Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Thursday, 4. October 2012. 12.27.51 Alan Cox wrote: > > legally, from any other product I produce. If I create a drawing that > > drawing is my property > > The paper is your property, the paint is your property, the abstract > drawing that sits on it is not property and the moment someone > photographs it the distinction becomes immediately obvious. Finally, someone to state the fundamental difference between information and property. Great stuff, Alan! :-) To add, I can only quote the "free information commandment" ;-) : Thou Shalt Not Sell Information. Best, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
> If I were to write a book, or paint a picture, or create a poster, or, > by any other creative means, produce some product from my efforts it is > my right to decide how, when, or if, I choose to distribute, transfer, > or share said product. Actually it's not. Even in the US. If you paint a picture I can make fair use of it, use it for some news purposes, parody it. If you make music and publish it I can obtain a license and you cannot stop me. You cannot choose to only sell your book to black people, you cannot choose to do a vast array of things with it including controlling resale. > legally, from any other product I produce. If I create a drawing that > drawing is my property The paper is your property, the paint is your property, the abstract drawing that sits on it is not property and the moment someone photographs it the distinction becomes immediately obvious. Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
> I really don't think Linux or GNU or any FOSS could exist in a purely > communistic society or even a plain old tyranny like Bobby Mugabe-land. It manages to exist in the USSA ;) If you look at Linux contributions they come from everywhere. The core of the network routing code was written by Russians (and Alexey who worked at a nuclear research instutite even turned up at OLS with a 'minder' who as per every stereotype was apparently capable of drinking vodka in half pints). We have code from government projects, from educational projects (some of which are in effect state funded), from businesses, from volunteers, from a wide variety of non profit causes. Today you can boot a box running Russian based network code with an NSA written ethernet driver. While the debate is mildly amusing the world is not black and white. The real world runs on a mix of fudges, bits of different philosophies all taped together and often stealing bits of each others material while claiming to do the opposite. Linux reflects that, free software reflects that. It's a myriad different things to a myriad different groups of people. Even the open source/free software divide is much about "good for business" v "good for society" being seen as the prime goal of whoever is involved. Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/03/2012 08:39 AM, Roger wrote:
On 03/10/12 19:18, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
On 10/02/2012 12:14 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote:
The header is self explanatory. I always wonder what bad would it
bring to the vendor if they open source their graphics driver?
Thoughts?
Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor
If I had to hazard a guess?...I would say it more about money than
anything else. Especially in THIS day & age when the economic
landscape is bleakand there's more "cloning" going on than
anything else(Apple vs. Samsung?) even those hi-def TV's that
started out costing $3000.00 a pop are now...what?like $600 at
WalMart?.just the capitalistic "nature of the beast"
EGO II
It's simply greed based on fear of loss.
Take the most famous examples of open sourcing. Blender3D, Ton and his
crew have triumphed with the movies they make being globally acclaimed
and a totally free system being used by some of the larger
organisations. They raise money by giving away everything and they
sell the complete movie with all the source files for a token sum so
that everyone benefits.
Take Guido and Python, Matz and Ruby, these among some of the more
famous people in the computer industry. Are any of the programmers in
Apple or Microsoft so well known?
Drupal, Gimp, and the list goes on. It is only fear of loss of
something which they do not really own that prohibits.
Roger
That's an interesting way of looking at it, I've never thought about
itGreed Based On Fear Of Loss...WOW!that would explain a LOT
when it comes to companies suing each other over the most frivolous of
claims("He put a FRUIT on his devicewe are staking a CLAIM on
that fruit.even though it's NOT an AppleLoL!) Sorry to poke fun
at them but they kinda "earned" it!...)...LoL!
EGO II
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/03 09:04, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:55 AM, jdow wrote:
On 2012/10/03 02:01, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 18.52.10 jdow wrote:
How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used
for some
time now all over the world, say in science. For example:
Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want.
Right now we get, what the manifacturers say we will want, not what we do want -
I don't see much actual difference.
Where giant manufacturers are not protected by government red tape that
is so onerous it makes starting a new company too difficult to contemplate
(such as a land run by a chief executive who is in GE's pocket, for
example) you will get start-ups that fill the consumer demand vacuum. That
is how Microsoft started; that is how Linux started; that is how Apple
started in the big machines dominated world; that is how Google started
in the clumsy search engine world; that is how MySpace started and was
later supplanted by FaceBook; and the list goes on.
