Chad Perrin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:05:20PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> > >> >So . . . are you saying that increased support for 3D accelerated >> >graphics is not an "improvement", and should therefore not be considered >> >a worthy goal? >> >> full support of open hardware standards is an requirement. >> >> support for closed hardware standards isn't important. > > I disagree. I believe, rather, that support for closed hardware specs > isn't *as* important -- but is still at least somewhat important. >
My reservation to the 3D driver thing is it is setting a very dangerous precedent if the solution involves allowing a third party commercial enterprise to dictate features FreeBSD "must include" before they will support it. In this case with NVidia and the amd64 3D driver let's say for sake of argument the developers decide "we want the amd64 3D driver so let's go ahead and add in abc_function() and xyz_function(). Later the situation is repeated with ATI mandating that abc_function() or xyz_function() must be altered to ATI's specs to get ATI 3D acceleration. Now you have two commercial companies using FreeBSD as the mud puddle in a tug of war game. Do we really want third parties to have the ability to dictate to the devs what code goes into FreeBSD? I have doubts that this is a good path. -Mike _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"