor, it will happen. But first about 10-20% of the community have to learn to stop making excuses for the vendor. We are not fighting the chip makers. We are really fighting the OEMs who buy from them.
Re: blobs are bad
2006/10/18, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than 1280x1024. And ATI is as closed as NVIDIA, but the drivers are even more broken. Best Martin
Re: blobs are bad
On 2006/10/18 13:40, Martin Schrvder wrote: Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than 1280x1024. They are not. They used to be, but started closing some parts in the dualhead G550 era (istr some feature upgrade being sold as a software-only update which may be the reasoning behind this; very annoying because otherwise I'd be quite happy with Matrox G cards as they're stable, not too power-hungry and fanless). Parhelia/P650 range is closed. Matrox G range is variable - main driver works well, but needs a blob to use some features. One of those features appears to be init'ing the DVI correctly if the monitor needs something setup differently to how the card's BIOS does it (i.e. it is meant to work with some DVI monitors but definitely does not work with all).
Re: blobs are bad
I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? They get free labour, a larger source of talent, and more stable drivers. Their driver developers can take ideas from ports of their drivers to put into their own (aka Windows drivers) to make them more efficient and stable. It provides a learning pool for their own developers, who can now openly participate in the community. And finally, it makes happy customers. Happy customers means more sales = more revenue. Are they worries that competitors will learn about the inner workings of their cards, and they will loose competitive advantage? Isn't their competitive advantage in their ability to continuously innovate? Drivers have little to do with that. Besides, if a competitor is trying to reverse engineer last months version of your card, you are pulling ahead with your next rev, which is already built on your previous good works. I just don't understand their arguments. ICMan Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2006/10/18 13:40, Martin Schrvder wrote: Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than 1280x1024. They are not. They used to be, but started closing some parts in the dualhead G550 era (istr some feature upgrade being sold as a software-only update which may be the reasoning behind this; very annoying because otherwise I'd be quite happy with Matrox G cards as they're stable, not too power-hungry and fanless). Parhelia/P650 range is closed. Matrox G range is variable - main driver works well, but needs a blob to use some features. One of those features appears to be init'ing the DVI correctly if the monitor needs something setup differently to how the card's BIOS does it (i.e. it is meant to work with some DVI monitors but definitely does not work with all).
Re: blobs are bad
On 2006/10/18 09:56, ICMan wrote: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? They get free labour, a larger source of talent, and more stable drivers. Why on earth would they want stable drivers? If the drivers are stable, their customers can avoid the whole software/hardware/software/hardware upgrade treadmill prevalent in most of today's PC business. Happy customers means more sales = more revenue. I think some companies instead see it this way: Working products = fewer people having to buy new products because the old ones never worked anyway = less revenue.
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/18/06, Nick Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox Don't forget 3DFX, although they'd be hard to come by and nowadays wouldn't support PCI-Express
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox But intel's bad by definition :) Older radeons - those include the laptops with the mobility chips? (MIne's M300, so, probably not).
Re: blobs are bad
Ted Unangst wrote: On 10/17/06, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox Do any of them work in OpenBSD? I thought DRI was required, and not supported in OpenBSD. -- Matthew Weigel
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/18/06, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/18/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But intel's bad by definition :) Older radeons - those include the laptops with the mobility chips? (MIne's M300, so, probably not). not sure. ati parts are referenced by a large mix of numbers (code names, chip names, retail names, ...), but i thought everything before X--- mostly worked. for instance, i know the mobility 7500 worked great.
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/18/06, Matthew Weigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: intel, s3, older radeons, older matrox Do any of them work in OpenBSD? I thought DRI was required, and not supported in OpenBSD. no, but they are all capable of working. the drivers are all open source.
Re: blobs are bad
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 16:56, ICMan wrote: I have read this thread, and I don't get it. Doesn't it benefit card companies to have open source communities making their drivers better? You're looking at it all wrong.. making drivers implies putting out docs. Docs will describe the actual hardware as well, maybe go a little into electronics too. Do you know how buggy the actual hardware is? Do you know how many chips with _experimental_ hardware NVIDIA has put on the market? For example a hole series of graphic cards were released that implemented a big set of 3D functions. The specifications didn't mention anything about it. But they were there, ready for you to enable them if you knew the magic combo... I'm guessing the main restrain (as far as docs are implied) are the design flaws found in their hardware. This can destroy a reputation faster than a minor exploit that people don't really care about because It could never affect me, what are the chances? By the way have you seen my l33t XGL configuration?!?!
