Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 7 wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Flat foot sock micoshaft funded anti-GPL3 FUD again.
>
> Fine. Tell us how to use a GPL3 kernel with binary closed source blobs
> Short answer is: You don't
You are totaly dumb fsck!
Its been done a gazillion times.
Write module that hooks to a published API.
But of course flat foot sock maintainer doesn't know that.
They only know how to write .bat files.
>> Projects are switching to GPL3 and there is nothing stopping anyone
>> from continuing to use GPL2.
>
> I don't talk about "projects".
Because you don't know what a project is or because you lost the GPL3
FUD arguments?
> I talk about the GPL3 proponents total hypocrizy.
And where might that be? Hidden away in some Linux Lab at Micoshaft
Corporation?
> They would condemn the
> GPL3 at once given the full impact of it would be felt immedeately.
They would? You sound uncertain.
You dumb fsck flat foot sock maintainers are all alike
when it comes to debate.
> RMS
> would be tarred and feathered by you guys and then hung by his balls if
> you had no access to a non-GPL3 kernel
You have a vivid imagination. Doing spliffs and working
for micoshaft corporation to get paid for buying spliffs
ain't gonna win you your bread and butter arguments.
|
|
