What is free software?

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

There has been a long-running debate on GPLv3 in this group, one which
has recently re-surfaced with the subject of binary-only drivers as the
centre-point.

It was clear to me from much of that discussion that there is very
little understand of what the "freedom" part of free software is all
about, and even less understanding of quite why it is so important.

In order to address this, I've created this posting, which includes some
components of the FSF's own pages, and some commentary of my own.

So, let's start with the bit about where it's defined. Why? Because a
recent poster indicated that the use of binary-only drivers is just a
slight compromise of intent, whereas, in reality, it compromises 3 out
of 4 of the intended freedoms of free software. So, a peak at the FSF's
own definition is in order:

The Free Software Definition

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what
must be true about a particular software programme for it to be
considered free software.

Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand
the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as
in free beer.

So, we are mostly concerned with liberty, and not price. A binary,
proprietary, driver, might be free of charge, but it is not free in
other key respects, those respects are listed here:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run,
copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More
precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of
the software:

The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the programme works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour
(freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the programme, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

So, if we have all of these, is it free? Yes:

A programme is free software if users have all of these
freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either
with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee
for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these
things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask
or pay for permission.

But, if we are charged for it, is it /still/ free? Well, yes it is, at
least, in the terms of the GPL and the freedoms enumerated above. The
fact that a binary driver might be free of charge does not mean that it
meets the definition of free software above. You might argue that this
doesn't matter, however, this is not the case. Why? Because of
lock-in; if you have a binary-only blob, you are limited to the usage
which the supplier intended, and any other usages it can /accidentally/
perform. Because, if you want to use it on a different platform, for
example, an nVidia binary driver on a PPC, then you need to be able to:

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use
them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be
required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
fixed. Also, if you cannot get access to the source code, then you have
a problem here, too:

The freedom to run the programme means the freedom for any kind of
person or organisation to use it on any kind of computer system,
for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required
to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific
entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters,
not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a
programme for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone
else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are
not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

You cannot run the binary-only software in any situation except the few
which the supplier considered worthwhile. It's been suggested in cola
that, for example, users of PPC machines are too few to be considered
worth worrying about, that we should only worry about the "majority" of
users, that freedom is something which is unimportant, that we should
compromise this area. Well, if you cannot run software, then it fails
in its purpose completely. If that means that you, the user, is unable
to user the hardware and software as you wish, then you have been
locked-out by the vendor. This is not an acceptable situation, and
clearly breaks the intended freedom of free software.

Now, what happens if your friend has a similar machine to you, and you
want to help them do the same thing you're doing? Here:

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or
executable forms of the programme, as well as source code, for
both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programmes
in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free
operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a
binary or executable form for a certain programme (since some
languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop
a way to make them.

Of course, with binary-only software, then you cannot help in this way.
In my own computing room, whilst I can have nVidia cards supported on
some combinations of x86 machine, I cannot take that same code and run
it on the PPC machine. I'm not free to use my own computers as I see
fit.

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved
versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source
code of the programme. Therefore, accessibility of source code
is a necessary condition for free software.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat the above point again:

"Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for
free software".

So, to everyone who thinks that binary drivers are okay, I hope the
above has demonstrated precisely what the problems are with them; to
everyone who thinks that binary drivers are just a slight shift in
position, I hope it's become clear that they drive a JCB through the
middle of the intention of free software.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

John Bailo, Texeme.Constr · External Since: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 70

On Aug 7, 9:09 am, Mark Kent <mark.k....DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> So, to everyone who thinks that binary drivers are okay, I hope the
> above has demonstrated precisely what the problems are with them; to
> everyone who thinks that binary drivers are just a slight shift in
> position, I hope it's become clear that they drive a JCB through the
> middle of the intention of free software.

What is funny is that this idea is really an operations and management
issue -- open source makes overall better sense for companies
investing in software that want modifiability, longevity, RAD, etc.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1648

Mark Kent wrote:

>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>fixed.

Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.

If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.