Re: blobs are bad
On Oct 18, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Paul Irofti wrote: I'm guessing the main restrain (as far as docs are implied) are the design flaws found in their hardware. This can destroy a reputation faster than a minor exploit that people don't really care about because It could never affect me, what are the chances? By the way have you seen my l33t XGL configuration?!?! OK stop. I get it. Some asshole said he was open but he was only open for business. I get it. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: blobs are bad
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:40:19PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote: 2006/10/18, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? Not really. Matrox is open, but the cards don't do DVI higher than 1280x1024. And ATI is as closed as NVIDIA, but the drivers are even more broken. Best Martin Do you have more details regarding ATI versus NVIDIA video cards? From what I understand, ATI's Radeon cards have pretty good support. Meaning that all of the video-out ports work with the radeon driver and some versions have 3d support. I don't believe the nv driver supports any video-out ports besides VGA (DVI?) and only does 2d. I got burned by this some time ago when I discovered that while NVIDIA releases binary drivers for FreeBSD, they're only available for the x86 platform. If you're looking to add dual, or triple-headed support or connect your system to a television or A/V receiver, good luck. I've had nothing but problems trying to find a suitable card with BSD support. I'm currently trying a Radeon 9600XT which some people have claimed will work. -Damian
Re: blobs are bad
open source community answer: http://www.petitiononline.com/nvfoss/petition.html On 10/18/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html I just wanted to say... Told you so. Quite amusing. Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen. More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that vendors who refuse to participate in the open communities will get punished more firmly than open vendors. I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentaion.
Re: blobs are bad
Damian Wiest wrote: If you're looking to add dual, or triple-headed support or connect your system to a television or A/V receiver, good luck. I've had nothing but problems trying to find a suitable card with BSD support. I'm currently trying a Radeon 9600XT which some people have claimed will work. I've got a Matrox G450 working well with two VGA monitors under OpenBSD. I've got an IBM laptop with svideo out (Radeon 7500, I think) that I haven't gotten working yet, but I haven't tried that hard.
Re: blobs are bad
Bambero wrote on Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:36:15PM +0200: open source community answer: http://www.petitiononline.com/nvfoss/petition.html Did you take the time to actually read that? It asks for source code (instead of documentation) and calls the current solution implemented by Nvidia the best one besides having an open-source driver. This is not helpful; hopefully, nobody will sign it.
blobs are bad
http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html I just wanted to say... Told you so. Quite amusing. Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen. More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that vendors who refuse to participate in the open communities will get punished more firmly than open vendors. I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentaion.
Re: blobs are bad
When I read that headline earlier today I thought to myself I bet Theo will be getting a chuckle from this when he reads it On 10/17/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html I just wanted to say... Told you so. Quite amusing. Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen. More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that vendors who refuse to participate in the open communities will get punished more firmly than open vendors. I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentaion.
Re: blobs are bad
Original message Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:30:53 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: blobs are bad To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that vendors who refuse to participate in the open communities will get punished more firmly than open vendors. I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentaion. feel the delightful pain!
Re: blobs are bad
Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to get documentation from Nvidia? Sam Fourman Jr. On 10/17/06, Nick Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I read that headline earlier today I thought to myself I bet Theo will be getting a chuckle from this when he reads it On 10/17/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.com.com/Exploit+code+released+for+Nvidia+flaw/2100-1002_3-6126846.html I just wanted to say... Told you so. Quite amusing. Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen. More problems like this will be exposed, and it is my hope that vendors who refuse to participate in the open communities will get punished more firmly than open vendors. I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentaion.
Re: blobs are bad
Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to get documentation from Nvidia? As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it to make economic sense for nVidia. Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation (+ corporate inertia) must be less than the perceived damage to brand through exploits, which must be less than the profit / brand recognition / loyalty from sales into Linux/BSD market. $Docs $Damage $Sales If that equation doesn't work out, they won't do anything. -- Craig
Re: blobs are bad
Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to get documentation from Nvidia? As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it to make economic sense for nVidia. Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation (+ corporate inertia) must be less than the perceived damage to brand through exploits, which must be less than the profit / brand recognition / loyalty from sales into Linux/BSD market. $Docs $Damage $Sales If that equation doesn't work out, they won't do anything. Thanks for the lesson! I guess we were dreaming every time some other vendor was convinced to give us documentation! But Craig, it's the same with women. They'll only hang out with you if they feel there is enough positive vibe in you. And since you so clearly show that you are a pessimist at heart, you're out of luck too! If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen.
