What's not clear is we recorded this interview after an hour-long conversation - fairly intense and somewhat uncomfortable, FWIW - about our relative outlook on bringing software freedom to communities and the differing points we feel compromise is justified by the ends achieved. Mark's view remains that building something only those already accepting deficiency-in-support-of-liberty can love will result in failure, sacrificing the whole for the purity of a part. If he possibly can make it all happen with non-proprietary drivers, he will. He's neither evil nor stupid, and I know he will be using all the leverage he knows he has to force the issue with chipset vendors. I negotiated with him when I was at Sun and know he's up to it! His view differs from mine and both of ours differ from others since each of us has a different limit-of-compromise, but he remains genuinely a part of our community & neither its exploiter nor its opponent. He is very clearly committed to software freedom, and has been for most of the near-decade I have known him. This is not a comment on you (since you're one of the most reasonable people I've met!) but I find the constant undermining of one of the few people committed to our goals yet with a decent chance of creating mass-market change a defect in our community. He's putting his money where his mouth is, supporting his personal convictions about software freedom, and doing so from a considered holistic ethic and philosophy. Each time his hard business decisions result in an outcome we disagree with, I think we should criticise reasonably and then support him, just as we do with people like RMS when distasteful things happen. Edge is an incredible opportunity for software freedom and Mark deserves our support.