The alternative is that the volunteers cave in to strangers who bought anti-FOSS hardware by making the volunteers' software much crummier over a long period of agonizing work. I think volunteers wanting clean FOSS being expected to do that shows a negative, selfish attitude plus lack of cooperation on the NVIDIA consumers making those demands, not the developers.
To illustrate with my own example, I bought a Linux-compatible laptop when I wanted to run Linux on a desktop. That rewarded the seller for effort they put in, reused the FOSS work already performed, and required no demands to be made of volunteers. These things are a two-way street. So, I met them in the middle. Did it again getting a Thinkpad cuz I wanted to try BSD's later this year. Supported all of them.
If trying to maximize adoption, you have to tolerate people's indifference and selfishness. They dont want to maximize sales for anti-FOSS company. So, they're telling that company's customers the issue, suggesting a switch, and having something waiting for AMD buyers.
You can't complain about adoption while taking a holier-than-thou stance towards users.
Since when has FOSS meant that I _can't_ work with proprietary bits? As a user, this is my choice. If software is going to dictate where I spend my money, then I'm less inclined to adopt it. That's not freedom.
I have distinct memories of people buying PC hardware specifically because it came with a "compatible with Windows Vista" sticker, and they were thinking of switching.
I didn't read any "holier-than-thou" sentiment in the parent comment. It's not unreasonable to expect users to think about the things they want to be compatible with when buying hardware.
"I want to be able to use the next version of Windows"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with the next version of Windows. "I want to use this printer from my iPad"... buy a printer known to be compatible with that model of iPad. "I want to use this printer from GNU/Linux"... buy a printer known to be compatible with GNU/Linux. "I want to use OpenBSD"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with OpenBSD. "I want to use Ubuntu 17.10"... buy hardware that's known to be compatible with Wayland.
The “holier-than-thou” part of the parent comment was calling Nvidia “anti-FOSS.”
Nvidia is going to do what Nvidia is going to do, for their own reasons. Unless you have some hidden inside information you shouldn’t assume they’re doing it in order to hurt Linux or Open Source.
They’ve probably done some evaluation of what they would get out of putting their drivers into the kernel tree versus keeping them to themselves, and decided that it wasn’t worth the work, expense, risk to their IP, etc.
Your memory involves a sticker on the box with the information you needed. You could draw an analogy if there were a "compatible with linux" sticker on some hardware.
People generally don't understand what linux is, or what a distribution is, or what versions of any of the above are new or upcoming. None of these problems apply to Microsoft, since there are many fewer versions, less fragmentation, and a marketing budget.
Firstly, it's refuting a different point than the one I was making. If the problem were "it's too difficult to determine if hardware is compatible with the distro I want to use," (which is a real problem) then the comment would at least be relevant. But the comment I was replying to said "If software is going to dictate where I spend my money [what hardware I buy], ..."; they were rejecting the validity the claim that they should consider which software they use when making a hardware purchase, which is true for no OS, and no reasonable user expects to be true.
Secondly, you are demanding an impossible task. Because GNU/Linux distros have less marketing budget, and not enough dominance, and can't convince hardware vendors to put a sticker on the box... they need to have better hardware compatibility than Microsoft, and just be compatible with all the hardware? Microsoft has vastly more resources to dedicate to hardware compatibly than just about any other organization, and hardware vendors themselves test their hardware with Windows. Expecting a less-popular desktop operating system to work with more arbitrary hardware than Windows does is unreasonable.
I get that "being able to try it out with the hardware I already own" is a hugely powerful thing. But most users who want to make any other switch accept that they might need to buy some new hardware when doing it. A user switching from a Windows laptop to an iPad as their daily-driver accepts that they may need to get a new printer that's compatible. They may even realize that they have an older iPad, and research the printer they want to make sure it's compatible with their model, and not blindly trust the AirPrint badge on the box. Few users would think that level of due-diligence is unreasonable. Saying "that research is difficult for GNU/Linux distros" is very different than saying "expecting any level of research at all is unreasonable".
"You can't complain about adoption while taking a holier-than-thou stance towards users. "
He was saying they're getting plenty of action. They're just not supporting users on specific hardware whose vendor is trying to block such action. It still is freedom. It just doesn't support that specific hardware.
"Since when has FOSS meant that I _can't_ work with proprietary bits? As a user, this is my choice. "
It really isn't if you're just a user. It's the developers' choices that dictate what software you can run on which hardware. Once their choices are made, you choose between what each offers. In this case...
"If software is going to dictate where I spend my money, then I'm less inclined to adopt it."
Nvidia is spending money on software that tries to block you from using free software with it easily. The volunteers developing one of those free packages refuse to build support for an anti-FOSS company putting up obstacles. Instead, they're doing work on companies helping them a bit or not putting up obstacles to their work.
As a user, it would be weird for you to claim to want free software while buying a piece of hardware whose developers are working against that goal. They'll also use your dollars from that purchase to do more activity that reduces your freedom as a user. You're free to choose to buy that hardware but there's no reasons for volunteers, much less those maximizing free software, to be forced to do painful work to support your choice. It's reasonable to say you're on your own if your choices create unnecessary obstacles.
To illustrate with my own example, I bought a Linux-compatible laptop when I wanted to run Linux on a desktop. That rewarded the seller for effort they put in, reused the FOSS work already performed, and required no demands to be made of volunteers. These things are a two-way street. So, I met them in the middle. Did it again getting a Thinkpad cuz I wanted to try BSD's later this year. Supported all of them.
If trying to maximize adoption, you have to tolerate people's indifference and selfishness. They dont want to maximize sales for anti-FOSS company. So, they're telling that company's customers the issue, suggesting a switch, and having something waiting for AMD buyers.