Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Saturday 04 August 2007 18:49 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Saturday 04 August 2007 17:51 : \____
>>>
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> 64-bit PCs: Drivers wanted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>| Microsoft is requiring those device manufacturers to develop 64-bit
>>>>>>| drivers if they want their devices to work with the 64-bit edition of
>>>>>>| Windows Vista, in an effort to ensure that device drivers are written
>>>>>>| to proper standards.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6200517.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g262/Clyzer/?action=view¤t=Untitled.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The consequences of closed source. More here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, so many people here, in cola, are arguing that proprietary
>>>>> drivers are a good thing, even in Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may now point to the URLs/Msg-IDs of those posts, Mark Hadron
>>>> It is amazing how similar your lies are to Hadron Quarks lunacy
>>>>
>>>> Jusat to sum it up for the mentally challenged (like you are an extreme
>>>> example), it was argued that *not* having any drivers at all, as the GPL3
>>>> would cause, is a "bad thing".
>>>> After all, you can't force a vendor to open-source his drivers. The only,
>>>> and deserved, answer would be "fuck you, idiot"
>>>> The GPL3 would make the situation even worse. *Much* worse
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>
>>> Why? Because of Tivoization? If I buy a piece of hardware, I can issue any
>>> command and have the device obey it. Why should a device control the user?
>>> Sounds like nanny device for spooks. If such a device exists, I do not
>>> want it.
>>>
>>
>> You are free to point to the URL which explains where Tivo does not release
>> source code
>> They *do* release the source. The obey GPL2 to the point
>
> Yes, but the device itself will only run the blob created by TiVo from the
> original source code. It makes it a look-but-don't-touch case where you can
> modify the source, but then you must take it somewhere else. If all devices
> were like this, then what good would it be when you improve the code (even fix
> bugs)?
Or overdrive the burner? Or peak the audio HW? Or create some sort of
bus contention and break the mother board?
You really should learn about how some of these devices work. They don't
WANT people reprogramming them and breaking them. And I dont blame
them. Sony had the same problems with dorks taking their chipped PS1s
back wondering why they were broken.
>
>> While you are at it, please explain how the Tivo "controls the user".
>> I am certain it is with that evil "GPL2 mind boggling device"
>
--
|
|
