Mike McCarty wrote:
Somebody coined it, but not me. As I said according to this
definition, nVidia made a decision to "deprive" recipients of their
code "power or influence" to modify it and redistribute it.
Then by this definition, you misused the term.
What a waste of both our time :-(
I object to your victim stance on this matter. There is something
Not at all, I am on a public mailing list agreeing with an until-now
vilified Kim that the nVidia binary sucks. I don't claim to be a victim
of nVidia.
you can do to cause them to change their minds. Refuse to buy their
product.
Point is some minion in a company where some other faceless creature has
ordered a bazillion Dell boxes with nVidia cannot "refuse to buy their
product". What does your philosophy say to the person stuck with that?
STFU because they have a "victim stance" and that is unmanly?
I happen to believe that only individuals acting on their beliefs
with faith can make a difference. Masses of people sitting around
complaining accomplish nothing.
Sounds good to me, and yet people are swayed by succinctly expressed
opinion at the right moment, despite the opinionated guy is "sitting
around". Somebody should stand up for the truth that binary blobs are a
PITA, no matter if it is unpopular to hear right now when it is
fashionable to blame Kim for pointing it out.
Anyway, go ahead and have the last word.
-Andy
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
