From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 06:54:23 -0900 From: Ethan Benson To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Driver Hell: was Re: GeForce on PPC == _no work_ Message-ID: <20011028065423.B32547@plato.local.lan> References: <20011028125007.MHAN10438.tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> <20011028145435.7084@smtp.wanadoo.fr> <20011028151111.JZNC28233.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20011028151111.JZNC28233.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@there>; from khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca on Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 11:13:44AM -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 11:13:44AM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote: > > What is the technical or business rationale for making your "product" hard > to use? Is there some kickback from designer to chip maker that has come > into existance that I am missing here? Since they basically give away > binary drivers (and not selling them) keeping info locked up just makes no > business sense to me? > > Anyone with insights here they would like to share? try reading Dilbert. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/