Ubuntu 11.04 Is Prepping For Mesa 7.10, X Server 1.10

[darkbasic]

But he said "Ati X1400 with an excellent OSS radeon driver and, up to yet, poor performance". So...
Plus, if OpenGL 2.1 is considered "OK support", I rest my case.

Do you know an Ati X1400 doesn't support OpenGL > 2.1?

[lightbulb]

Ok, some words at the end:
There is no support for my card for windows 7, so i can't use any modern system with proprietary drivers. Its absolutly ok for me to use the open radeon driver, even if I had the choise to use the proprietary I would choose the open one. Thats why I choose OSS: Its not perfect in every kind, but I respect the work of the programmers and love to see the evoltionary process of Linux (and its better than windows, but thats another story .
The performance is bad, ok. But bad means I cannot play Halflife 2 under wine. Everything else, desktop related, is really fine and that is what matters for me.

If anybody thinks he needs performance now and only that counts, its ok. Everybody has the choise to use Nvidia or AMD (or intel) and thats a real good thing!

[blackiwid]

Obtaining freedom requires people to die for it. Tell me, who has died for it? Freedom has nothing to do with 1s and 0s and it is absurd to find two grown men bickering over whose software is more "free".

P.S. BSD licensing is more open than GPL licensing. :P

hmm you can fight for freedom without dieing here in germany my neighbors from the east part of the country did go to street, there nobody died but they got more freedem by at the end breaking the wall.

you don?t have to be only seeing that idealistic. It?s just that you don?t know what malicious feature the developer from which you get your closed software have included. And even if its only closed but no such anti-features included, they can each time include such stuff, and if you want feature abc as a private guy or even as a small company you cannot demand changes to the programm you want to use. you have to beg and hope that it is in the next version included what you want. And even if they give it to you it comes maybe with 10 new problems or anti-features what you want to revert. you cant pay some 3rd developers to change what you want even if its a very small change or change it by yourself.

If that is no question of freedom I don?t know what. So ok we have bigger problems as hard as it is we need a basic income, if you have no guaranted money to buy your food and for your living such things as freedom is not very important.
And I dont have to talk here about 3rd world countries. I talk about the "western world" aka europa and america and australia.

[bug77]

Do you know an Ati X1400 doesn't support OpenGL > 2.1?

Ooops. I stand corrected.

[Shining Arcanine]

hmm you can fight for freedom without dieing here in germany my neighbors from the east part of the country did go to street, there nobody died but they got more freedem by at the end breaking the wall.

you don?t have to be only seeing that idealistic. It?s just that you don?t know what malicious feature the developer from which you get your closed software have included. And even if its only closed but no such anti-features included, they can each time include such stuff, and if you want feature abc as a private guy or even as a small company you cannot demand changes to the programm you want to use. you have to beg and hope that it is in the next version included what you want. And even if they give it to you it comes maybe with 10 new problems or anti-features what you want to revert. you cant pay some 3rd developers to change what you want even if its a very small change or change it by yourself.

If that is no question of freedom I don?t know what. So ok we have bigger problems as hard as it is we need a basic income, if you have no guaranted money to buy your food and for your living such things as freedom is not very important.
And I dont have to talk here about 3rd world countries. I talk about the "western world" aka europa and america and australia.

I think you are missing the point that software has nothing to do with the concept of freedom. The concept of freedom involves greater things, such as not being in slavery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Only a free person has time to obsess over such an insane thing like how "free" software is. I think you also missed the point that if you really want to think of software in terms of freedom, then you must also accept that the GPL restricts freedom by forcing people to pay for it. People do not have the freedom to make derivatives of software without providing the source code under the GPL and ultimately, that is a restriction that means that GPL licensed software is not free. If you want to talk about free software, according to the actual meaning of the words, then you need to look at BSD licensed software, which gives those who have the source code every freedom in the world as long as they leave others alone. If you do whatever you want with BSD licensed software, you are not going to have lawyers at your door suing you. That is not true with the GPL.

[blackiwid]

I have no big problem with bsd lisense. Because they give me and others free software. But they allow additionaly bad persons to include that stuff to their blobs and not give it free. So to allow that is not a bad thing, but the releasing of only blobs is nearly (should be) criminal. Because they fights against social behavier (to share, to modify and look other stuff) and trys to make people unfree. To disallow something that should be illigal is legitimate.

So I have no big problem with bsd, but to allow unmoralic stuff is not a more of freedom as anarchie is not the perfect state of freedom.

In anarchie I can kill you and have no fear to get in prison or something like that, so freedom ends on the freedom of the other. So the freedom to sell me software that limits the freedom of the users, is unlogical because it limits the freedom of the others. and not because of the selling, if you do a service like hair cutting for somebody its ok to get money from it, but by implement restriction features and possible spying the users.