That is why you want small government not overwhelming large take care of
everything "but it's supposed to be benevolent" government. And before
you ask government to take something over or make new laws contemplate
what that means in terms of larger government.
I really don't think Linux or GNU or any FOSS could exist in a purely
communistic society or even a plain old tyranny like Bobby Mugabe-land.
FOSS is a good idea. It's not the only good idea out there. Nor is it
a solution for everything.
{o.o}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/03/2012 06:27 AM, Alan Cox wrote: On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:05:38 -0400 Mark LaPierre wrote: On 10/02/2012 04:18 PM, Alan Evans wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ Not if it helps to sell the competitor's hardware. Programmers, and corporations for that matter, have the right to decide how they choose to distribute their property. Software is not property. Corporations are people too Only in some broken countries but you are correct they still have to survive. Companies do open source seriously do it because it suits them for their own purposes. Thats generally a good thing because self interest is a great motivator and far better than the kind of sham token support from many companies. Free market economics sucks at finding optimal behaviour, it's just it sucks less than most of the other models tried 8) Alan If I were to write a book, or paint a picture, or create a poster, or, by any other creative means, produce some product from my efforts it is my right to decide how, when, or if, I choose to distribute, transfer, or share said product. If my employer is paying me to create that product then the product belongs to my employer, under whatever circumstances and conditions set forth by my employer and the conditions of my employment, by the same right. The fruit of my labor is my employers property. Software is no different. Software I write for my employer belongs to my employer to do with as my employer decides. Software I write on my own belongs to me. I retain the rights to said software until I decide how and when to release it. That software is not different, morally or legally, from any other product I produce. If I create a drawing that drawing is my property, no different from that software I wrote, or that book that I wrote, or that airplane that I built. It is my property and it it is my right to dispose of said property at my pleasure. My comments above should not be construed to say that I favor or condone the practice of patenting software. Software is similar to the product of any other creative practice. Books, drawings, photographs, and software property should be protected under copyright. Even the Free Software Foundation agrees with this position by reason of promulgating the practice of licensing software property under open source licensing. Let me restate that. The FSF promotes licensing of software property under open source license. -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/03/2012 11:55 AM, jdow wrote: On 2012/10/03 02:01, Marko Vojinovic wrote: On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 18.52.10 jdow wrote: How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used for some time now all over the world, say in science. For example: Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want. Right now we get, what the manifacturers say we will want, not what we do want - I don't see much actual difference. Ralf -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/03/2012 02:55 AM, jdow wrote: Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want. We saw that in Soviet Russia as a very glaring example. "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/03 06:53, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday, 3. October 2012. 2.55.25 jdow wrote:
On 2012/10/03 02:01, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used for
some
time now all over the world, say in science. For example:
Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want.
We saw that in Soviet Russia as a very glaring example.
That depends on how government is organized. In many countries the government
does not decide how the funding is actually used and which R&D projects are
financed. Those decisions are left to expert teams or peer review committees or
such institutions. People who get to evaluate project proposals are typically
the people who were voted by the community to be in those positions. It's
called democracy. ;-)
You shouldn't judge the whole idea based on one lousy implementation that
happened in Soviet Russia.
Dumb question: Why do you think it will be different any time in the
future when it has never been different in the past? We already see
this effect with Obama supporting so called "Green" industries that
are going bust even with massive government subsidies. Governments
push agendas and are answerable to nobody, especially when they control
everything, such as your income, your ability to feed yourself, and so
forth. Capitalism gives a feedback mechanism that prunes off things
people don't want (Compuserve or AOL) giving them what they do want
(Twitter, Facebook, Slashdot). Where is the realtime feedback mechanism
within government?
