Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #183786 > unrolled thread

video driver?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  video driver? "D. R. Evans" <doc.evans@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:20 +0200
    Re: video driver? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 22:40 +0200
    Re: video driver? Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2017-07-17 22:50 +0200
    Re: video driver? Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2017-07-17 23:10 +0200
      Re: video driver? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-18 05:40 +0200
        Re: video driver? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-07-18 07:50 +0200
          Re: video driver? RavenLX <ravenlx@sitesplace.net> - 2017-07-18 13:00 +0200
            Re: video driver? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-07-18 14:20 +0200
              Re: video driver? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-18 15:50 +0200
            Re: video driver? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-18 20:30 +0200
              Free software (was: video driver?) Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2017-07-18 21:00 +0200
                Re: Free software Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2017-07-19 02:20 +0200
                  Re: Free software Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2017-07-19 02:50 +0200
                    Re: Free software Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-19 03:30 +0200
                  Re: Free software Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-19 02:50 +0200
                    Re: Free software Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-19 03:40 +0200
                      Re: Free software rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 14:10 +0200
                      Re: Free software Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 00:10 +0200
                  Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-19 06:00 +0200
                    Re: Free software Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-19 06:40 +0200
                      Re: Free software <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-19 10:40 +0200
                      Re: Free software Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-19 10:50 +0200
                        Re: Free software Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 00:50 +0200
                          Re: Free software Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-20 01:10 +0200
                            Re: Free software Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 02:00 +0200
                            Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-20 03:30 +0200
                              Re: Free software rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 13:40 +0200
                                Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-20 15:00 +0200
                                  Re: Free software David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-07-20 22:50 +0200
                                Re: Free software Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-07-20 20:50 +0200
                                  Re: Free software Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 02:30 +0200
                      Re: Free software Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 00:20 +0200
                        Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-20 03:10 +0200
                          Re: Free software Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 04:00 +0200
                            Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-22 05:50 +0200
                              Re: Free software Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 07:10 +0200
                              Re: Free software rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-07-22 13:30 +0200
                                Re: Free software Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-07-22 14:50 +0200
                                Re: Free software Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-07-22 17:00 +0200
                  Re: Free software Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-07-20 13:40 +0200
              Re: video driver? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-07-18 21:20 +0200
              Re: video driver? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-18 21:30 +0200
                Re: video driver? Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:10 +0200
                  Re: video driver? "tomas@tuxteam.de" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-07-18 22:30 +0200
                  Re: video driver? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 02:20 +0200
                Re: video driver? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-07-19 02:00 +0200
              Re: video driver? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2017-07-18 21:40 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#183786 — video driver?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Beginning a couple of weeks ago, I started to experience occasional freezes or
sudden blank screens on my 64-bit jessie system.

It just happened again, and this time the following appeared in the syslog:
  Jul 17 13:55:05 homebrew kernel: [24064.296254] nouveau E[
PFIFO][0000:01:00.0] write fault at 0x000029d000 [PTE] from GR/GPC0/GPCCS on
channel 0x003fbad000 [Xorg[2071]]

followed by several more messages that appear to be related, the last of which
was:

Jul 17 13:58:23 homebrew kernel: [24262.075187] nouveau E[     DRM] GPU lockup
- switching to software fbcon

I don't know how a particular driver gets chosen by the system, but is there a
different driver I could try?

Also, is there a way to find out when was the last time that nouveau was
updated on my system? If it was a couple of weeks ago, then I would be even
more sure that it's the culprit.

  Doc

-- 
Web:  http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#183788

D. R. Evans composed on 2017-07-17 14:19 (UTC-0600):

> Beginning a couple of weeks ago, I started to experience occasional freezes or
> sudden blank screens on my 64-bit jessie system.

> It just happened again, and this time the following appeared in the syslog:
>   Jul 17 13:55:05 homebrew kernel: [24064.296254] nouveau E[
> PFIFO][0000:01:00.0] write fault at 0x000029d000 [PTE] from GR/GPC0/GPCCS on
> channel 0x003fbad000 [Xorg[2071]]

> followed by several more messages that appear to be related, the last of which
> was:

> Jul 17 13:58:23 homebrew kernel: [24262.075187] nouveau E[     DRM] GPU lockup
> - switching to software fbcon

> I don't know how a particular driver gets chosen by the system, but is there a
> different driver I could try?
 									
Purge xserver-xorg-video-nouveau and install xserver-xorg-video-modesetting. If
there are no remnants of proprietary NVidia driver remaining, then the
modesetting driver should be used automatically. In Stretch, the modesetting
driver has been incorporated into the xerver and used by default with many gfxchips.

