On Sunday 16 September 2007 20:53:18 Wulfy wrote:
> Mario Vukelic wrote:
> > The option "Anyone that refuses to carry binary-only drivers, so that
> > all others will also benefit, as it will require documented hardware"
> > was added by a guest, and it's the only sensible option to choose.
> So you are suggesting;
> We buy the hardware (company makes profit).
> We don't use the drivers they provide (no hardware acceleration).
> They open source their drivers and hardware specs (exactly WHY would
> they do that?).
> They've already made their profit. The drivers are given away free...
> if we choose to cripple our machines, how is that hurting them?
> Idealistic, yes. "Sensible"? Hardly.
> Wulf Credo:
> Respect the elders. Teach the young. Co-operate with the pack.
> Play when you can. Hunt when you must. Rest in between.
> Share your affections. Voice your opinion. Leave your Mark.
Alas, idealism and realism seldom go hand in hand.
You make an excellent point. As they parcel the driver off with the hardware,
then not using the driver does nothing to deter the hardware manufacturer
from bundling it with the hardware. As you said, their profit is already made
and they're in business to make a profit.
However the argument also cuts the other way. If the hardware manufacturer is
made aware of a growing market for their product that doesn't use the bundled
drivers and indeed is in need of another driver (e.g. linux vs windows
driver), then it's obviously in their best interests to accomodate these
alternate users. Just like microsoft (by whatever name you like to call them)
profits from the sale of ready built pc's bundled with windows even if we
don't want windows. Yes, those of us able or comfortable with the idea will
simply build our own or seek those who offer us a choice. And choice is
something that is being increasingly asked of from retailers these days ;)
ubuntu-users mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: