Freescale Linux BSP review

Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski curious at
Wed Dec 22 12:20:09 PST 2010

> On 22 December 2010 20:39, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
> <curious at> wrote:
>>> So to say that the corporate world might need to consider Open Source to
>>> be competitive and survive, but the reverse is not true i.e. Open Source
>>> doesn't _require_ the corporate world to survive.
>> i agree with it fully, and to support this claim i want to remind the
>> simple rule of capital accumulation. Open Source community
>> _already_ accumulated enough _capital_ in form of algorithms,
>> implementations, social relations, experience, documentation and
>> augmentation with education system .
> I'm sorry you've got it all wrong. Survive? Yes, certainly. Actually
> thrive and make a difference in the world without the corporate world?
> Definitely not. If you only care about the former that's fine, but
> have no illusion that we would even be having this discussion here
> were it not for the corporate world caring about Linux on ARM.

survive, and serve. despite corporate entities, opensource projects
do not just cease to exist once markets cut the profit down.
this is where corporations loose big time in comparison to opensource.

thrive? come on, discussion starts about small, insignificant toys, and
i repeat - insignificant toys. talking big about '3d in linux'
as any priority sounds funny in world in which 99% of the tcp/ip routing 
is performed by opensource-based solutions, at both enterprise , and
'home' scale. while opensource display system has enough proprietary 
alternatives to choose from at low cost, point of developing it lies
far beyond just cutting few pennies for ... toys. this can be done
without opensource at all.

talking about opensource unable to survive without care of corporate world 
is also funny. current opensource politics allowed such growth thanx to
proper politics when it came to dealing with corporate world. without
opensource certain solutions would never propagate and become 
cost-effective to gain enough markets. so profit opensource gained from it
is fair-earned, and comes from market itself, not from corporate world
attitude. in other words - if certain corporations would not partake 
certain attitude, it would be done by other ones, or certain products 
would just never existed.

still _opensource_ would be same good as before, 
as notice development of certain algorithms and code was conducted in 
parallel, and also sponsored by university environments for solely 
research and educational purposes (to exclude any opensource-ideology 
driven motives) .

my 2 eurocents ;)

More information about the dri-devel mailing list