> On 5/27/2010 1:49 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Ah, no, it's not. Brian had it right: nvidia does keep a lot >>>> proprietary, and does *not* pay a lot of attention to writing their >>>> own drivers for Linux. >>> >>> Exactly - and it is linux that intentionally makes it difficult to >>> impossible to use such software even if others would like to give it to >>> you on their own terms. Just put the blame in the right place. >> >> Sorry, I don't understand what you wrote. How does Linux make it >> "difficult to impossible"? It's an o/s, with POSIX calls, just like all >> the other unices. It's not M$, and it's not Apple... so is being neither >> making it hard? > > For one thing, the license terms do not permit including software with > differing terms (hence no zfs, etc. even though source is freely Huh? Are you saying all distros? There are plenty of repositories with directories named "nonfree". It's Linux, you can choose the repositories you pull from. CentOS is slightly different, since it's what RedHat chooses, but you can always add to it. > available), and for another the interfaces keep changing so binaries > can't be expected to work after updates. They do? Then why can I run a current version (other than worrying about twinview) of any Linux video driver on a video card that's years old. The only thing I see changing that way are the hardware manufacturers. mark