On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> 
> yes. sure. but that doesn't legitimate forcing everybody in the world to 
> use a) your hardware, b) your blob, c) the combination of this.
> 

the word is "legitimise" - forcing? where is forcing?  You don't have
to buy their hardware.  In fact that is exactly what you are
advocating.  In that case the manufacturers will only see a market for
windows and not bother with anything else.


> NetBSD is an Open Source OS, BSD licensed (nothing new). but it'd be new 
> to me (and many others) if that includes /forced/ use of blobs.
>

There is nothing in the NetBSD mission statement about not using
blobs.  In fact, for some devices, they are already there.  Nobody is
forcing you to use them.
 
> 
> yes, and when 10,000 people email/write/phone them and tell them 'hey 
> guys, i'd like to buy blablabla, but blablabla' then you have much more 
> impact than buying 1,000,000 of blablabla and STFU.
> 

Not really, that's called harassment.  Just ask the OpenBSD guys how
far it got them with Adaptec, Sun and others.  Money talks, talk, well
is just talk "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

> 
> so you'd try to convince ATI to invest x million dollars to write a 
> driver (blob) for NetBSD (and maybe -- hopefully! -- other OSs) to gain 
> y millions (highly exaggerated) in sales, where x > y?
> 

No, you miss the point - the aim is to convince them there is a
worthwhile market.  If you can get that across then you may have some
leverage to get things opened up.  More than likely, the techs inside
the company want this to happen, it's the upper management/lawyers
that cannot see the point unless it means more market share.

> 
> ah, i see, it's emotive to follow NetBSDs goal as an OS that runs on 
> many platforms, ya? that's not emotive.

No but claiming that, somehow, accepting the fact I need to run a blob
to make some hardware work is "killing the other architectures" is
just slightly on the dramatic side.

> do you know the definition of 
> the word 'emotive' and the metaphysics of it? i doubt it, strongly. 
> don't use emotive as a buzzword, there are better ones and you will 
> really help bullshit bingo players to get their game to an end avoiding 
> 'emotive' as nobody bets on it.
> 

There you go again - trying to use an ad hominem attack to try and
belittle someone who has the temerity to disagree with your
posturing.  All you are doing is waving your arms and blustering.  You
blather about 'karma' and the NetBSD mission but you don't understand
it.  If you actually looked at the NetBSD licence then you would find
that what it gives you freedom to do what you want with the software.
What you want to do is take my freedoms away by telling me it is not
good enough to accept a method of making my hardware work if I choose
to do so.  You will not take this away from me, you may posture all
you want but all I see is nothingness - you don't have an alternative,
all you want to do is shout people down.  Until you can do something
better than that I suggest you keep your extremism to yourself.

> 
> it'd be even better, even 'excellent' running windows.
> 

By a small margin but I choose not to.

> 
> no, that's just test balloons how they are accepted by the 'community'.
> 

To some extent - and if they are ignored then those test balloons will
sink into obscurity.

> 
> i really hope you get the point. others already did.
> 

Again, we have the snide inference that I am too stupid to understand
what you are saying.  More likely the other people have just given you
up as a total waste of time which is looking like a very sensible
option right now.

> if not, i strongly recommend taking some classes on dialectics of 
> discussion or similar.
> 

I don't see a "discussion" happening here - you are just trying to
belittle and shout people down, when they all give up on you you will,
no doubt, dance around believing everyone has "seen" your point of
view.  If you want a purely open source derived machine then, fine,
live with the lossage or within the limits of what that provides.
Just make sure you don't try to take away my freedoms.

-- 
Brett Lymn