Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors

Michael Powell nightrecon at verizon.net
Fri Dec 12 10:36:12 PST 2008

Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:05:20PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> >
>> >So . . . are you saying that increased support for 3D accelerated
>> >graphics is not an "improvement", and should therefore not be considered
>> >a worthy goal?
>> full support of open hardware standards is an requirement.
>> support for closed hardware standards isn't important.
> I disagree.  I believe, rather, that support for closed hardware specs
> isn't *as* important -- but is still at least somewhat important.

My reservation to the 3D driver thing is it is setting a very dangerous
precedent if the solution involves allowing a third party commercial
enterprise to dictate features FreeBSD "must include" before they will
support it.

In this case with NVidia and the amd64 3D driver let's say for sake of
argument the developers decide "we want the amd64 3D driver so let's
go ahead and add in abc_function() and xyz_function(). Later the situation
is repeated with ATI mandating that abc_function() or xyz_function() must
be altered to ATI's specs to get ATI 3D acceleration. Now you have two
commercial companies using FreeBSD as the mud puddle in a tug of
war game.

Do we really want third parties to have the ability to dictate to the devs
what code goes into FreeBSD? I have doubts that this is a good path.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list