<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time for a new Debian?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2004/05/20/time-for-a-new-debian/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2004/05/20/time-for-a-new-debian/</link>
	<description>Musings about Open Source, Linux, and Life by Theodore Tso</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:15:27 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Marc K</title>
		<link>http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2004/05/20/time-for-a-new-debian/comment-page-1/#comment-2612</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/?p=87#comment-2612</guid>
		<description>Sounds like Ubuntu to me. I don&#039;t like having to use non-free drivers for my nVidia and ATI graphics cards, but I&#039;m glad that Ubuntu makes it easy for me to do so! I&#039;d prefer a better or equivalent free software implementation, of course -- well, ultimately, I think the hardware developers really ought to get on the bandwagon and at least publish detailed specifications and &quot;not-so-secrets&quot; to get the ball rolling. Even better, they could sponsor some FLOSS developers to maintain the code for them!

I can&#039;t understand them not willing to do so; it seems to be getting to the point by now that it would be quite an endorsement to be able to say that their drivers are fully open-source, and that they&#039;ll provide a similar level of functionality on the operating systems that are supported both officially (with guaranteed support from the vendor) and unofficially (without)... Having a FLOSS seal of approval would convince a few people to choose one vendor&#039;s product over another, which seems to be happening with the integrated Intel graphics drivers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like Ubuntu to me. I don&#8217;t like having to use non-free drivers for my nVidia and ATI graphics cards, but I&#8217;m glad that Ubuntu makes it easy for me to do so! I&#8217;d prefer a better or equivalent free software implementation, of course &#8212; well, ultimately, I think the hardware developers really ought to get on the bandwagon and at least publish detailed specifications and &#8220;not-so-secrets&#8221; to get the ball rolling. Even better, they could sponsor some FLOSS developers to maintain the code for them!</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t understand them not willing to do so; it seems to be getting to the point by now that it would be quite an endorsement to be able to say that their drivers are fully open-source, and that they&#8217;ll provide a similar level of functionality on the operating systems that are supported both officially (with guaranteed support from the vendor) and unofficially (without)&#8230; Having a FLOSS seal of approval would convince a few people to choose one vendor&#8217;s product over another, which seems to be happening with the integrated Intel graphics drivers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