{o.o}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Wednesday, 3. October 2012. 2.55.25 jdow wrote: > On 2012/10/03 02:01, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used for > > some > > time now all over the world, say in science. For example: > > Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want. > We saw that in Soviet Russia as a very glaring example. That depends on how government is organized. In many countries the government does not decide how the funding is actually used and which R&D projects are financed. Those decisions are left to expert teams or peer review committees or such institutions. People who get to evaluate project proposals are typically the people who were voted by the community to be in those positions. It's called democracy. ;-) You shouldn't judge the whole idea based on one lousy implementation that happened in Soviet Russia. > > * You need money, and you have some skill to do something better than > > others. * You apply for a research&development project; if you have a > > good idea, you get a grant. > > Is this how you'd start Google, Twitter, or Facebook? My, how quaint. Why not? If there is a serious need for an advanced search engine, and if you think can do better than the existing facilities, go ahead and make a proposal. If it makes sense, why do you think you would not get a grant? Twitter and Facebook are really social/amusement/entertainment stuff, and they started out with almost no funding at all, so I don't see any relevance here. Neither of them is made on any groundbreaking new technology that needed funding to develop. Remember that the issue that started this topic was the performance of graphics hardware and drivers. If you have a promising idea to construct superior graphics hardware, or better drivers for the existing hardware, I'm sure many people will want to listen. > > * You use your knowledge to do something creative and useful. You share > > the > > results of your work with everyone else (you're being paid by taxpayer > > money, so this is fair). > > Am I paid MORE if I produce something creative, whether or not the > government wants it? Your paycheck depends on the size of the grant money. If your proposal is important/useful/successful, you'll get a bigger grant. It's quite naturally organized. > How about if customers want it and the government > does not, especially if the government does not want it? Look, the same system exists and works even in USA, in academia. The government are the people who are democratically elected to govern. If you are not satisfied with their decisions, vote for a different set of people in the next elections. Besides, the government gets to decide only how to cut the global state budget into pieces and what to use those pieces for in general, not in particular. For example, if 0.5% of state budget is decided to go into "computer hardware development", the government itself is not so interested on which projects exactly this money gets spent. These things are decided downstream by committees where expert people are sitting. If you have a successful history of past projects in graphics hardware development, you may get to be in such a committee, and decide the faith of other people's project proposals, based on your past expertise. This is being done in academic research all over the world for quite some time now, and works quite well, on the average. All serious countries in the world have implemented this (and no, it has nothing to do with Soviet Communism). I'm just saying that this model can be extended to other enterprises, which are atm working under the "free market" paradigm, and suffering because of global competitive behavior present in that paradigm. The nVidia/ATI example is typical. > > * You apply for the next R&D project, and the next, and the next... You > > build reputation according to your performance, and in time get bigger > > grants, bigger money, etc. > > You only get funding for what the government has declared the citizens > want. Can you imagine an iPhone designed by a government? My imagination > is not that strong. Can you imagine the graphics card designed by the team of experts funded by the government? I can, and I bet that it would be far superior in quality, since the team that gets to design it does not care about cutting corners or profit margins or trade secrets or such stuff. They would concentrate on making a high-quality product, which would be of completely open design, so that others can build on it and later create an even better piece of hardware. > > This scenario is not optimized to make most money, but to make best > > quality > > products. Others can build on your work and your knowledge, and you can > > build on theirs. It's a model which promotes cooperation instead of > > competition. > > No, sir, it is optimized to produce what the commissars declare you will > build. And commissars seem to
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 02:55 -0700, jdow wrote: > Why does FOSS critically lag with regards to what the general public > wants? Does it really? Whether it's open source projects, or proprietary business, *you* get given what *they* think is the way to do it. > Why isn't the desktop experience in Linux NEAR as rich and good as on > Macs or Windows machines? Again, I question whether that's really the case. Yes, from time to time, you will notice that one is better than the other, sometimes quite significantly. But there's been plenty of cases where I've felt the Linux was has been quicker, more logical, less annoying, more flexible. Just to be more clear, what I consider the desktop experience is how the actual desktop interface works, the system GUI. i.e. can I right-click it, can I add features to the right click, can I change the look or the behaviour, can I copy and paste any text that appears anywhere on the screen, can I resize every single window that pops up, does the interface get in the way, etc. I do not refer to the range of *extra* programs that you can run on your computer (e.g. someone's idea that Microsoft Office is better than OpenOffice.org). They're not *the* desktop. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 03/10/12 19:18, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: On 10/02/2012 12:14 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote: The header is self explanatory. I always wonder what bad would it bring to the vendor if they open source their graphics driver? Thoughts? Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor If I had to hazard a guess?...I would say it more about money than anything else. Especially in THIS day & age when the economic landscape is bleakand there's more "cloning" going on than anything else(Apple vs. Samsung?) even those hi-def TV's that started out costing $3000.00 a pop are now...what?like $600 at WalMart?.just the capitalistic "nature of the beast" EGO II It's simply greed based on fear of loss. Take the most famous examples of open sourcing. Blender3D, Ton and his crew have triumphed with the movies they make being globally acclaimed and a totally free system being used by some of the larger organisations. They raise money by giving away everything and they sell the complete movie with all the source files for a token sum so that everyone benefits. Take Guido and Python, Matz and Ruby, these among some of the more famous people in the computer industry. Are any of the programmers in Apple or Microsoft so well known? Drupal, Gimp, and the list goes on. It is only fear of loss of something which they do not really own that prohibits. Roger -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