John Bailo, Texeme.Constr · External Since: Jun 19, 2007 Posts: 70

On Aug 7, 9:47 am, Hadron <hadronqu... DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:

> But not to companies who spend millions in developing cutting edge
> drivers to exploit their new gfx algorithms and their advanced,
> expensively developed video cards.

Writing drivers is an arcane cumbersome task.

What I typically find is that the hardware manufacturers want to rush
the board out ASAP and clean up (or optimize) the mess later.

Microsoft blames OEMs...OEMs blame Microsoft.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of smart programmers willing to tailer the
code to high performance standards and release it for free -- if they
get the code and the specs.

Would "companies" want this?

Hell yeah -- if I were a gaming company and I found I could improve
speed 20% on a sub-optimized driver and make my game run faster using
less resource...sure I would!

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>>fixed.
>
> Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
> never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.
>

Commoditisation is an inevitability of economics. The only thing you
can be sure of is that saying "never will be" is wrong, it's just a
question of what the timescales are.

> If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.

You are welcome to use Windows any time you like, please don't attempt
to force proprietary code into free systems, though.

> I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
>

Here is an explanation which might help you grasp the consequences of
binary-only drivers:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dc3e62347faf6a28

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1648

Mark Kent wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>>>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>>>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>>>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>>>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>>>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>>>fixed.
>>
>> Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
>> never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.
>
>Commoditisation is an inevitability of economics. The only thing you
>can be sure of is that saying "never will be" is wrong, it's just a
>question of what the timescales are.

No, "never will be" is absolutely correct. OSS, reverse-engineering
coders have NO chance of out-doing Nvidia's internal driver writers.
They simply do not have access to the same amount and quality of
information.

>> If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.
>
>You are welcome to use Windows any time you like, please don't attempt
>to force proprietary code into free systems, though.

How is having a proprietory driver available and usable "forcing"
anything? It seems the GPL3 is what is "forcing" things.

>> I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
>>
>
>Here is an explanation which might help you grasp the consequences of
>binary-only drivers:
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dc3e62347faf6a28

I'd already read it. It reads like a religious manifesto, with things
like "OSS is better because I can patch it" (no, I can't), and "OSS is
better because it's free" (well, yes, but that's sometimes not worth
the trade-off in performance).

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

John Bailo, Texeme.Construct <jabailo.DeleteThis@texeme.com> espoused:
> On Aug 7, 9:09 am, Mark Kent <mark.k....DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, to everyone who thinks that binary drivers are okay, I hope the
>> above has demonstrated precisely what the problems are with them; to
>> everyone who thinks that binary drivers are just a slight shift in
>> position, I hope it's become clear that they drive a JCB through the
>> middle of the intention of free software.
>
> What is funny is that this idea is really an operations and management
> issue -- open source makes overall better sense for companies
> investing in software that want modifiability, longevity, RAD, etc.
>

I agree entirely with you. The long-term issues are far more
significant than a few FPS today. It's very much about the lock-in
issue; if you're locked-in, as you are with binary-only drivers, (as an
example), then when you need a platform upgrade, it's virtually
impossible, because you are beholden to the suppliers of the binary
part, they know this well, and will charge any number they like for it.

We recently had a genuine work example of being charged several million
Euros for an upgrade to a platform which we simply did not require, but
after much deliberation (very heated internally), the decision was taken
to accept the upgrade, hand over several million Euros, and vow never to
do business with that particular company again.

Why was the acceptance made? Because the supplier refused to offer
support if the upgrade were not made. Did they have a case? No - they
are supporting the *same* platform in another geography I'm responible
for for a further ten (10) years. Why the difference? A rather naive
fool agreed the first contract, the second was managed by an experienced
cynic.

I have much worse examples than this one, believe me. You cannot
imagine what you could pay for a memory stick, the same kind you could
buy in PC World (like Circuit City), except, in my case, it cost more
than a top-end ferrari. Why? Lock-in.

