[SOLVED] Why does my head hurt?

1redto · 01-16-2016, 10:18 PM

Hi everyone. I asked this question in another thread and it didn't get much response, so I thought I would post it here as this is probably a more appropriate place...

Quote:

Why does linux drivers have to be so difficult? What difference does it make if people use the free driver or the proprietary one? If the proprietary driver works and I use it am I supposed to pay the company that made it because I chose to use it? If I am supposed to pay them if I use it how does that work? Do I write them a letter and say "Dear AMD/ATI, I'm using you driver because the linux one don't work. How much should I pay you? Would you like me to send you a check?"...
If it's not required to pay them and there driver works but the linux one don't then why on earth does the distro include the broken driver instead of the good one?

I was upset that trying to fix problems made them worse. lol. I suppose this stuff does make one learn if they are determined enough. Anyway I am actually interested in knowing some true answers to the questions I brought up as well as what others think about the subject.

frankbell · 01-16-2016, 10:44 PM

I have a couple of thoughts:

Linux is not hard, but it is different. Folks who come to Linux expecting it to act like other operating systems will find it difficult. It can look the same on the desktop, if you wish, but, under the hood, it's quite different. (I'm not saying this applies to you. I'm just making a general statement.)

The driver issue is more complex. In Windows world, manufacturers of devices produce the drivers and users download them from the manufacturers' websites. In Linux world, drivers are generally (not always) compiled into the kernel. In order to include the drivers, the persons who maintain the kernel need to know how the drivers work.

Some manufacturers make this information available; some do not. Some produce drivers only for Windows and Mac. Some jealously guard driver information and seem actively hostile to Linux. In the area of printers, for example, HP's Linux support is excellent. Some other manufacturers, not so much.

Some manufacturers publicly claim to support Linux, but, for all practical purposes, those claims are--er--less than accurate. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Lexmark.)

Note too that most computers come pre-installed with Windows. In order to earn "Windows certification" for pre-installing Windows, the computer manufacturers must include hardware with Windows support. As a result, Windows hardware support appears easy, while Linux hardware support appears difficult, because the deck has been stacked at the factory.

Just a few late night thoughts.

astrogeek · 01-16-2016, 11:06 PM

Your head hurts because you are trying to discover reason where there is none - in the absurd abomination that is intellectual property law-so-called.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1redto

If it's not required to pay them and there driver works but the linux one don't then why on earth does the distro include the broken driver instead of the good one?

Because even though their own drivers are free of cost to the end user, their licensing terms forbid the distros from including the pattern of ones and zeros that they claim to own (i.e. their drivers).

The FREE-as-in-FREEDOM drivers are crippled by the fact that the manufacturer also does not make available the simple interface documentation that would allow other developers to write fully functional FREE drivers to interact with their hardware - and even though you think that you bought it and own it, it is still theirs because they control whether you can actually use it or not! You only rented it for as long as they decide you can use it.

The fix is to not buy their hardware if they restrict its use by not making FREE as in FREEDOM drivers or specifications available. And let them know each time you decline to buy one of their products.

Free-as-in-beer is not sufficient, they must respect your freedom to fully use the product that you bought.

If you want to write them a letter, write one that asks, "Why do you not want me to purchase your products in future? I like your products but cannot use them because of your abuse of my freedom to make ordinary use of them as best suits my own needs."

And while you are trying to understand all of this, try to understand the absurdity of the fundamental concept of intellectual property, the proposition that one human or group of humans may own a thought, an idea, or a number, or pattern of neurons firing inside the skull, to the exclusion of all other humans... it is the abomination that facilitates ALL other abuses, and is responsible for your head hurting so!

1redto · 01-17-2016, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek

Your head hurts because you are trying to discover reason where there is none - in the absurd abomination that is intellectual property law-so-called.

Because even though their own drivers are free of cost to the end user, their licensing terms forbid the distros from including the pattern of ones and zeros that they claim to own (i.e. their drivers).

The FREE-as-in-FREEDOM drivers are crippled by the fact that the manufacturer also does not make available the simple interface documentation that would allow other developers to write fully functional FREE drivers to interact with their hardware - and even though you think that you bought it and own it, it is still theirs because they control whether you can actually use it or not! You only rented it for as long as they decide you can use it.

The fix is to not buy their hardware if they restrict its use by not making FREE as in FREEDOM drivers or specifications available. And let them know each time you decline to buy one of their products.

Free-as-in-beer is not sufficient, they must respect your freedom to fully use the product that you bought.

If you want to write them a letter, write one that asks, "Why do you not want me to purchase your products in future? I like your products but cannot use them because of your abuse of my freedom to make ordinary use of them as best suits my own needs."

And while you are trying to understand all of this, try to understand the absurdity of the fundamental concept of intellectual property, the proposition that one human or group of humans may own a thought, an idea, or a number, or pattern of neurons firing inside the skull, to the exclusion of all other humans... it is the abomination that facilitates ALL other abuses, and is responsible for your head hurting so!

Thank you! I feel much better now! Like I took some ibuprofen. lol. Seems like the same as ...

Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old Indiana farmer, says that switching to Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans "made things so much simpler and better." Monsanto's patented beans can survive when they are sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, which makes pest control much easier. Monsanto is less impressed with Bowman: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on a lawsuit that the company filed against him in 2007, accusing him of violating its patent on Roundup Ready soybeans.