Re: blobs are bad
Theo de Raadt wrote on Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM -0600: I just wanted to say... Told you so. After reading the Rapid7 exploit, i just wanted to make sure we are not running this stuff. Of course, none of our servers has Nvidia graphics, but some of the workstations do. And guess what? On about half of those, our Linux admins were running Driver nvidia - obviouly, the long-standing unfixed bug didn't really scare them enough. shudder Of course, we do not expose Linux workstations directly to the Internet, but have a firewall in between. Yet, this will of course offer little protection against bugs of this class. :-( Quite amusing. You must be joking!! ;-) I just spent an hour ssh'ing from Linux box to Linux box, editing XF86Configs and restarting X servers. That's hardly fun if the hardware configurations vary such that you must decide for each case whether Driver nv or Driver vesa is the way to go... Of course we know this is not the last time this will happen. If only people would realize! I just dropped a note to our internal Linux admin@ mailing list, explaining how i fixed those of our workstations being vulnerable - only to be asked the following question: But we will certainly return to Driver nvidia as soon as Nvidia releases a fix for this bug? shudder again This question got asked even though i forwarded Linus' quote on blobs there - thanks again to the guy who reminded us by reposting it here. On the other hand, at least one of our Linux admins suggested to call a meeting in order to rethink our strategy for purchasing graphics cards, and in order to consider alternatives to Nvidia - in particular alternatives so well documented that they allow fully functional and truely open kernel level drivers. [...] I also hope that their embedded^Husers feel the pain, so that one day they will stand beside us when we ask for open documentation. Thank you kindly for your compassion; i do feel the pain, but little do i enjoy it. :-/ Apart from that, obviously, you are just right.
Re: blobs are bad
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 08:22:23PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: As I see it, the only way we are going to get documentation, is for it to make economic sense for nVidia. Cost of documentation / Perceived loss of IP ($) through documentation (+ corporate inertia) must be less than the perceived damage to brand through exploits, which must be less than the profit / brand recognition / loyalty from sales into Linux/BSD market. $Docs $Damage $Sales If that equation doesn't work out, they won't do anything. Thanks for the lesson! I guess we were dreaming every time some other vendor was convinced to give us documentation! But Craig, it's the same with women. They'll only hang out with you if they feel there is enough positive vibe in you. And since you so clearly show that you are a pessimist at heart, you're out of luck too! If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen. I don't get your point Theo. One should be optimistic of course but also practical. Craig is both. In fact most practical statements sound pessimistic, but not so in reality. I am wondering if you agree with him or not! Anyway I sincerely hope that hardware vendors start behaving sensibly... Though I am also somewhat pessimistic about it. Unless forced to change these people simply won't understand what is good for them. regards, Girish
Re: blobs are bad
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:32:19 -0500 From: Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Nvida exploit] Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to get documentation from Nvidia? Probably not, because a cursory glance at what the Linux community thinks about this is that they feel it's a price worth paying for oh-so-lickable dropshadows on your windows. They won't be demanding specs anytime soon.
Re: blobs are bad
Pardon me if my Knowledge is lacking, but is there actually *any* video card vendor that would support Full 3D acceleration and *most* of the stuff desktop users want? Maybe the AMD / ATI merger will yield some results in the future, if i am not mistaken AMD has been a *decent* company as far as docs go. Sam Fourman Jr. On 10/17/06, Henrik Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:32:19 -0500 From: Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Nvida exploit] Would this in anyway help the OpenBSD devlopers ongoing campaign to get documentation from Nvidia? Probably not, because a cursory glance at what the Linux community thinks about this is that they feel it's a price worth paying for oh-so-lickable dropshadows on your windows. They won't be demanding specs anytime soon.
Re: blobs are bad
Hi Girish, If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen. I don't get your point Theo. Search the net for karma and the law of attraction. Perhaps that will give you some insight in what -I think- Theo means. HTH... Nico
Re: blobs are bad
On 10/18/06, Nico Meijer wrote: Hi Girish, If you keep saying something good won't happen -- well then you can bet it won't happen. I don't get your point Theo. Search the net for karma and the law of attraction. Perhaps that will give you some insight in what -I think- Theo means. HTH... Nico Karma and the law of abstraction are very abstract. The more concrete analogy here is that confidence is an asset. In the case of convincing vendors to support open source, the idea, I think, is that if you proclaim that vendors who don't do so profit by failing to do so, they will believe you. On the other hand, suppose vendors who support open source only do so because they believe that it profits them, and the only arguments they take seriously are those involving their profit. This is at least highly plausible. Should we then not say that because it's not functionally useful to do so? -Eliah