We have some very naive people here who just do not grasp this.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>>>>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>>>>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>>>>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>>>>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>>>>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>>>>fixed.
>>>
>>> Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
>>> never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.
>>
>>Commoditisation is an inevitability of economics. The only thing you
>>can be sure of is that saying "never will be" is wrong, it's just a
>>question of what the timescales are.
>
> No, "never will be" is absolutely correct. OSS, reverse-engineering
> coders have NO chance of out-doing Nvidia's internal driver writers.
> They simply do not have access to the same amount and quality of
> information.

You miss the point of commoditisation. The result is that whatever
nVidia think that they might have as "secret" will soon be achievable by
a greater number of vendors. Such is the nature of commoditisation,
which is why "never will be" is guaranteed, in the end, to be wrong;
the only issue is what the timescales are.

>
>>> If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.
>>
>>You are welcome to use Windows any time you like, please don't attempt
>>to force proprietary code into free systems, though.
>
> How is having a proprietory driver available and usable "forcing"
> anything? It seems the GPL3 is what is "forcing" things.

GPLv3 is merely continuing the intent of GPLv2, attempting to close some
loopholes which have been exploited by the unscrupulous. If you want
proprietary drivers, why not use Windows?

>
>>> I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
>>>
>>
>>Here is an explanation which might help you grasp the consequences of
>>binary-only drivers:
>>
>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dc3e62347faf6a28
>
> I'd already read it. It reads like a religious manifesto,

Religion requires you to take things on "faith", the GPL is not about
faith, it's about putting certainty into the software development
process. It's about as opposed to faith as anything could be, which is
why I find it amazing how often the terms "zealot" and "religion" are
used to describe it; they could not be further from the truth.

> with things
> like "OSS is better because I can patch it" (no, I can't),

Yes, you can; either personally, or by proxy, but you most certainly
can. You might choose not to, but that is a different issue. You might
not be able to create sensible patches, but you *can* patch it. Your
patches might fail, but you can *still* patch it.

> and "OSS is
> better because it's free" (well, yes, but that's sometimes not worth
> the trade-off in performance).
>

The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
time.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1648

Mark Kent wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>>chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>>>>>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>>>>>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>>>>>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>>>>>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>>>>>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>>>>>fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
>>>> never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.
>>>
>>>Commoditisation is an inevitability of economics. The only thing you
>>>can be sure of is that saying "never will be" is wrong, it's just a
>>>question of what the timescales are.
>>
>> No, "never will be" is absolutely correct. OSS, reverse-engineering
>> coders have NO chance of out-doing Nvidia's internal driver writers.
>> They simply do not have access to the same amount and quality of
>> information.
>
>You miss the point of commoditisation. The result is that whatever
>nVidia think that they might have as "secret" will soon be achievable by
>a greater number of vendors. Such is the nature of commoditisation,
>which is why "never will be" is guaranteed, in the end, to be wrong;
>the only issue is what the timescales are.

Sorry, but I think you're living in a dream world. There's always
going to be new technology. There's always going to be corporate
secrets.

>>>> If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.
>>>
>>>You are welcome to use Windows any time you like, please don't attempt
>>>to force proprietary code into free systems, though.
>>
>> How is having a proprietory driver available and usable "forcing"
>> anything? It seems the GPL3 is what is "forcing" things.
>
>GPLv3 is merely continuing the intent of GPLv2, attempting to close some
>loopholes which have been exploited by the unscrupulous.

And what good does that do the world?

>If you want proprietary drivers, why not use Windows?

You've got it wrong.

Why prevent the choice of using proprietary drivers within Linux?

>>>> I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here is an explanation which might help you grasp the consequences of
>>>binary-only drivers:
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dc3e62347faf6a28
>>
>> I'd already read it. It reads like a religious manifesto,
>
>Religion requires you to take things on "faith", the GPL is not about
>faith, it's about putting certainty into the software development
>process. It's about as opposed to faith as anything could be,

No, you're trying to twist this into a "faith" issue. It is not.
Religion != faith.

