NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 On Linux

[deanjo]

In fact the only person that has called another a fascist is you.

You are fascist deanjo, you and your alike who get the education the ancestors offer you, you close it and packet it giving back nothing and leave noone to learn from it as if you gained your abilities magically outside from this world and thus you owe nothing and you believe thst you have the right to do so... and all these in the name of the very model you have based this paranoia!

[deanjo]

Again, we are talking about what kind of patents deanjo?

You did not specify, you said:

Heh, I live in a country where patents do not exist... in a whole continent actually free of patents. THAT'S reality deanjo, no the illusion that the whole world is America. There are still free people out there you know...

It doesn't matter if these companies have and other ways to make money. No serious company will sacrifice even 5% of their revenue and their time to opensource model if it was not a viable investment. Since there are commercially succesful opensource products out there, that proves that it is not pure theory.

I never said there wasn't successful opensource companies. You are however trumping up companies that have been successful by their closed source solutions. Unlike you calling me one.

I still don't understand you. How the hell we cut avenues to others since we offer everything we have for free,

So nVidia has not contibuted to open standards as well? Have they not also got projects such as vdpau which EVERYONE is free to implement in their drivers?

while they give us just an executable and that only if we can afford the price?

Last time I checked that executable was free.

Heh see? You said twice that is fine with YOU. No my friend that's not enough since it does not benefit me.

So your in it for your own greedy purposes. Ya that sounds real community like.

They will take the code and will base more code on it which they'll close it leaving me in the darkness. How on earth is that beneficial to everyone?

You didn't write the changes so the changes are not yours to begin with.

On the opposite, I give my code as GPL and I ensure that even my grandchildren will find it open and free. That's beneficial to everyone deanjo.

In a PD situation my code is still free.

Yours is just a kind and romantic movement while mine has eternal value since they can use it in every way they like along with the derivatives with the only limit to keep it free. Maybe you dislike the word limit but as I have told you in a similar controversy, freedom has limits. The freedom you had proposed without any kind of limit was just anarchy.


Nice and cool. PD indeed has a strong air of freedom and ofcourse I prefer it over any proprietary license and it would work in a world where nobody would like to create proprietary code. But in such a world (the world of elves as I have told you again) licenses wouldn't have a place at all. Unfortunately, here we have to protect our freedom if we do not want to lose it at all. So if GPL (and the other compatible licenses) can ensure that with the only obligation to keep free whatever we create, then that's a sacrifice that I can take easily.

SQLite proves you wrong. The PD model does work and has done so for decades.

There are a lot of ways to practice capitalism deanjo and these ways can be fascistic as well. In theory I could for example have slaves (if the law permitted that) and practice capitalism with them since they would work on the land I own and sell their elbow grease for my own and only own benefit. That, while capitalistic, is simultaneously and fascistic. Different things, don't confuse them.

In theory, you could have opensource code written the same way. Your point?

Now you have failed to explain me why the open source organizations are fascistic. Because we disagree with the closed source models? Because GPL does not permit them to put their non-free code in the kernel? Hmmm so the democracy is fascistic because it doesn't allow the fascists to practice their fascistic beliefs...

Refer back to this post for parallels.

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showpost.php?p=146141&postcount=72

Also, yes you did say that I am a fascist.Since I belong to the opensource crowd which has in line with fascism then I can not see how I'm not inclined to fascism as well...

No I didn't dammit, although I did point out point out parallels but it you that is calling yourself one because you fall into those parallels.

[Apopas]

http://www.patentexpress.com/patents...aspx?cn=greece

Again, we are talking about what kind of patents deanjo?

LMFAO, Uh huh, look at the cost of those licenses. Google has their cash cow in Ads and Intel makes it's money off it's hardware and proprietary licenses.

It doesn't matter if these companies have and other ways to make money. No serious company will sacrifice even 5% of their revenue and their time to opensource model if it was not a viable investment. Since there are commercially succesful opensource products out there, that proves that it is not pure theory.

