Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 05, 2005 05:21 PM
> Those making the criticisms here are the ones who produce their own version of the VIA driver as open source.
I didn't look into who wrote the article. I was reacting purely to the article's content, which struck me as FUD, and still does.
Your alternative theories for the article's tone are interesting, though I am not convinced that they can totally explain the article's negativity toward's VIA and its Open Source initiative.
Even with the additional information about the authors, we have to bear in mind another strategy for which Microsoft is infamous, that of sabotaging their opponents by providing "support."
For example, Microsoft is purported to have sabotaged OS/2 partly by contributing buggy assembler code (along with the anti-OS/2 FUD and astroturf). Plus, Microsoft is known to have sabotaged WordPerfect by supplying them with buggy Windows function calls, and to have sabotaged Java by supplying the polluted J++ JVM.
So, if I were Microsoft, and I wanted to ensure that there was poor 3D video support for Linux, one of the things I would do would be to have people infiltrate the video driver projects, introduce bugs, and act like jerks in order to slow things down and drive away the honest developers (this is basically what Microsoft did to OpenGL in the early days). And if a video card company started trying to provide their own Open Source support for Linux, I would become especially belligerent, in order to turn that company off of the idea.
Now I am not saying that I am right. In fact, I hope you are right.
But if you are right, and the authors of this article are actually trying to make an honest, and positive contribution to Linux, and Open Source video drivers, then they need to grow up and learn some diplomacy.