>which is
>why I find it amazing how often the terms "zealot" and "religion" are
>used to describe it; they could not be further from the truth.

I think it's damn similar, but you claim it "could not be further from
the truth".

In reality, it certainly COULD be "further from the truth".

>> with things
>> like "OSS is better because I can patch it" (no, I can't),
>
>Yes, you can; either personally, or by proxy, but you most certainly
>can. You might choose not to, but that is a different issue. You might
>not be able to create sensible patches, but you *can* patch it. Your
>patches might fail, but you can *still* patch it.

I can't. There is no advantage to me or the world. In either case,
users can complain about bugs, and hope that the "experts" fix it.

>> and "OSS is
>> better because it's free" (well, yes, but that's sometimes not worth
>> the trade-off in performance).
>
>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>time.

Simply not true.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>>chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clearly, if the source-code is not available, even on the x86 version,
>>>>>>and you find one of the very many bugs in the nVidia driver (just look
>>>>>>up on the web to see just how many there are), then you are unable to
>>>>>>fix and patch the driver. This is precisely the reason why
>>>>>>free-software drivers have, over time, come to massively outperform
>>>>>>their closed-source counterparts, because the problems and bugs can be
>>>>>>fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes OS drivers will be better, sometimes they are not. They
>>>>> never will be, for SOTA video cards, for example.
>>>>
>>>>Commoditisation is an inevitability of economics. The only thing you
>>>>can be sure of is that saying "never will be" is wrong, it's just a
>>>>question of what the timescales are.
>>>
>>> No, "never will be" is absolutely correct. OSS, reverse-engineering
>>> coders have NO chance of out-doing Nvidia's internal driver writers.
>>> They simply do not have access to the same amount and quality of
>>> information.
>>
>>You miss the point of commoditisation. The result is that whatever
>>nVidia think that they might have as "secret" will soon be achievable by
>>a greater number of vendors. Such is the nature of commoditisation,
>>which is why "never will be" is guaranteed, in the end, to be wrong;
>>the only issue is what the timescales are.
>
> Sorry, but I think you're living in a dream world. There's always
> going to be new technology. There's always going to be corporate
> secrets.

I think you're living in a fantasy; as the majority platform is clearly
going to be linux, and the GPL requires open-source drivers, then the
drivers will be open-source. As I've said elsewhere, hardware design
issues can easily be protected by patents should there be a perceived
need to do so.

>
>>>>> If you want to use them, fine. Just don't force everyone else to.
>>>>
>>>>You are welcome to use Windows any time you like, please don't attempt
>>>>to force proprietary code into free systems, though.
>>>
>>> How is having a proprietory driver available and usable "forcing"
>>> anything? It seems the GPL3 is what is "forcing" things.
>>
>>GPLv3 is merely continuing the intent of GPLv2, attempting to close some
>>loopholes which have been exploited by the unscrupulous.
>
> And what good does that do the world?

It prevents lock-in.

>
>>If you want proprietary drivers, why not use Windows?
>
> You've got it wrong.
>
> Why prevent the choice of using proprietary drivers within Linux?

If you want proprietary drivers, you can use Windows, linux is GPLed,
and the point of the GPL is to maintain its four freedoms.

>
>>>>> I don't know why this is such a difficult concept.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here is an explanation which might help you grasp the consequences of
>>>>binary-only drivers:
>>>>
>>>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dc3e62347faf6a28
>>>
>>> I'd already read it. It reads like a religious manifesto,
>>
>>Religion requires you to take things on "faith", the GPL is not about
>>faith, it's about putting certainty into the software development
>>process. It's about as opposed to faith as anything could be,
>
> No, you're trying to twist this into a "faith" issue. It is not.
> Religion != faith.

Wow.

I think you've created a whole new definition of religion.

>
>>which is
>>why I find it amazing how often the terms "zealot" and "religion" are
>>used to describe it; they could not be further from the truth.
>
> I think it's damn similar, but you claim it "could not be further from
> the truth".
>
> In reality, it certainly COULD be "further from the truth".