No the fact that you bitch about group A cutting off avenues of uses but group B does does the same thing just through different means.

I still don't understand you. How the hell we cut avenues to others since we offer everything we have for free, while they give us just an executable and that only if we can afford the price?

Quite the opposite. I want my code to benefit EVERYONE. What they do with it I leave up to them to decide. If they want to make changes and keep it to themselves, that's fine with me, if they want to release their changes, that's fine with me. My contribution remains for everybody to use, what they do with their contribution is for them to decide.

Heh see? You said twice that is fine with YOU. No my friend that's not enough since it does not benefit me. They will take the code and will base more code on it which they'll close it leaving me in the darkness. How on earth is that beneficial to everyone? On the opposite, I give my code as GPL and I ensure that even my grandchildren will find it open and free. That's beneficial to everyone deanjo. Yours is just a kind and romantic movement while mine has eternal value since they can use it in every way they like along with the derivatives with the only limit to keep it free. Maybe you dislike the word limit but as I have told you in a similar controversy, freedom has limits. The freedom you had proposed without any kind of limit was just anarchy.

I've written software over the years using the various licenses proprietary, opensource, and truly free PD. They all have their uses and places. I'm not one to dictate what what license it is unless the project is 100% completely my own and in that case I will put it out as PD if I decide to release it to the wild where everybody who wants can use it however they wish with zero forced obligation. If I'm writing for a employer or hired to do custom code I'll put it under whatever license they want given that it does not infringe on existing licenses restrictions.

Nice and cool. PD indeed has a strong air of freedom and ofcourse I prefer it over any proprietary license and it would work in a world where nobody would like to create proprietary code. But in such a world (the world of elves as I have told you again) licenses wouldn't have a place at all. Unfortunately, here we have to protect our freedom if we do not want to lose it at all. So if GPL (and the other compatible licenses) can ensure that with the only obligation to keep free whatever we create, then that's a sacrifice that I can take easily.

I never said you were a fascist, I pointed out though how the idealism of fascism has more in line with open source organizations then a entity such as nVidia where it practices capitalism more then anything else.

There are a lot of ways to practice capitalism deanjo and these ways can be fascistic as well. In theory I could for example have slaves (if the law permitted that) and practice capitalism with them since they would work on the land I own and sell their elbow grease for my own and only own benefit. That, while capitalistic, is simultaneously and fascistic. Different things, don't confuse them.
Now you have failed to explain me why the open source organizations are fascistic. Because we disagree with the closed source models? Because GPL does not permit them to put their non-free code in the kernel? Hmmm so the democracy is fascistic because it doesn't allow the fascists to practice their fascistic beliefs...
Also, yes you did say that I am a fascist. Since I belong to the opensource crowd which has in line with fascism then I can not see how I'm not inclined to fascism as well...

[deanjo]

Problem is, the ways of companies such as Nvidia and MS (to name a couple of companies with controversies) operating under the guise of capitalism doesn't necessarily mean it's an acceptable thing especially when one might perceive the motive to be overbalanced on the side of greed.

And that's got to be the most retarded view of companies frankly. Every company is out there to make as much money as they can. If these people would open there eyes they would realize this.

People groan and gripe about nvidia having their own solutions yet pretty much every company out there does this. I never saw AMD make Eyefinity a open standard for example, their refusing to license out 3rd party chipsets now, and then there is the shenanigans of intel locking out competition on the OEM front and as well as crippling compilers and such when using the competitions hardware, and don't forget the killing of Havok FX which was going to be supported by ATi and nVidia. There are tonnes of these proprietary actions out there by pretty much every single tech company. Google makes it's money off it's closed source search engine and advertising. If Google didn't have that or open sourced it in the beginning chances are that Google would have never became close to the size it is now with the ability to support open endeavors as well . These people just have to take the blinders off and take a look at the whole picture.

