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
> Projects are switching to GPL3 and there is nothing stopping anyone
> from continuing to use GPL2.
I don't talk about "projects".
I talk about the GPL3 proponents total hypocrizy. They would condemn the
GPL3 at once given the full impact of it would be felt immedeately. 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
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
|
|