No, religion is about faith, whereas open-source, like science, is about
fact. Science and religion are orthogonal, just as free software and
religion are orthogonal; thus, references to "zealot" are quite
inappropriate.

>
>>> with things
>>> like "OSS is better because I can patch it" (no, I can't),
>>
>>Yes, you can; either personally, or by proxy, but you most certainly
>>can. You might choose not to, but that is a different issue. You might
>>not be able to create sensible patches, but you *can* patch it. Your
>>patches might fail, but you can *still* patch it.
>
> I can't. There is no advantage to me or the world. In either case,
> users can complain about bugs, and hope that the "experts" fix it.

You can; your patches might not be good, but you can. You can also do
it by proxy, if you do not believe that you are able to provide patches
of the required quality.

>
>>> and "OSS is
>>> better because it's free" (well, yes, but that's sometimes not worth
>>> the trade-off in performance).
>>
>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>time.
>
> Simply not true.
>

Demonstrably true. So much so that most businesses are moving to
open-source software for most capabilities. It's better by all relevant
metrics.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1648

Mark Kent wrote:

>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>time.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>
>Demonstrably true.

No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.

Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
never will be true. End of story.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

chrisv <chrisv DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>time.
>>>
>>> Simply not true.
>>
>>Demonstrably true.
>
> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>
> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
> never will be true. End of story.
>

If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
not just of a few.

There is nothing which will not be commoditised.

If you are genuinely interested in this subject, then I suggest a read
of "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton Christensen. If you're just
taking a position out of stubborness, then reading it might just help
you realise where your thinking is going wrong.

In any case, I'll not reply to this any more, because your argument
relies on claiming a unique property which exists nowhere else in the
history of technical and scientific progress, for which you offer
neither proof nor supporting argument, so I don't believe it.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1648

Mark Kent wrote:

>In any case, I'll not reply to this any more, because your argument
>relies on claiming a unique property which exists nowhere else in the
>history of technical and scientific progress, for which you offer
>neither proof nor supporting argument, so I don't believe it.

I guess indisputable facts don't count.

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Mark Kent <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> writes:

> chrisv <chrisv DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>> Simply not true.
>>>
>>>Demonstrably true.
>>
>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>
>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>> never will be true. End of story.
>>
>
> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
> not just of a few.

No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children
and generally annoy people with your pompous, self serving drivel.

> There is nothing which will not be commoditised.

I'll take your word for it since I have no idea what that sentence means.

> If you are genuinely interested in this subject, then I suggest a read
> of "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton Christensen. If you're just
> taking a position out of stubborness, then reading it might just help
> you realise where your thinking is going wrong.

LOL. Good old Mark Kent. Everyone else is wrong. He read a book on it
you see.

>
> In any case, I'll not reply to this any more, because your argument
> relies on claiming a unique property which exists nowhere else in the
> history of technical and scientific progress, for which you offer
> neither proof nor supporting argument, so I don't believe it.

And you provide what? A book you read once? LOL. You become more
ridiculous as the postings mount.

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:53:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>
>>>>Demonstrably true.
>>>
>>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>>
>>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>>> never will be true. End of story.
>>>
>>
>> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
>> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
>> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
>> not just of a few.
>
> No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
> peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
> ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
> NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children

Whatever your diagreements with what Mark says, making repeated insults
towards his children hardly strengthens your case. It just makes you look
like a dickhead. Why not address his points and leave his children out of
it?

--
Kier

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:53:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Demonstrably true.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>>>
>>>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>>>> never will be true. End of story.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
>>> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
>>> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
>>> not just of a few.
>>
>> No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
>> peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
>> ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
>> NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children
>
> Whatever your diagreements with what Mark says, making repeated insults
> towards his children hardly strengthens your case. It just makes you look
> like a dickhead. Why not address his points and leave his children out of
> it?