> Also, is there a way to find out when was the last time that nouveau was
> updated on my system? If it was a couple of weeks ago, then I would be even
> more sure that it's the culprit.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183789

On 2017-07-17 14:19 -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:

> Beginning a couple of weeks ago, I started to experience occasional freezes or
> sudden blank screens on my 64-bit jessie system.
>
> It just happened again, and this time the following appeared in the syslog:
>   Jul 17 13:55:05 homebrew kernel: [24064.296254] nouveau E[
> PFIFO][0000:01:00.0] write fault at 0x000029d000 [PTE] from GR/GPC0/GPCCS on
> channel 0x003fbad000 [Xorg[2071]]
>
> followed by several more messages that appear to be related, the last of which
> was:
>
> Jul 17 13:58:23 homebrew kernel: [24262.075187] nouveau E[     DRM] GPU lockup
> - switching to software fbcon
>
> I don't know how a particular driver gets chosen by the system, but is there a
> different driver I could try?

There is the non-free NVidia blob, available via the nvidia-driver metapackage.

> Also, is there a way to find out when was the last time that nouveau was
> updated on my system? If it was a couple of weeks ago, then I would be even
> more sure that it's the culprit.

There are multiple components which could have caused this, but the only
one which sees regular updates in jessie is the kernel.  Look at the recent
history of the linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 package on your system
(assuming that's the kernel version you use).

Cheers,
       Sven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183793

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

D. R. Evans [2017-07-17 14:19:32-06] wrote:

> Beginning a couple of weeks ago, I started to experience occasional freezes or
> sudden blank screens on my 64-bit jessie system.

> Jul 17 13:58:23 homebrew kernel: [24262.075187] nouveau E[     DRM] GPU lockup
> - switching to software fbcon
>
> I don't know how a particular driver gets chosen by the system, but is there a
> different driver I could try?

I have an Nvidia card and experienced complete lockups with nouveau
driver. Solution: Install nvidia-driver packages and all is working
well. Just one additional problem: non-free software.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://keybase.io/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183798

On 07/17/2017 04:09 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> D. R. Evans [2017-07-17 14:19:32-06] wrote:
>
>> Beginning a couple of weeks ago, I started to experience occasional freezes or
>> sudden blank screens on my 64-bit jessie system.
>> Jul 17 13:58:23 homebrew kernel: [24262.075187] nouveau E[     DRM] GPU lockup
>> - switching to software fbcon
>>
>> I don't know how a particular driver gets chosen by the system, but is there a
>> different driver I could try?
> I have an Nvidia card and experienced complete lockups with nouveau
> driver. Solution: Install nvidia-driver packages and all is working
> well. Just one additional problem: non-free software.
>
I get so sick of this! Did you PAY for your nvidia software? No? then it 
was FREE!
If you think that the only thing free is something you can modify 
yourself, then
why didn't you modify nouveau to fix your problem? Not capable? I 
thought so!
Then Kwitchurbitchin!

--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183802

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:38:55 -0500
Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> wrote:

Hello Doug,

>I get so sick of this! Did you PAY for your nvidia software? No? then

Anyone that buys an nVidia chipset GFX card pays for the nVidia drivers -
whether they use them, or not.

>it was FREE!

No, it wasn't.  Cost is hidden, but is still there.

In any case, the 'free' that Teemu was referring to was freeDOM.  That
is, the restrictions the nVidia license places upon the buyer.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Bet you think you're king but you're really a pawn
When You're Young - The Jam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183820

On 07/18/2017 01:43 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:38:55 -0500
> Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
>
>> I get so sick of this! Did you PAY for your nvidia software? No? then
>
> Anyone that buys an nVidia chipset GFX card pays for the nVidia drivers -
> whether they use them, or not.
>
>> it was FREE!
>
> No, it wasn't.  Cost is hidden, but is still there.
>
> In any case, the 'free' that Teemu was referring to was freeDOM.  That
> is, the restrictions the nVidia license places upon the buyer.

This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something 
proprietary such as a driver? In my mind, those that *can* make use of 
it, like you said, already bought the product that has the chip. Those 
that haven't bought the product thus would not be able to use the driver 
anyway. So logically speaking, a driver that is not proprietary (ie. is 
open source) really can't be used by anyone other than someone who 
already paid the company anyway.

