On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:29:39 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I totally forgot .... Are you (Alex) using an Nvidia graphics > > > board ? > > Occasionally; the E-machines chassis I support for demo usage at LWCE > SFO, for example, has a TNT2 card in it which runs FGFS under XF3 and > Utah-GLX. The non-demo disk drive I use at home has the NV supplied > driver, but I rarely actually use the console because I normally > "Xnest" in from elsewhere. > > > > O.k., as I remember you do not. > > > But many pople on this list do. So > > > there seems to be very little objection to using closed source > > > software, > > I have no objection to _using_ closed source software personally. > I don't _support_ a collection of software that includes closed source > unless my time is paid at full rate to do so. It's too frustrating. > In any case, my engineering preferences should have no impact on > y'all. > > > ..I have one objection: on open source code, I can legally > > show the source code to anyone interested. And, to FAA people. > > For commercial products, that isn't a problem because the FAA > oversight trickles through 'you' and interacts with NV directly. The > oversight people get to see however much source code as they need ... > but you might not. ..exactly why and how closed source becomes un-usable for EAA people. > Remember, since this is costing NV time and money, they will expect > you to cover their costs in this activity, and the associated > paperwork hassles. ..agreed. And they would put it on the sales price tag, so I can buy it FAA-sertified. Which would be dumb of me as an EAA member, considering that I cannot do anything usable with it. As an EAA-member, I'd want to modify it to fit my newly designed plane. With open source, I can. Certification costs remains the same, but can be shared with the 1.1 mill. EAA membership, if I ask. > > And, I can try to get it certified as airworthy in the same > > fashion I can modify an auto engine for aero use and get it > > certified as airworthy, in the experimental or amateur-built > > classes. Legally. Code based on FlightGear running on Linux, > > That's certainly true; there are real advantages to being entirely > open source when trying to get an STC or other airworthiness > authorization. .. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
