On Thursday 10 November 2005 02:46 pm, Reid Linnemann wrote: > Marcin Jessa wrote: > > Sure, but the point is to use native FreeBSD drivers, even if they were > > in closed source binary form and not drivers written for an entirely > > different O.S. > > > > Marcin > > I'd like to pose my own semi-educated opinion about this topic: > > If hardware vendors are given the ability to provide closed-source, > unfree-licensed binary drivers for hardware, they will probably gladly > do so. They get the bonus of sales to FreeBSD users without having to > give up control or knowledge of their products. They already have the ability to do that and for the most part they don't. Nvidia and Atheros are two companies that do. I think what you are missing here is that regardless of a stable API, having to pay an engineer to learn about that API and the whole "feel" of a given OS and then write and support a driver is not worth the potential FreeBSD sales to most companies. They are only going to provide a driver if they feel they can turn a worthwhile profit doing it, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Currently they can support a rather large chunk of market share if they provide drivers for Windoze, Linux, and maybe OS X. FreeBSD's market share for most folks is just not comparable to those three, so they do not see it as being worth the investment. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Thu Nov 10 2005 - 20:12:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:47 UTC