Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> 64-bit PCs: Drivers wanted
>>
>> The woeful lack of 64-bit proprietary drivers (or even 32-bit drivers on
>> Vista, for that matter) is only the tip of the iceberg. With proprietary
>> software, 64-bit support is practically non-existent. This is shameful
>> for an architecture that's been around exactly seven years (this month).
>>
>> <snippage>
>>
>> So, what good is proprietary software, when it won't work on your
>> hardware ... or will work, but only with great difficulty and by
>> unnecessarily bloating the system?
>>
>> Food for thought, for the proprietary software fanbois.
>>
>> .----
>> | "Proprietary licences, the crack cocaine of software finance."
>> | - Matt Asay, CNET
>> `----
>
> Your post reminds me of the old adage:
>
> If you want something done right, do it yourself.
>
> A very succint summary of the GNU philosophy.
>
And still we have people here, in cola, promoting binary drivers
for Linux.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
