Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 1970, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>>>
>>>> mmmh ... you've got a point ... you just opened my eyes ... 
>>>> documentation is pointless when I have a blackbox doing the work.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something, and if so, I do apologize to those on 
>>> these lists that I may have offended ... but ... having clean source 
>>> code to a driver is not equal to a black box ... is it?  I don't 
>>> believe I've once advocatged 'binary drivers' ...
>
>> a blackbox is not necessarily a binary driver, based on source code 
>> filled with magic values you know nothing about, would you be able to 
>> fix a bug ?
>
> 'k, put that way, I retract my original statement and apologize to 
> those that I obviously offended ... I wasn't thinking it through, and 
> can understand that adversion that those on these lists had to my 
> comments :(
>
I, for one, was not offended by your statements, I don't get offended by 
people behind screens. The fact is, it saddens me. I'd continue this 
discussion, but it is a waste of time, it has been discussed already a 
lot and to sum things up, the fact that some people are willing to 
sacrifice the goals of their project and willing to accept anything to 
grow a larger user base and make vendors happy is scary. I am an 
OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD user, my opinion is not biased as I like 
them all, but to be honest the fact that some of them accept blobs or 
obfuscate source drivers is at the opposite of what BSD used to mean (at 
least for me). no matter the reason, bending to a vendor sets up an 
example for others and harms everyone in the end. For each adaptec 
hardware supported by blackboxes, how many hardware support have we lost 
because vendors feel they can distribute NDA's ?

Anyway, i'm over with this discussion, i got more productive things to do ;)