On Friday 13 May 2005 03:37, Hugh Fisher wrote: > On 05/13/2005 02:43:12 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Did you ask him? I did not ask Keith about this specifically, but > > I get > > the impression the only reason he does not complain is that he is > > resigned to the status quo. I will ask him about your specific > > point, if you like. > > Sure, go ahead. But what matters is not whether Keith would like > to see a completely free hardware design, but whether he and the > other X developers would refuse to work on it if it isn't.
Should I also ask whether the enthusiasm would be less for a not-quite-open design? > > Mike Harris on the other hand is quite vocal about the depressing > > situation of closed 3D hardware. I will ask him your specific > > question too, if you like. > > Sure, go ahead. But my question is NOT "do you want the hardware > design to be completely free, unlike nVidia or ATI?", but "do you > want the information needed by a DRI developer to be free, unlike > nVidia or ATI?" And may I also ask "would you like the hardware to be fully hackable, if you could get that, would it increase your enthusiasm?" > > I'm emailing from a box that runs on Linux, please do not call me a > > zealot. > > Which rather proves my point. We all know what a disaster Linux > has been because it runs on un-free CPU/disk controller/Ethernet > chip designs, and how few people are willing to contribute to > Linux because of that. It destroys your point, Hugh. If Linux were not _completely_ open, it would not be running my machine right now. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
