Unstable

=== Slashdot post by a contributor ===
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2921223&cid=40354019
Have you tried the FOSS drivers? Because you really shouldn't complain when AMD did what the community asked them to do and handed over the specs, or did everyone forget how many times we've heard "Just open up the specs and we'll support the hardware" on this very forum and others? AMD took that one step farther by actually hiring developers to assist the FOSS driver devs in getting up to speed, and from what I've been reading they've been coming along nicely, although focus has naturally been a little heavy on the APUs since so many of them are out there.
This DOES highlight what i consider to be a major failing in Linux for quite some time, the fact that its near impossible to JUST get security updates, as package A needs kernel B and depends on packages E-G so to keep the thing updated you end up with an "all or nothing" so you can't just update say the XBMC software without changing graphics drivers and a bunch of other . People can scream all they want but THIS IS WHY a hardware ABI is a GOOD thing, because if I want to keep my 3 year old graphics drivers while being fully patched and running the latest of everything else on Windows? not a problem, I just don't have to update the graphics driver. this is also why AMD's support phase isn't a problem on Windows, as one can simply stick with the last driver and be fine for the life of the system and after 4 years they've squeezed all the power they are gonna out of a chip. Again like it or not the ONLY REASON that that Nvidia or AMD have to keep releasing new drivers for old hardware in Linux is because you simply can't use the old drivers with new kernels or the whole thing falls down.
So I don't see how the community has any right to complain about AMD, you got exactly what you asked for, all the specs opened and handed to you on a silver platter. AMD simply has a hell of a lot more on its plate than just graphics so continuing to support 4+ year old chips on an OS with maybe 5% market tops is simply a waste of resources. if you want to complain pitch a fit at Torvalds for making driver support such a ****ed mess, even one of the big Red hat developers [google.com] says the current way of doing things simply isn't sustainable, that a single group can't control 20,000 packages and drivers and keep it working, and recommends an ABI and a much more stripped down design that allows you to concentrate on the core while letting those that sell the hardware provide drivers. I wonder how much money Nvidia has blown keeping a team of devs around to do nothing but constantly update the Linux drivers when Torvalds constantly breaks the drivers with kernel fiddling? bet it isn't cheap, not cheap at all.
If handing you the full specs like you asked for STILL isn't enough? Maybe its time to look in the mirror and consider that maybe, just maybe, you're doing things the wrong way. There should be no reason why you can't take the last release that AMD made for that HD3200 and have it run perfectly on the latest distro and the fact that you stand here and admit that it doesn't work just shows what is wrong with linux in a nutshell. After all how do you expect the smaller hardware guys to support you if the big guys have to pay entire teams to constantly fix the things just to make the drivers work?
=== Molner on Linux ===
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2921223&cid=40354019
https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfRzNe Molner raises issues on linux
Molner replies to the thread https://plus.google.com/u/0/109922199462633401279/posts/VSdDJnscewS
And yes, I hear you say "but desktop Linux is free software!". The fact is, free software matters to developers and organizations primarily, but on the user side, the free code behind Linux desktops is immaterial if free software does not deliver benefits such as actual freedom of use.
@....Free software has stupidly followed closed source practices 10-15 years ago and we never seriously challenged those flawed closed source software distribution and platform assumptions. Today closed software has taken a leap and FOSS will have to react or go extinct. I think FOSS software will eventually react - I think free software is ultimately in the position to deliver such software distribution technology...@
Molner as a GPL Redhat employee is using Free instead of Restricted. Let us disect the Newspeak out of his reply in the context of GPL and BSD
Restating Molner using dictionary definition of restriction to try and gain the truth: 
@....GPL Restricted software has emulated closed source(restricted) practices Today closed restricted software has taken a leap and restricted FOSS will have to react or go extinct. I think restricted FOSS software will eventually react - I think free(restricted) software is ultimately in the same position as restricted closed software to deliver such software distribution technology...@
If this rephrase sounds meaningless then this is what happens when the definition of terms changes away from a how a dictionary and copyright law defines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain: GPL,BSD, MSFT is a restriction, not a freedom because it has copyright holders and thus defined by copyright court cases as not being in the public domain. 
=== Unstable Linux drivers ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD
This enables, for instance, a driver for a specific PCI card to work whether that card is in a PCI slot on an IA-32, Alpha, PowerPC, SPARC, or other architecture with a PCI bus. Also, a single driver for a specific device can operate via several different buses, for example ISA, PCI, PC card, etcetera.
In comparison, Linux device driver code often needs to be reworked for every new architecture. As a consequence, in recent porting efforts by NetBSD and Linux developers, NetBSD has taken much less time to port to new hardware.[12]
=== Copyright and GPL ===
Can copyrighted software be released as GPL? It seems redhant released cd-drive mount(copyrighted) from GPL2 as GPL code. This allows them to launch attacks on companies not releasing their modifications back on products derived from such GPL and copyrighted code.
http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/
=== Cloud computing ===
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/07/gnu_gpl_forked/
Among the problems with the Gnu GPL that Fontana identified in his presentation were the length and complexity of the license, the "collapse" of the authority of the FSF, and the shift toward cloud-based applications, which are incompatible with traditional open source licenses.
Fontana's free software credentials are solid. He currently serves as the open source and patent licensing counsel for Red Hat, though he says the Linux vendor is not involved or affiliated with the GPL.next effort in any way. Previously, he was legal counsel to the Software Freedom Law Center.
Redhat leverages the *restriction* of GPL to litigate against GPL infringement but don't do the same for BSD.
Category:UNIX
Category:GPL and BSD