[deanjo]

I have no big problem with bsd lisense. Because they give me and others free software. But they allow additionaly bad persons to include that stuff to their blobs and not give it free. So to allow that is not a bad thing, but the releasing of only blobs is nearly (should be) criminal. Because they fights against social behavier (to share, to modify and look other stuff) and trys to make people unfree. To disallow something that should be illigal is legitimate.

I disagree and here is why, freedom does not mean the right to invade an others privacy or property unless you are implicitly granted that right by that entity. When you purchase an item you are purchasing goods that the supplier is willing to sell. If you do not agree with those terms you have the freedom to look elsewhere for your wants. When you're purchasing a product, you are buying it as is. You are not purchasing their IP, you are purchasing a finished product that contains that IP.

So I have no big problem with bsd, but to allow unmoralic stuff is not a more of freedom as anarchie is not the perfect state of freedom.


In anarchie I can kill you and have no fear to get in prison or something like that, so freedom ends on the freedom of the other. So the freedom to sell me software that limits the freedom of the users, is unlogical because it limits the freedom of the others. and not because of the selling, if you do a service like hair cutting for somebody its ok to get money from it, but by implement restriction features and possible spying the users.

A BSD type license is far from anarchy. A BSD license is like a public park, everyone is free to enjoy it but because it is not being policed or have a barbed wire fence surrounding it doesn't mean that it is the cause or contributor to potential violence that may occur on it.

[blackiwid]

I am tired to talk about BSD some people say to them you do the wrong thing or so, I just say its not better then GPL. And for my programmes I take the GPL Lisense because I don?t want to allow bad guys to do stuff that I think is bad.

So now the question is, is selling closed-source stuff is good or legitim or not. If such business fights against the freedom of others and would not be legitim, to allow that would not be a gain in more freedom, I hope you go that far with me

So ok why is it not legitim: you say I don?t buy there IP (nice marketing words ), and I dont have to buy it. So my point is that all our laws (should) found on the idea that anybody is free as long as he not limit the freedom of the others. So you say if the people decide to buy stuff that this does it is ok. It?s hard to find another example thats close to this. Because not much is like software. Maybe I think of something that not exist what would be the based on the same idea.

So lets say you could build unbreakable boxes that only the company who sells it could open it. In this boxes would be usefull stuff lets say as example engines for cars, they would be much cheaper then the other companys. But because of the boxes around it nobody could tell whats inside it could be gps-receiver and a datastorage that profiles all movements, an extra box for co2-like-compression is added also unbreakable. But nobody could check the emission of the engine.
Do you think that would be legitim or would be tolerated? I don?t think so, some people maybe you think that should be allowed, and companys should can do nearly everything, but with that argument we should allow companys to sell heroin, because nobody have to buy it so there is no problem or is it?

[smitty3268]

Plus, if OpenGL 2.1 is considered "OK support", I rest my case.

It's good enough for OSX.

[deanjo]

And for my programmes I take the GPL Lisense because I don?t want to allow bad guys to do stuff that I think is bad.

So everybody that doesn't agree with your views is a "bad guy"?

So ok why is it not legitim: you say I don?t buy there IP (nice marketing words ), and I dont have to buy it. So my point is that all our laws (should) found on the idea that anybody is free as long as he not limit the freedom of the others.

But this is exactly what a restrictive license does, it limits the freedom of others.


So you say if the people decide to buy stuff that this does it is ok. It?s hard to find another example thats close to this. Because not much is like software. Maybe I think of something that not exist what would be the based on the same idea.

So lets say you could build unbreakable boxes that only the company who sells it could open it. In this boxes would be usefull stuff lets say as example engines for cars, they would be much cheaper then the other companys. But because of the boxes around it nobody could tell whats inside it could be gps-receiver and a datastorage that profiles all movements, an extra box for co2-like-compression is added also unbreakable. But nobody could check the emission of the engine.

Here is some news for ya. Vehicles already have "tell-tale" boxes in them. They have for years. What do we have to show for it? Greener, safer, more fuel efficient vehicles who's reliability has dramatically increased over the last 30 years.

Do you think that would be legitim or would be tolerated?

It already is tolerated and accepted practice. This is why when you want warrantied work it has to be done at an authorized service provider.

I don?t think so, some people maybe you think that should be allowed, and companys should can do nearly everything, but with that argument we should allow companys to sell heroin, because nobody have to buy it so there is no problem or is it?

See your going after unrealistic extremes here with the heroin. Same could be done with a restrictive license the difference being is that you now have given someone else the authority to tell you that you have to sell heroin.