[Panix]

I never said you were a fascist, I pointed out though how the idealism of fascism has more in line with open source organizations then a entity such as nVidia where it practices capitalism more then anything else.

Problem is, the ways of companies such as Nvidia and MS (to name a couple of companies with controversies) operating under the guise of capitalism doesn't necessarily mean it's an acceptable thing especially when one might perceive the motive to be overbalanced on the side of greed.

[deanjo]

With respect, I don't think I have ever seen deanjo "bitch about GPL", just push back when GPL is presented as "the answer to everything that ails us".

Exactly, the GPL is not the "Holy Grail" that some would like to make it out to be.

[deanjo]

Huh? So copyright in general and software patents are one and the same? Now we are talking or we are farting deanjo?

http://www.patentexpress.com/patents/international_country.aspx?cn=greece

Hehehe really? Android and Meego must be just for fun then...They don't know what to do with their time and they experiment with opensource for the future...

LMFAO, Uh huh, look at the cost of those licenses. Google has their cash cow in Ads and Intel makes it's money off it's hardware and proprietary licenses.

The fact that the code is open is hypocritical then? Or the fact that everyone can use it for his own benefit even for commercial purposes (speaking for GPL) is hypocritical? Are you kidding me deanjo?

No the fact that you bitch about group A cutting off avenues of uses but group B does does the same thing just through different means.

Noone situation is the best but you keep bitching about GPL while every proprietary license is ata least worse. I never saw you write something against Microsoft or Apple and their proprietary licenses... only the GPL and the opensource crowd as you us are the evil in your mind.

I've written software over the years using the various licenses proprietary, opensource, and truly free PD. They all have their uses and places. I'm not one to dictate what what license it is unless the project is 100% completely my own and in that case I will put it out as PD if I decide to release it to the wild where everybody who wants can use it however they wish with zero forced obligation. If I'm writing for a employer or hired to do custom code I'll put it under whatever license they want given that it does not infringe on existing licenses restrictions.

Also, you prefer PD over any license because you do not care what will happen to the derivatives of your code. I DO.

Quite the opposite. I want my code to benefit EVERYONE. What they do with it I leave up to them to decide. If they want to make changes and keep it to themselves, that's fine with me, if they want to release their changes, that's fine with me. My contribution remains for everybody to use, what they do with their contribution is for them to decide.

So because I want my code and its derivatives to stay free for ever I'm a fascist? What is everyone who uses proprietary licenses then?

I never said you were a fascist, I pointed out though how the idealism of fascism has more in line with open source organizations then a entity such as nVidia where it practices capitalism more then anything else.

[Apopas]

Indeed... we are farting...

[deanjo]

Yeah the "fachistic ways of the opensource crowd" is just a cute title...
I'm sorry bridgman but even for a greek my english aren't that bad.

It must be because your quoting something I did not say.

[Panix]

Can someone give me the Coles Notes version to what the past argument is about? Why would someone argue about OpenGL? I'll be reading about this because I really am unfamiliar with the OpenGL situation and I read and was told that Linux OpenGL is in a better shape than even OpenGL in Windows! Is that accurate?

I still haven't been convinced that the ATI open source situation is so great. I think it's underfunded and I figure that both ATI and Nvidia are Windows-oriented companies but way too excessively. No one agrees with this? How can you disagree? The cards aren't made to 'work in Linux!' Do Nvidia and ATI have Linux devs in the manufacturing and engineering locales when they're produced? The problem is that the companies have a small group of Linux-based engineers to deal with the architecture but choose to do it in two very different ways. This is my perspective. Nvidia chooses to be the most evil with just interpreting via Windows-based code(?) and replacing X with it. ATI, do they try some integrating with even the binary driver? The FOSS driver is said to be the most ideal but I've even read of complaints that there is some 'control' or restrictions with that as well.

The problem is the resources are really thin especially with ATI. I guess this is whining but it doesn't change the reality. Not sure how to solve the problem either but I don't see how arguing about OpenGL will help.