> Hw, if there is no incentive to do something, why bother to do it? That > dirty rotten awful stinky evil capitalism provides the incentive. If I > don't get something additional out of working hard, I don't work hard - > indeed, why should I bother to work at all? If nobody needs to work why bother. Read up on the economics of early hunter gatherer societies. Read up on the lives of many of the rich and successful. They'll be awfully relevant as the robots take over. Executive summary though: people do stuff given the chance because it's what humans are. There are many super rich people who don't just sit and watch TV. A large amount of free software is written by people who aren't paid to do it but who do it for "fun". Hunter/gatherers made stuff that had no functional purpose because they had lots of spare time to just enjoy life (if your environment supports it then it's way more time efficient than agriculture). Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:05:38 -0400 Mark LaPierre wrote: > On 10/02/2012 04:18 PM, Alan Evans wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > >> So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers > >> (open source too). > >> This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ > > > > Not if it helps to sell the competitor's hardware. > > Programmers, and corporations for that matter, have the right to decide > how they choose to distribute their property. Software is not property. > Corporations are people too Only in some broken countries but you are correct they still have to survive. Companies do open source seriously do it because it suits them for their own purposes. Thats generally a good thing because self interest is a great motivator and far better than the kind of sham token support from many companies. Free market economics sucks at finding optimal behaviour, it's just it sucks less than most of the other models tried 8) Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/03 02:47, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:52 PM, jdow mailto:j...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
(Remember, a sweatshop job is better than no job at
all if it pays more than you can get with no job at all even if it does
not meet some do-gooder's idea of "minimum wage.")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo3eFp0I4Iw
I'll see you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo
The idealistic solution often harms people more than the wretched
sweatshop. I gave up harming people for my idealism a LONG time
ago. I really don't get jollies out of harming people in general.
{^_-}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/03 02:01, Marko Vojinovic wrote: On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 18.52.10 jdow wrote: On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote: On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote: On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote: Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-) Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement, particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so? How would I put food on my table? [snip rant about Communism] How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used for some time now all over the world, say in science. For example: Then you get what the government says you will want not what you do want. We saw that in Soviet Russia as a very glaring example. * You need money, and you have some skill to do something better than others. * You apply for a research&development project; if you have a good idea, you get a grant. Is this how you'd start Google, Twitter, or Facebook? My, how quaint. * You use your knowledge to do something creative and useful. You share the results of your work with everyone else (you're being paid by taxpayer money, so this is fair). Am I paid MORE if I produce something creative, whether or not the government wants it? How about if customers want it and the government does not, especially if the government does not want it? * You apply for the next R&D project, and the next, and the next... You build reputation according to your performance, and in time get bigger grants, bigger money, etc. You only get funding for what the government has declared the citizens want. Can you imagine an iPhone designed by a government? My imagination is not that strong. * As a side-effect, you also get fame&glory (if you did something very useful), respect by other people, etc., which can be a strong non-financial motivation to continue to do even better. Fame and glory is fun. Food is more important. I *LIKE* the idea of sharing knowledge. But that like bruised its nose and boobs when it ran head on into reality. This scenario is not optimized to make most money, but to make best quality products. Others can build on your work and your knowledge, and you can build on theirs. It's a model which promotes cooperation instead of competition. No, sir, it is optimized to produce what the commissars declare you will build. And commissars seem to have a lamentable disconnect with the people they own. Similar ideas work in the FOSS model for software development. ;-) Yeah, I've noticed. Why does FOSS critically lag with regards to what the general public wants? Why isn't the desktop experience in Linux NEAR as rich and good as on Macs or Windows machines? They're playing catch up in most cases, particularly where there is an incentive to keep information private because you can please more customers (and make more income THAT way) than sharing the information. It's only in the afterthoughts like email and browser features that Mozilla can do a little better. (The only reason I use Mozilla is that it has slightly better mail sorting capabilities. I'm too lazy to do that with procmail or alternatives.) If I know how to do something that people really want and can live comfortably on what I can earn doing this, by what right does anybody come in and tell me I have to share my know how with all and sundry so that I'm stuck cold and hungry because I can no longer earn money performing my unique service? That is the foundation if the concept of intellectual property. Umm, no, what you are describing is called a "trade secret". And it is completely ok, even necessary, to have trade secrects in the free market scenario (as opposed to the government-funded R&D scenario that I described above, where trade secrets are disfavored and disfunctional). Do you realize that you are contradicting your screed above? Video driver software IS trade secret information, Kemo Sabe. OTOH, "intellectual property" is the scenario where you tell everyone else your trade secret, and then require everyone not to use that information for their benefit, or otherwise you'll sue them in court or require them to pay you royalties. I
