| |||||||||||||
Credit where credit is dueCredit where credit is duePosted Mar 14, 2009 21:30 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Credit where credit is due by jspaleta Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
Well it's not really due to cononical or anybody like that.
What it seems to me is that they have been able to garner a following among neophite Linux users that not only want to test and run bleeding edge software, they want to get all their graphic goodness to go with it.
Since graphics in Linux sucked for so long the only effective vendor for people wanting superior 3d performance is Nvidia. It's not the user's fault that this has simply been a fact of life for Linux for a long time now.
Nvidia makes unstable drivers. For Vista or XP or Linux they are going to be a major source of issues; it doesn't matter. With bleeding edge versions of Linux that are unstable to begin with then your going to run into a lot of crashes.
So it's nobody's fault really.. not anybody here or involved with Ubuntu. This is why we have beta testers and they are doing their jobs. Everybody should be thankful that this problem is being resolved now rather then on your servers and workstations.
(Log in to post comments)
Credit where credit is due Posted Mar 14, 2009 23:19 UTC (Sat) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
No it really is Canonical's fault...for making it easy for non-technical users to build and use these proprietary drivers. Drivers that would be a gpl violation for Canonical to build and distribute in binary form.
http://www.linux.com/feature/55915
Canonical is doing a very very neat tap dance here. They don't distribute the binary drivers...if they did that they'd be engaging in an activity that is restricted by the gpl and could easily be called out on it. No, Canonical is much more clever, they encourage users to download the source and binary bits together and compile them locally on the system, avoiding the distribution of the infringing binary module all together. They've even made a point and click gui to kick off this process. Clever Canonical, skating around the edges of gpl infringement and at the same time introducing significant instability into their userbase's experience without an effort to adequately inform users as to what is going on and the pontential downsides.
I don't think its exactly fair to expect the upstream kernel developers to support this sort of behaviour. And I'll note, that because of the tricks being used to avoid a gpl violation scenario, Canonical can't even do its own integration testing on these modules. There are no centrally built and distributed binaries.
Canonical might be avoiding a gpl violation by doing things this way, but they are certainly breaking some of the spirit of the intent.
-jef
Credit where credit is due Posted Mar 15, 2009 13:29 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link] No it really is Canonical's faultFedora dude blaming/attacking Canonical again...
Credit where credit is due Posted Mar 15, 2009 17:25 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> No it really is Canonical's fault...for making it easy for non-technical users to build and use these proprietary drivers. Drivers that would be a gpl violation for Canonical to build and distribute in binary form.
No.
Cononical exists in reality, they are not the ones that created it.
People were installing nvidia drivers on Nvidia, Fedora, Redhat, Debian, etc etc etc long long before Ubuntu ever came onto the scene.
|
|||||||||||||