Craig White wrote:
I get the impression that he thinks that if it was what he wants,
that it would also be what the rest of us want.
I do think that. Should we take a poll on how many people want their
machines to be unbootable after an update?
Something like 'I
want it my way. Make it my way and it you will find that it is what
you really want, not what you say you want.' He knows what is best
for us. sort of like the way Microsoft feals about its users...
If you care to count those users, especially desktop users, you might
notice something there.
----
actually, Les has made it clear that he believes the fundamental problem
is the GPL license which requires that device drivers be compatibly
licensed to become part of distribution and that GPL license causes
companies such as ATI & nVidia to provide less than their best efforts
for Linux.
There is such a fundamental problem in general, in that the GPL
restrictions prevent many useful combinations of things from being
distributed even when all parties would like to give them away. However
in this case the specific problem is the lack of a stable and specified
interface so a device driver can independently provide services for the
kernel without either being considered a derivative or needing to
revised every time the kernel is rebuilt.
Obviously, Les' opinion is not a very popular one on this list but he is
entitled to his opinion and it doesn't make him a bad guy.
GPL fanatics, like the covered code, seem to have a problem co-existing
with anything else...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