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:52 PM, jdow wrote: > (Remember, a sweatshop job is better than no job at > all if it pays more than you can get with no job at all even if it does > not meet some do-gooder's idea of "minimum wage.") > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo3eFp0I4Iw FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/02/2012 12:14 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote: The header is self explanatory. I always wonder what bad would it bring to the vendor if they open source their graphics driver? Thoughts? Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor If I had to hazard a guess?...I would say it more about money than anything else. Especially in THIS day & age when the economic landscape is bleakand there's more "cloning" going on than anything else(Apple vs. Samsung?) even those hi-def TV's that started out costing $3000.00 a pop are now...what?like $600 at WalMart?.just the capitalistic "nature of the beast" EGO II -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 18.52.10 jdow wrote: > On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote: > >> On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > >>> Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A > >>> long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the > >>> better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won > >>> all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly > >>> have > >>> borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. > >> > >> So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers > >> (open source too). > >> This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ > > > > That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the > > target is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the > > competition. The actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, > > as long as your product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-) > > Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement, > particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to > make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so? How would I > put food on my table? [snip rant about Communism] How about government funding? There is a tried&tested scenario used for some time now all over the world, say in science. For example: * You need money, and you have some skill to do something better than others. * You apply for a research&development project; if you have a good idea, you get a grant. * You use your knowledge to do something creative and useful. You share the results of your work with everyone else (you're being paid by taxpayer money, so this is fair). * You apply for the next R&D project, and the next, and the next... You build reputation according to your performance, and in time get bigger grants, bigger money, etc. * As a side-effect, you also get fame&glory (if you did something very useful), respect by other people, etc., which can be a strong non-financial motivation to continue to do even better. This scenario is not optimized to make most money, but to make best quality products. Others can build on your work and your knowledge, and you can build on theirs. It's a model which promotes cooperation instead of competition. Similar ideas work in the FOSS model for software development. ;-) > If I know how to do something that people really want and can live > comfortably on what I can earn doing this, by what right does anybody > come in and tell me I have to share my know how with all and sundry > so that I'm stuck cold and hungry because I can no longer earn money > performing my unique service? That is the foundation if the concept of > intellectual property. Umm, no, what you are describing is called a "trade secret". And it is completely ok, even necessary, to have trade secrects in the free market scenario (as opposed to the government-funded R&D scenario that I described above, where trade secrets are disfavored and disfunctional). OTOH, "intellectual property" is the scenario where you tell everyone else your trade secret, and then require everyone not to use that information for their benefit, or otherwise you'll sue them in court or require them to pay you royalties. I see no reason for that to exist, other than making more money based on the abuse of the current legal system. Best, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:52 PM, jdow wrote: > (Remember, a sweatshop job is better than no job at > all if it pays more than you can get with no job at all even if it does > not meet some do-gooder's idea of "minimum wage.") > Can you leave your prejudice and misconceptions out of this list, please?. Since when is "minimum wage" socialism?. In fact social welfare laws and workers rights is what made capitalism improve the living standards of people, not sweatshops. In fact I find your veiled advocacy for sweatshops mildly disgusting. Can we keep discussions technical?. Thanks. FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/03 01:13, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of jdow
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:52 AM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A
long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the
better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won
all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have
borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down.
So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers
(open source too).
This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/
That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target
is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The
actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your
product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-)
Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement,
particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to
make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so?
What has capitalism to do with that?
It is about freedom of choice.
If you think you can build something better or cheaper, you must have the
freedom to do so.
Otoh, if a state-owned-company has "a Plan" to produce the next five years or
so, crap at bargain process, so be it.
Just as any customer has the freedom to choose any product.
And let the customer decide what is important to him: price, feature, quality,
stability, support...