As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say, 
reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by looking 
at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183822

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:52:05 -0400
RavenLX <ravenlx@sitesplace.net> wrote:

Hello RavenLX,

>This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something 
>proprietary such as a driver?

Control.  And the (misguided?) belief that they'll end up fielding tech
support questions for driver modifications they didn't make.

>As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say, 
>reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by
>looking at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)?

It'll certainly give people a few clues as to how nVidia achieve certain
things.

To be clear;  I'm not supporting nVidia's position, I'm simply playing
Devil's Advocate.  OTOH, I can't claim to be totally against nVidia's
position either;  I use their GFX cards and drivers on two machines
here.

IOW, I don't pursue software freedoms with as much keenly as some others
do.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
They said we'd be artistically free, but that was on a bit of paper
Complete Control - The Clash

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183832

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:09:53PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:52:05 -0400
> RavenLX <ravenlx@sitesplace.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello RavenLX,
> 
> >This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something 
> >proprietary such as a driver?
> 
> Control.  And the (misguided?) belief that they'll end up fielding tech
> support questions for driver modifications they didn't make.

Last, but not least, their opponents a leg up in the perverse "you stepped
onto one of our 15432 otherwise worthless patents!".

> >As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say, 
> >reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by
> >looking at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)?
> 
> It'll certainly give people a few clues as to how nVidia achieve certain
> things.

Having (even) incomplete sources does help in reverse engineering. With
determination, even the headers + machine code go a long way (you need
impressive skills, good tools and loads of patience, but those are
all available).

> To be clear;  I'm not supporting nVidia's position, I'm simply playing
> Devil's Advocate.  OTOH, I can't claim to be totally against nVidia's
> position either;  I use their GFX cards and drivers on two machines
> here.
> 
> IOW, I don't pursue software freedoms with as much keenly as some others
> do.

Each has to find his/her position, and it'll be always a compromise.
For me, a behaviour like nVidia's is enough to avoid their products
in my purchase list.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlluD7EACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb5wgCeItyFsBOYNc3C6wRgz1r1y3o9
3EcAnR7ZSOWg0JtQpVEsIeIZp+oD64JV
=2bYD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183855

On 07/18/2017 05:52 AM, RavenLX wrote:
> On 07/18/2017 01:43 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 22:38:55 -0500
>> Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Doug,
>>
>>> I get so sick of this! Did you PAY for your nvidia software? No? then
>>
>> Anyone that buys an nVidia chipset GFX card pays for the nVidia 
>> drivers -
>> whether they use them, or not.
>>
>>> it was FREE!
>>
>> No, it wasn't.  Cost is hidden, but is still there.
>>
>> In any case, the 'free' that Teemu was referring to was freeDOM.  That
>> is, the restrictions the nVidia license places upon the buyer.
>
> This poses an interesting question: Why would a company keep something 
> proprietary such as a driver? In my mind, those that *can* make use of 
> it, like you said, already bought the product that has the chip. Those 
> that haven't bought the product thus would not be able to use the 
> driver anyway. So logically speaking, a driver that is not proprietary 
> (ie. is open source) really can't be used by anyone other than someone 
> who already paid the company anyway.
>
> As a programmer, I don't think many (if any) would be able to say, 
> reverse-engineer a chip or device, etc. and replicate it just by 
> looking at programming code (unless I'm mistaken)?
>
>
My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not being 
free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do they complain?

Your point is interesting. I would guess that the company does not open 
source their driver because a modified version might become freely 
available, with the company's name still on it,
and be inferior to what the company originally supplied, thus giving the 
company a black eye, so to speak.

--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183857 — Free software (was: video driver?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:

> My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not being
> free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do they
> complain?

Free software has the advantage that it does not depend on just one
company and its interests. A free software community can maintain code
longer and can port it to different platforms. The community benefits
even if only some people actually modify the software.

Example: At some point Google stopped doing 32-bit builds for Google
Chrome browser (non-free software). Fortunately there is free Chromium
browser that Debian (or any free software community) gives much better
support for different architectures.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://keybase.io/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183869 — Re: Free software

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:

> Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
>
> > My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not being
> > free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do they
> > complain?
>
> Free software has the advantage that it does not depend on just one
> company and its interests. A free software community can maintain code
> longer and can port it to different platforms. The community benefits
> even if only some people actually modify the software.

By analogy: I am not capable of maintaining the house I live in, let
alone of making significant improvements.

Yet I benefit from the fact that anyone sufficiently motivated can learn
to do so and they don't need permission from the people who made the
house.

