On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
<[email protected]> wrote:
well, and that is what i'm complaining about...
mind you glibc will not be always binary compatible either across
it's own versions - same
as libc5 to glibc ("libc6") transition occured ad some point...
libc5 wasn't even glibc. It was the Linux libc. Read the glibc
wikipedia article.
this limits nvidia driver usage to specific libc implementation,
with specific version.
glibc is kind of the de facto libc. What do you expect here? Them not
to link to the C library? Provide a second binary linking against
uclibc? And what then about all the other libc's?
preferably providing code plainly compiling using system libc.
most of restricted code is in kernel itself, and code
using libc can be licensed with their own license.
also they could make version not running 3d, which will plainly not
crash if lackin libGL - but continue running in 2d instead.
(so without the dependency)
ad. using generic nv driver instead of binary (many people would
still prefeer that) - why not also documenting it more to allow
other people maintain it ? if the intention is to maintain sales
of GPU's ofcourse , or whatever motivates nvidia team to continue
support...
ad alternatives - nothing stops them from releasing their own OS
either, allowing running guest OS within VM and contacting X
windows using tcp/ip, or implementing own X solely in hardware
and leaving only code for socket or tcp/ip communication via pci bus...
--
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
