Thus spake Roger Walkup (rwalkup@cheqnet.net):

> stick with them is not because this or that piece of hardware is "supported"
> (more on this in a bit), but because they can use the computer to do what they
> want to do in spite of crash problems.  Well, what do they want to do?  I work

Depends. This is of course (probably the main-)reason, but ... 

> Many companies don't want to go for linux or *BSD because of a basic
> misunderstanding of the level of support available for these OS's.

... this is the same thing. Ignoring chances to get specs of products
is one chapter of failing support. This is were the opensource
community has to work a lot.

> Now, in terms of hardware support, it isn't MS that provides that, it's the
> hardware makers.

Yes, but this also is related to the above. The additude "I have my
cam, why support other cams?" is just wrong.

BTW: I'm also satisfied with binary-only drivers, but as read in this
thread, some guys would not be satisfied with this, too, what I myself
can't understand.

Linux, FreeBSD and I believe the other BSDs, too, have invested much
work in a reliable kernel-module framework, which is perfect for
third-party drivers. 

But binary-only or open-source, the question was to convince Phillips
(and other vendors), that the OS-community is big enough to invest in 
OS-OSs (hehe, OpenSource-Operating-Systems :-)), _how_ they do it is 
another question.

Alex
-- 
I need a new ~/.sig.