Firstly I am sure he children are perfectly decent individuals. The
point I am making is that no one gives a damn about his kids. "smelly"
is a word used to indicate my disgust at him continually prattling on
about his #1 and #2 sons and then getting all pissed off when people bag
him for it. Stop being such a nancy boy apologist. Mark Kent shall reap
what he sows.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:53:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>Demonstrably true.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>>>
>>>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>>>> never will be true. End of story.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
>>> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
>>> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
>>> not just of a few.
>>
>> No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
>> peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
>> ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
>> NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children
>
> Whatever your diagreements with what Mark says, making repeated insults
> towards his children hardly strengthens your case. It just makes you look
> like a dickhead. Why not address his points and leave his children out of
> it?
>

Why do you give him a plaform? *Please* do not respond to him on my
behalf. Kier, he is a troll!

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:

> Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:53:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Demonstrably true.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>>>>> never will be true. End of story.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
>>>> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
>>>> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
>>>> not just of a few.
>>>
>>> No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
>>> peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
>>> ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
>>> NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children
>>
>> Whatever your diagreements with what Mark says, making repeated insults
>> towards his children hardly strengthens your case. It just makes you look
>> like a dickhead. Why not address his points and leave his children out of
>> it?
>>
>
> Why do you give him a plaform? *Please* do not respond to him on my
> behalf. Kier, he is a troll!

I am the troll? Disagreeing with a fool like you is not being a
troll. And stop mentioning your smelly kids - no one cares. Stick to
"advocacy" and try to do something positive for a change as opposed to
scaring away people doing their best with all your talk of malware and
your inability to see how binary NVidia drivers that *WORK* are better
than some reverse engineered dross which is 3 years behind the
curve. You are a deluded fool and you do the OSS movement no favours
whatsoever.

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

Hadron <hadronquark.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:53:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The reality is that the performance of free software is more often
>>>>>>>>>better than that of proprietary. Sometimes it is not, but it always
>>>>>>>>>catches up, and it is always better in the end, it's just a question of
>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Demonstrably true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not, with regards to things like SOTA video cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true, and, unless the hardware manufacturer releases the source,
>>>>>> never will be true. End of story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were right, we'd still be riding steam engines, or living in
>>>>> caves. Much as you might like to believe, progress cannot be halted
>>>>> using legalistic tools. Similarly, having ideas is the province of all,
>>>>> not just of a few.
>>>>
>>>> No. Having good ideas is the province of the few. Stealing other
>>>> peoples ideas is the province of the many. Example : I can't recall you
>>>> ever having had one original thought of your own in your posts to this
>>>> NG. All you ever do is compliment yourself, parade your smelly children
>>>
>>> Whatever your diagreements with what Mark says, making repeated insults
>>> towards his children hardly strengthens your case. It just makes you look
>>> like a dickhead. Why not address his points and leave his children out of
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> Why do you give him a plaform? *Please* do not respond to him on my
>> behalf. Kier, he is a troll!
>
> I am the troll? Disagreeing with a fool like you is not being a
> troll. And stop mentioning your smelly kids - no one cares. Stick to
> "advocacy" and try to do something positive for a change as opposed to
> scaring away people doing their best with all your talk of malware and
> your inability to see how binary NVidia drivers that *WORK* are better
> than some reverse engineered dross which is 3 years behind the
> curve. You are a deluded fool and you do the OSS movement no favours
> whatsoever.

Did you ever get fired from that last job?

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

yttrx RemoveThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:

> Hadron <hadronquark RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I am the troll? Disagreeing with a fool like you is not being a
>> troll. And stop mentioning your smelly kids - no one cares. Stick to
>> "advocacy" and try to do something positive for a change as opposed to
>> scaring away people doing their best with all your talk of malware and
>> your inability to see how binary NVidia drivers that *WORK* are better
>> than some reverse engineered dross which is 3 years behind the
>> curve. You are a deluded fool and you do the OSS movement no favours
>> whatsoever.
>
> Did you ever get fired from that last job?

Did you apologise yet for being wrong about Debian/Ubuntu configuration
for Apache2? ...

>
>
> -----yttrx

--