[olug] [OT] Video Card Recommendation

[T. J. Brumfield]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 08:28:02 pm Adam Lassek wrote:
>> NVIDIA cards work just fine in Linux, I've had an excellent experience. The
>> only problem I can recall is purchasing an 8800GTS just after they came
>>  out, and it took a few months for the drivers to stabilize.
>
> You mean a proprietary (and illegal) fork of Linux.
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>

Clearly you do not understand the terms of the GPL.

The NVIDIA kernel module does not contain GPL code. It is not against
the law to make a proprietary module that can be called by a GPL
kernel. Given that the module itself does not contain GPL code, it
isn't a fork of the kernel.

Greg Kroah-Hartman has spoken at length on the virtue of open drivers.
He greatly prefers them. I prefer them as well. However, the founder
of Linux, is known to buy Mac hardware an rely on proprietary video
drivers himself. Proprietary drivers are neither illegal, nor a fork.
They're good enough for Linus, and they're good enough for me.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure how people keep insisting that freedom
be defined by limiting choice. Freedom is not a set of restrictions.
Freedom is the absence of restrictions. The FSF is all up in arms that
proprietary software is not-free, because users don't have the freedom
to modify the code. They talk about not tolerating that restriction.
So, in turn they want to demand a series of restrictions themselves.

A moderator on the Ubuntu forums once told me I should literally
divorce my wife because she bought a laptop that I could not get
compiz working with OSS drivers. That kind of zealotry and
closed-mindedness is worse that not being able to modify code.

A truly free world is one in which users have the freedom to install
and run any software they want.

Especially telling is how Stallman in his youth said it was a crime
against humanity to charge for software at all, and that he in good
conscience would never agree to a software license. People are
entitled to realize they're wrong and change opinions over time.
Currently, Stallman and the FSF say they're not opposed to people
making money off of software (probably because GNU gets major
contributions from outside paid developers), but today Stallman has
written a complex software license.

So is it a sin to have a software license or not?

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education