If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented from
doing so without the express permission of the people who made the
house, you're damned right I would complain.

I may have no intention of ever doing so myself, but I want a wide-open
market of people who can do so if I ask, who have learned because no law
stops them from doing so.


Free software includes that same freedom for software: Everyone is free
to learn about it, and try to improve it, and share their work with
others who want it.

Because everyone has that freedom, we don't all have to exercise it. But
we must defend it for everyone, and look with suspicion on anyone – even
those who sell video cards – who tries to deny us that freedom.

-- 
 \         “All television is educational television. The question is: |
  `\                           what is it teaching?” —Nicholas Johnson |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183870 — Re: Free software

Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> writes:

> On 07/18/2017 07:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
> >>> My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not
> >>> being free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do
> >>> they complain?
> > If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented from
> > doing so without the express permission of the people who made the
> > house, you're damned right I would complain.
> Well, complain!

I take it, then, that now have enough satisfactory answers to your
question above and don't need to ask “why do they complain” about
software freedom in future?

-- 
 \         “I turned to speak to God/About the world's despair; But to |
  `\   make bad matters worse/I found God wasn't there.” —Robert Frost |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183873 — Re: Free software

On 07/18/2017 07:48 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> On 07/18/2017 07:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>> Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
>>>>> My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not
>>>>> being free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do
>>>>> they complain?
>>> If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented from
>>> doing so without the express permission of the people who made the
>>> house, you're damned right I would complain.
>> Well, complain!
> I take it, then, that now have enough satisfactory answers to your
> question above and don't need to ask “why do they complain” about
> software freedom in future?
>
Yes, absolutely!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183871 — Re: Free software

On 07/18/2017 07:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
>
>> Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not being
>>> free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do they
>>> complain?
>> Free software has the advantage that it does not depend on just one
>> company and its interests. A free software community can maintain code
>> longer and can port it to different platforms. The community benefits
>> even if only some people actually modify the software.
> By analogy: I am not capable of maintaining the house I live in, let
> alone of making significant improvements.
>
> Yet I benefit from the fact that anyone sufficiently motivated can learn
> to do so and they don't need permission from the people who made the
> house.
>
> If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented from
> doing so without the express permission of the people who made the
> house, you're damned right I would complain.
Well, complain! The local government has the right  to prescribe
what you can do to the house! You can't even build an INSIDE
stairway to the attic that is not some specified width, with
steps a specified spacing and depth. (Islip Town, New York.
My son's house. His existing stairway is 6" too narrow, and he cannot
modify it in any way without it making it conform exactly to code, which
would be a major modification to the house.)

--doug
>
> I may have no intention of ever doing so myself, but I want a wide-open
> market of people who can do so if I ask, who have learned because no law
> stops them from doing so.
>
>
> Free software includes that same freedom for software: Everyone is free
> to learn about it, and try to improve it, and share their work with
> others who want it.
>
> Because everyone has that freedom, we don't all have to exercise it. But
> we must defend it for everyone, and look with suspicion on anyone – even
> those who sell video cards – who tries to deny us that freedom.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183874 — Re: Free software

Doug composed on 2017-07-18 19:42 (UTC-0500):

> The local government has the right  to prescribe
> what you can do to the house! 
Actually in the USA that's false, at least WRT a property owner doing his own
work, but state and local governments have been following the federal
government's lead, producing many constitutionally impermissible regulations for
many decades, and getting away with it because of prohibitive legal and time
expense involved in contesting impermissible regulation.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183888 — Re: Free software

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 09:38:16 PM Felix Miata wrote:
> Actually in the USA that's false, at least WRT a property owner doing his
> own work, but state and local governments have been following the federal
> government's lead, producing many constitutionally impermissible
> regulations for many decades, and getting away with it because of
> prohibitive legal and time expense involved in contesting impermissible
> regulation.


Explain more, please.

Are you saying that the local zoning authorrity can't do things like:

   * require building permits
   * require that work be done by licensed (electrical or plumbing 
contractors)
   * comply with various building codes

If so, in what sense are those impermissible regulations, or, on what basis 
could they be contested?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183934 — Re: Free software

On 07/18/2017 09:38 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> but state and local governments have been following the federal
> government's lead, producing many constitutionally impermissible regulations for
> many decades, and getting away with it because of prohibitive legal and time
> expense involved in contesting impermissible regulation.

