[linux-elitists] Okay... so now how do I get...
Mon Dec 18 11:10:19 PST 2006
begin Jon Masters quotation of Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:49:21AM -0500:
> I'm personally annoyed that it's difficult to get Intel chipsets on a
> PCI card of some kind - I don't want to have to purchase an NV or ATI
> card that requires proprietary drivers, we should try to persuade those
> with compelling alternatives to help us out.
I'm looking at Intel's strategy long-term, and it
looks like it comes down to fewer brand names in
the ad, fewer cards in slots, fewer stickers on
the machine. Remember Creative Labs and 3Com?
Creative Labs: used to be a branded part whose name
appeared in the ad for the PC. Now, audio is on
3Com: used to be a branded part whose name appeared
in the ad for the PC. Now, Ethernet is on the
The PC market isn't growing that fast. In order to
keep growing as a company, Intel needs to take the
four stickers on the box (PC builder, Intel, MSFT,
video card vendor) and cut the number back to three.
PC vendors will go along with this because just
counting parts cost, on-motherboard video is 1/5 the
price of a card, and that's not counting the extra
assembly time and inevitable quality and support
issues when you add an extra step (and, in the case of
the poor bastards who have to support someone else's
proprietary OS, another bickering driver.)
I'd expect them to do a bunch of "Vista ready"
marketing around G965...
1. Nvidia/ATI fanboys squawk about Intel gfx being
2. Sub-workstation-class business PCs and non-"media
center" machines for the home market go Intel anyway.
3. Nvidia/ATI fanboys keep squawking about Intel
gfx being teh suxorz, and they don't have multihead
and DVI out, so they're teh suxorz. And you should
really put another damn fan in your computer because
it's like, got a cheesy-looking neon-colored duct
and shit on it.
4. Nvidia/ATI lose volume pricing economics because
everyone is putting Intel motherboards with on-board
graphics into their low/midrange boxes.
5. Next generation of Intel-based boards come tricked
out for the "media PC" market.
6. Nvidia forced to retreat up SGI Mountain;
increasing price, losing market share. ATI: ?
> So it should be, too. I'm all for enforcing the GPL but not by denying
> people the ability to legally load a driver they hacked on in their
> spare time and aren't redistributing. Just because "bad" people can use
> the lack of a hard-enforcing kernel policy on loading non-GPL drivers
> doesn't mean we should do an RIAA/MPAA on their ass.
For your internal kernel build, you can always turn
off the module license test.
> I mean, computers can be used by terrorists - none of us are going to
> support banning them - but it's the same logic being used by Greg KH.
You need a certain number of enforcers of reciprocity
to overcome corporate inertia.
As long as releasing under GPL has vague legal worries
associated with it, not releasing under GPL need to
have some too, so that the legal worry issue cancels
out and management can make the decision based on
what's practical to support and what customers want.
firstname.lastname@example.org LinuxWorld: August 14-17, 2006, San Francisco
More information about the linux-elitists