Hw
Hw, if there is no incentive to do something, why bother to do it? That
dirty rotten awful stinky evil capitalism provides the incentive. If I
don't get something additional out of working hard, I don't work hard -
indeed, why should I bother to work at all?
{^_^}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
RE: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
-Original Message- From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of jdow Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:52 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >>> Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A >>> long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the >>> better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won >>> all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have >>> borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. >> >> So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers >> (open source too). >> This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ > > That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target > is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The > actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your > product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-) Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement, particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so? What has capitalism to do with that? It is about freedom of choice. If you think you can build something better or cheaper, you must have the freedom to do so. Otoh, if a state-owned-company has "a Plan" to produce the next five years or so, crap at bargain process, so be it. Just as any customer has the freedom to choose any product. And let the customer decide what is important to him: price, feature, quality, stability, support... Hw __ Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten. This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 2012/10/02 13:17, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A
long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the
better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won
all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have
borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down.
So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers
(open source too).
This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/
That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target
is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The
actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your
product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-)
Without the capitalism the customer can expect zero improvement,
particularly with hardware. What incentive would I as a person trying to
make a living off clever video drivers to continue doing so? How would I
put food on my table? How would I afford a house into which to put my
table? How would I live? If the food, table, house and all that is simply
given to me, why should I bother to develop clever video drivers if it
won't improve my life? "Nothing works" is a very succinct summation of
every Communistic or purely socialistic government that the world has
ever tried. Capitalism is, indeed, bad. It's just that it's better than
ANY other system that has EVER been tried. Even Communist China has
discovered this fact. They're moving, remarkably rapidly, towards a
strongly capitalistic society and the people are living better than ever
before as a result. (Remember, a sweatshop job is better than no job at
all if it pays more than you can get with no job at all even if it does
not meet some do-gooder's idea of "minimum wage.")
If I know how to do something that people really want and can live
comfortably on what I can earn doing this, by what right does anybody
come in and tell me I have to share my know how with all and sundry
so that I'm stuck cold and hungry because I can no longer earn money
performing my unique service? That is the foundation if the concept of
intellectual property.
{^_^}
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/02/2012 04:18 PM, Alan Evans wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ Not if it helps to sell the competitor's hardware. Programmers, and corporations for that matter, have the right to decide how they choose to distribute their property. Corporations are people too, that is to say they are people banded together for a common purpose, and they have to eat too. Some choose to release their software in open format and then make their money from support services. That model doesn't work well for hardware manufacturers. People get pissed off if their hardware doesn't work. It's hard to download a new video card if you get my drift. Software can be readily patched and re-installed with little cost aside from the patching. Can't do that with a $BIG price high end video card. -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004 www.counter.li.org -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers > (open source too). > This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ Not if it helps to sell the competitor's hardware. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 20.56.34 Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > > Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A > > long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the > > better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won > > all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have > > borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. > > So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers > (open source too). > This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ That is one of the features of civilization based on capitalism --- the target is to gain most money, and to make life miserable for the competition. The actual needs of the end-users are completely irrelevant, as long as your product sells more than the competitor's product. ;-) Best, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On 10/02/2012 03:45 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A > long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the > better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won > all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have > borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers (open source too). This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/ -- Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
Another factor is that the drivers may contain a lot of clever stuff. A long time back one of the problems raised was that vendor A had the better hardware but vendor B the better drivers. Vendor B's product won all the benchmarks. If they open sourced it then vendor A would duly have borrowed all the software tricks and then won hands down. Alan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why graphics drivers are proprietary
On Tuesday, 2. October 2012. 15.14.59 Junayeed Ahnaf wrote: > The header is self explanatory. I always wonder what bad would it bring to > the vendor if they open source their graphics driver? Thoughts? AFAIK: * Some details of the internal design of the graphics chip can be reverse- engineered much more easily by the competitor company, if the driver source is available up-front. * There may also be copyright&patent issues of the source code that prevent it from becoming open source, even if the company wanted to release it. This is pretty obvious for both nVidia and ATI, which keep the drivers closed- source, in contrast to Intel, which has open drivers but generally inferior hardware design. nVidia and ATI have nothing serious to learn from Intel's design, so to speak. ATI eventually provides the chip specs for the previous- generation chips, which are old enough to be not relevant for their current products (and they release the specs, not the source code itself, I guess due to copyright issues). HTH, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Why graphics drivers are proprietary
The header is self explanatory. I always wonder what bad would it bring to the vendor if they open source their graphics driver? Thoughts? Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