When you purchase a mortgage, they demand you buy insurance to cover the 
loss of the asset. Insurance companies will mandate certain specs for 
construction in order to make the property as safe as possible. Ergo, 
you have many agencies that can mandate that certain industry standards 
are met for safety reasons. This is a good thing. There is nothing 
unconstitutional about it, you agreed to an expected level of 
construction safety when you applied for the mortgage. Otherwise you 
might wake up with the roof in your bed, like in less developed 
countries.Ric


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183875 — Re: Free software

On Tuesday 18 July 2017 20:18:07 Ben Finney wrote:

> Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
> > Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
> > > My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not
> > > being free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do
> > > they complain?
> >
What has not being capable got to do with it? I am losing that capability 
slowly but surely, too many circles around this star we call the Sun 
being the main reason. I have outlived all the enemies I used to have, 
and poor short term memory lets me forget about any recently acquired 
ones.

> > Free software has the advantage that it does not depend on just one
> > company and its interests. A free software community can maintain
> > code longer and can port it to different platforms. The community
> > benefits even if only some people actually modify the software.
>
> By analogy: I am not capable of maintaining the house I live in, let
> alone of making significant improvements.
>
That blows me away, Ben. I have read enough of your keyboards output to 
know there is not one darned thing keeping you from learning to do what 
you deny being able to do.

> Yet I benefit from the fact that anyone sufficiently motivated can
> learn to do so and they don't need permission from the people who made
> the house.
>
> If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented
> from doing so without the express permission of the people who made
> the house, you're damned right I would complain.
>
So would I, by whatever means gets the attention.

> I may have no intention of ever doing so myself, but I want a
> wide-open market of people who can do so if I ask, who have learned
> because no law stops them from doing so.
>
>
> Free software includes that same freedom for software: Everyone is
> free to learn about it, and try to improve it, and share their work
> with others who want it.
>
> Because everyone has that freedom, we don't all have to exercise it.
> But we must defend it for everyone, and look with suspicion on anyone
> – even those who sell video cards – who tries to deny us that freedom.

Extremely well stated Ben, thank you.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183876 — Re: Free software

On 07/18/2017 10:53 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 July 2017 20:18:07 Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> writes:
>>> Doug [2017-07-18 13:25:34-05] wrote:
>>>> My point is that most of the folks who complain about code not
>>>> being free to modify are not capable of modifying it, so why do
>>>> they complain?
> What has not being capable got to do with it? I am losing that capability
> slowly but surely, too many circles around this star we call the Sun
> being the main reason. I have outlived all the enemies I used to have,
> and poor short term memory lets me forget about any recently acquired
> ones.
>
>>> Free software has the advantage that it does not depend on just one
>>> company and its interests. A free software community can maintain
>>> code longer and can port it to different platforms. The community
>>> benefits even if only some people actually modify the software.
>> By analogy: I am not capable of maintaining the house I live in, let
>> alone of making significant improvements.
>>
> That blows me away, Ben. I have read enough of your keyboards output to
> know there is not one darned thing keeping you from learning to do what
> you deny being able to do.
>
>> Yet I benefit from the fact that anyone sufficiently motivated can
>> learn to do so and they don't need permission from the people who made
>> the house.
>>
>> If anyone who wanted to improve the house I live in were prevented
>> from doing so without the express permission of the people who made
>> the house, you're damned right I would complain.
>>
> So would I, by whatever means gets the attention.
>
>> I may have no intention of ever doing so myself, but I want a
>> wide-open market of people who can do so if I ask, who have learned
>> because no law stops them from doing so.
>>
>>
>> Free software includes that same freedom for software: Everyone is
>> free to learn about it, and try to improve it, and share their work
>> with others who want it.
>>
>> Because everyone has that freedom, we don't all have to exercise it.
>> But we must defend it for everyone, and look with suspicion on anyone
>> – even those who sell video cards – who tries to deny us that freedom.
> Extremely well stated Ben, thank you.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
I thought I put this to bed, but apparently not. The complaint was
about NVidia software. Well, there has been for some time a
"FREE" program. How come it's not satisfactory for so many
users of Nvidia cards? All the wonderful Linux programmers
have had YEARS to modify it and make it better than what
Nvidia provides, but it seems that they haven't succeeded.
I am very happy with my Nvidia cards and Nvidia drivers.
What the devil is everybody bitching about?

And, of course, doesn't it make sense that the company that
invented and produces and sells a product ought to know more
about how to operate it than a bunch of "de-engineers?"

I've stated my case. Let's drop it here!

--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web