Sean wrote: > Huh? You're reading something between the lines that just isn't there. Dude, don't even go there. You have continually been making statements like: "We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia." You have been doing it for _weeks_ now. You have singlehandedly made it about *1* company, which is _just_as_bad_ as the original requestors. That's been my _sole_point_. Damn me for previously actually explaining why nVidia is the only solution for _some_ people. I _never_ said there is "no alternative," and I am definitely _not_ a nVidia "cheerleader." But for some people, they can and will use nVidia, as well as ATI's proprietary source drivers, as well as Matrox's proprietary source drivers, etc... You have continued to _demonize_ things, and in many cases, interject _false_ technical information, along with a few, select others. This is the problem with most "agendas," they tend to go past fact and into false assumptions for political reasons, not technical reality. That's the _only_ "problem" I've had. > Anyway, let's do as Rahul asked before your first post on this thread, > and let it go. Actually, I was the one that use the phrase "let it go," shortly after Rahul's. I futher refined that into coming up with a standard response with Rahul most excellently delivered, and I think that does the job. Now I don't have any "weight" here, and I don't assume to have any either. But I've seen other people who aren't exactly "contributors" throwing their weight, history and other credentials around, and doing it a way that I would consider borderline "bigotry" (and depending on how far people have been "explaining" things, some might even qualify as "libel" but I doubt nVidia cares at this point) on holding nVidia to one standard, but other companies to another. And that would include yourself -- very much so -- because you have singlehandedly associated "proprietary" with _only_ nVidia, and even gone so far to stretch the notion to blame even ATI's moves on nVidia, when the reasons were quite different. ATI closed up the specifications for many reasons (several of my good colleagues that I used to work with in the semiconductor industry are now at ATI). I think Rahul hit-it-on-the-nose with his post: > Would people stop discussing merits and demerits of particular > brands of video cards and their drivers and market share in the > Fedora development list. This is definitely off topic for this list. > Kindly stop Now at what point do you concede you are one of the biggest hypocrites with regards to this response to me, given the context I, Rahul and others have made? Oh, nevermind, I forgot I was an nVidia cheerleader, so I might be one of the people that are hurting open source. Bigotry starts with labeling and intolerance driven by an agenda. Again, I am so damn sorry I tried to explain things earlier from a "middle ground," all while saying the Fedora Project should _never_ support proprietary source drivers, I have _never_ said otherwise. You, however, seem to be solely fixated on nVidia. While you might claim that is the issue, because of your frustration with others who buy nVidia's product and use nVidia's drivers while seeking support here, it does _not_ mean you can blame nVidia for it all, and make statements that just are _not_ true. Be objective, be considerate and stop the "reverse agenda," because you too are making very vendor-blind statements. ;-> And don't assume we all use nVidia's drivers, or only buy nVidia products. I only use their products+drivers if I absolutely need them for an applpication today, and cannot wait 3-5 years. And _no_, it is _not_ for gaming. Otherwise I typically go with Intel, rewarding them for their efforts, or just use the MIT X11 "nv" driver with the UtahGLX for older nVidia products that work well enough. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
