Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Doesn't Expect To Have Linux 5.9 Driver Support For Another Month

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • _ONH_
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    But you seem a bit smarter than the rest of these morons, so I say this, there is more than just the GPL. There are many more free licenses with a non-militant stance such as the Apache License, which allow for more freedom. Maybe you'll get it and understand why I think the GPL is a sad license and that it has better ones, but the morons won't. They're fucked in the head and cannot be fixed. In short, one simply cannot expect to dictate what others should and shouldn't do, when one doesn't want it for oneself. Only idiots do. The GPL sadly is a license written by such an idiot. The GPL was a knee-jerk response by tree-hugging communist hippies who are mentally still living in the 70's, trying to fight the closed source monopoly of capitalism. We're living in better times now and need to move on from either shit. There is room for all of it and not just one or the other.
    you are Right, the gpl is not free of charge for sw devs. But the stupide people trying to convince others it’s legit to use the ip in he kernel free of charge should also tell no to not pay other companies to use their sw up. Not contributing an single line of source code back ist just that. Since it involves payment for usage form the ones developing derevatives it can’t be hippies or communist.

    Leave a comment:


  • _ONH_
    replied
    Originally posted by Volta View Post

    Only in your stupid head. Thankfully, Linux proved to be superior in comparison to closed source broken mess and even m$ can't live without Linux. It was noticed many times you're a freak.
    you could have asked him how many unicorns use linux as a core component or how many Fortunes 500 companies there are which use 0 GPL Software. There won’t be any. Even if you strike out all web services which are not part of the a core delivery of their product.
    Last edited by _ONH_; 18 October 2020, 12:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cjcox
    replied
    sdack I sense your frustration. But I think maybe you're just a bit "over the top". I'm not saying we don't need passionate people standing up for their beliefs, just make sure you're not throwing out most of the conversation in the process. As for me, I do not consider it "fear" to want software to be available longer term. I think people would be amazed at the software that has been destroyed (permanently lost) over the years. But yes, there can be "agendas", even when there is good intent.

    Leave a comment:


  • sdack
    replied
    Originally posted by cjcox View Post
    My point is even with the "believe to be" "happy" licenses, because they allow people to diverge and proprietarize the software at will, you still end up with the same problems that lead to functional software permanently going away. But, you are right in saying at the end of the day, everyone is certainly free to do whatever they want as copyright holders with regards to how they want to license their software. In the case of a lot of the "happy" licenses, people are not looking to preserve their software, they just want to "see their name in lights" temporarily. Some people don't usually consider what happens after their time is up. Some might argue that's a selfish attitude though.
    We didn't even have licenses for free software back then. We called it "public domain" and at best could one find the author's name in the source code. Nobody cared for IP. The IP thinking was introduced by the hippy fear mongers, who spread the belief that if your software doesn't have some license then you and your software will get owned and raped by the lawyers of the monopolist and capitalist corporate elite. So then people started including all sorts of licenses to make a statement, sort of a like protective magic spell to fight off evil. Source code had to have a license to express some kind of agenda, regardless if it was open, closed or just terrible source code.
    Last edited by sdack; 18 October 2020, 11:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cjcox
    replied
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Reading all the shit that's being posted here by people who are just kids trying to suck on free software as militantly as possible, because they haven't yet learned to handle their testosterone and sugar levels, hence will they always act like raging monkeys, and it makes me only shake my head in disgust. Nothing one can do about these morons but to ignore them.

    But you seem a bit smarter than the rest of these morons, so I say this, there is more than just the GPL. There are many more free licenses with a non-militant stance such as the Apache License, which allow for more freedom. Maybe you'll get it and understand why I think the GPL is a sad license and that it has better ones, but the morons won't. They're fucked in the head and cannot be fixed. In short, one simply cannot expect to dictate what others should and shouldn't do, when one doesn't want it for oneself. Only idiots do. The GPL sadly is a license written by such an idiot. The GPL was a knee-jerk response by tree-hugging communist hippies who are mentally still living in the 70's, trying to fight the closed source monopoly of capitalism. We're living in better times now and need to move on from either shit. There is room for all of it and not just one or the other.
    My point is even with the "believe to be" "happy" licenses, because they allow people to diverge and proprietarize the software at will, you still end up with the same problems that lead to functional software permanently going away. But, you are right in saying at the end of the day, everyone is certainly free to do whatever they want as copyright holders with regards to how they want to license their software. In the case of a lot of the "happy" licenses, people are not looking to preserve their software, they just want to "see their name in lights" temporarily. Some people don't usually consider what happens after their time is up. Some might argue that's a selfish attitude though.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by cynical View Post

    In what sense is it not ready? In many ways it is simpler to use than the competition. Outside of specialized proprietary software made for professionals with no open-source equivalents, it seems to have covered all the important ground.

    It blows my mind that I can even play games made for Windows in Linux and have them function the same. (with lower network latency even)
    In other words, if you disregard anything that's about serious work, it's all peachy

    Just like Nvidia's driver wasn't built with GPL in mind (it was build to run across all supported OSes, thus reducing costs for Nvidia), Linux wasn't built for desktops. It was built to break UNIX's stranglehold on servers, which it did beautifully. Desktop usage is less than an afterthought for Linux, hence the continuing pain. Still, the experience is pretty good for an aftertought.
    At the same time, I see where birdie is coming from. Compared to Windows or macOS, which are all about the desktop, Linux desktop is full of papercuts.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynical
    replied
    Originally posted by tilde
    Come on, he is being honest. Linux is not ready for the desktop, and we have to agree.
    In what sense is it not ready? In many ways it is simpler to use than the competition. Outside of specialized proprietary software made for professionals with no open-source equivalents, it seems to have covered all the important ground.

    It blows my mind that I can even play games made for Windows in Linux and have them function the same. (with lower network latency even)

    Leave a comment:


  • andre30correia
    replied
    linux desktop have no future with this politics

    Leave a comment:


  • geearf
    replied
    Originally posted by carewolf View Post

    Other GPL-driver supported hardware has signed firmware as well. It is usually distributed separately, even though it is required for those drivers to function.
    Oh that's great. Thank you!

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by geearf View Post

    Yeah most likely, but it'd be nice.
    It might not be possible because of the signed firmware mentioned before though. :/
    Other GPL-driver supported hardware has signed firmware as well. It is usually distributed separately, even though it is required for those drivers to function.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X