Here's what happened: Bowman bought seeds from a grain elevator that sold soybeans for animal feed, industrial use, or other nonplanting purposes. The elevator contained a lot of "second generation" Roundup Ready seeds—the spawn of original seeds that other farmers had bought and harvested from Monsanto. That's not surprising, since "[Roundup Ready soybeans are] probably the most rapidly adopted technological advance in history," said Seth Waxman, who is representing Monsanto. "The very first Roundup Ready soybean seed was only made in 1996. And it now is grown by more than 90 percent of the 275,000 soybean farms in the United States."

Bowman then planted the soybeans—and that's the part that Monsanto objects to. Farmers who plant Monsanto soybeans have to sign an agreement saying they will not save the "second-generation" seeds and use them for the next harvest. Bowman didn't replant his own Monsanto seeds, but he did plant seeds that contained somebody else's second-generation Monsanto seeds. According to Monsanto, buying that grain and planting it to make more soybeans (as opposed to buying the grain to use for food or another purpose) is a patent violation, too.

Why aren't the owners of the grain elevator to blame? After all, they're the ones who sold the soybeans to Bowman, right? Wrong, says Monsanto: The grain elevator was selling the soybeans as grain for general purposes, not planting. Monsanto contends that the patent violation is Bowman's fault because he took the grains and used them to create new versions of Monsanto's patented soybeans that Monsanto, the patent holder, hadn't sold him.

The company claims that violations like this could stymie investment in similar products in the future. "It would be near impossible to recoup your investments with that first sale, and so the more likely consequence is that research dollars would be put elsewhere," said Melissa Arbus Sherry, assistant to the solicitor general at the Department of Justice, during the argument.

"They want the farmers to take all the risks associated with farming, yet they want to control how they use those seeds all the way down the distribution chain."
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to agree. "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" he asked.

But Bowman's lawyer, Mark Walters, argues that there have to be limits on how far and how long the patent on a GMO soybean extends. "They want the farmers to take all the risks associated with farming, yet they want to control how they use those seeds all the way down the distribution chain," he said during oral argument.

astrogeek · 01-17-2016, 01:28 AM

Yes... the concept in law of intellectual property in all forms is the single greatest impediment to human progress today. It is bringing about an intellectual dark age, already far advanced, from which the human species will not soon recover.

And just how much did Monsanto pay the rest of the human race for taking a common, garden variety beneficial plant available to everyone on the planet, and claiming ownership of that species based on a minor modification of dubious value?

After all, Monsanto did not create their seed from scratch! They took something from EVERYONE ON THE PLANET and through little more than legal sleight of hand clamied ownership of it!

Funny, I do not rceall getting their check in my mail.

The concept of intellectual property in all forms must be abolished before the human race may progress.

And I am glad that your head feels better! Take the red pill!

1redto · 01-17-2016, 02:06 AM

Quote:

The organic rules prohibit the "use" of genetic modification in organic agriculture. But if pollen blows from genetically modified corn into your organic cornfield and pollinates a few kernels, you aren't "using" it — at least according to the USDA's interpretation of those rules. In fact, a lot of the organic corn that's fed to organically raised chickens or pigs, does contain some level of GMOs.

That said, organic producers typically do try to minimize the presence of GMOs, because their customers don't want them. It's usually not too hard to keep contamination to a very low level. But there are crops — specifically canola and corn — in which it's extremely difficult to eliminate it entirely.

I agree. It is all crazy!

273 · 01-17-2016, 03:57 AM

By the way, some manufacturers like NVIDIA price very good Linux drivers and while they usually need an extra step to install under Linux it's usually not all that difficult to do. Then there's HP whose printers "just work" under Linux by installing their open source drivers. I can attest to HPs drivers being very simple to get working.

1redto · 01-17-2016, 10:37 AM

I wan't soooo bad to get my moniters to work in debian.

Thank you to everyone who can help me resolve this issue...

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-a-4175563992/

DavidMcCann · 01-17-2016, 10:42 AM

The driver story takes me back to my Sinclair QL days. Someone bought a printer that could be run with some control language only to find it was BW instead of the expected colour. The manufacturers told him that only the Windows driver gave colour, and Microsoft had written it for them on condition that no colour driver would be provided for other systems!

As for Monsanto, a recent survey showed it's the third most hated in the world!
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-3...ght-behind-bp/

1redto · 01-18-2016, 05:53 AM

Farmers who plant Monsanto soybeans have to sign an agreement saying they will not save the "second-generation" seeds and use them for the next harvest. Bowman didn't replant his own Monsanto seeds, but he did plant seeds that contained somebody else's second-generation Monsanto seeds.

The above is insane.

It is like if i sold you a puppy and said now for you to buy this puppy first sign an agreement that if it has a baby you will kill it. You will never let it have babies then sell them. More of these puppies cannot come into existence unless they come from me!!! you have to buy them from me, or pay me every time another comes into existence (pay me every time it has a baby, or kill the babies, or dont let it reproduce. If you want more get them from me. if it does reproduce then pay me again each time!!!...

By the way, if anyone is board, and wants something to do, I have an idea.. You could help me get my monitors working in debian, if you want...

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-a-4175563992/