GPL concerns halt Kororaa live CD (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

The real point

Posted May 16, 2006 7:11 UTC (Tue) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

I thought the point was to make libre software. If we are just going the cool-eye-candy route, even if we have to sell out, then we might as well use Mac OS X or wait for Windows Vista.

For me the point is to use, advocate and support the best all-around OS available. IMHO that's Linux. And I hardly think purchasing an excellent video card and using the drivers the vendor has written and maintains for my OS of choice is "selling out".

And and by the way, I have no interest in crappy microsoft windows. microsoft has a long long way to go before I'd consider ms windows to be a potential replacement for linux.

Yes, we are in a position to demand nVidia and ATI to open their driver. We buy their stuff, we should have support. Failing that we might try to reverse-engineer their drivers, something which is being done with Radeon X300; proprietary drivers just prevent that

Well... we do have support from nvidia - absolutely head and shoulders above any other graphics vendor in their support for linux, period. For instance, I posted a problem on a suse mailing list about a screen blanking problem, and got a pm from an nvidia engineer who wanted me to send a bug report. A few hours after I sent him what he asked for, he emailed me back to say they were able to reproduce the bug, and gave me the nvidia bug #. The next nvidia driver release fixed the bug. What other graphics vendor gives anywhere near that level of linux support?

Now, before you call me an "extremist": use whatever you want on your desktop, at your own risk, but it is precisely on these technology previews where libre drivers are more important.

Yep, calling the use of commercial drivers "selling out" seems pretty extremist to me ;)

And I hate to bust your bubble, but the GPL'd drivers available today don't seem to be up to snuff yet. The intel drivers aren't too bad, and the old 3dfx cards/drivers worked pretty well, but otherwise I've had nothing but grief every time I tried to be politically correct and use a card with a GPL'd DRI driver. The advice was always to use the older radeons and the in-kernel DRI. Every time I tried to seriously use the GPL'd radeon driver, I suffered lockups.

For instance, starting up RtCW with the radeon would instantly lock up the machine, every time - the power button was the only way out. You'd think I would learn, but I was still trying years later, and found that the system with a radeon would lock up when the atlantis screensaver kicked in. I finally woke up and said "enough is enough", sold the radeon to a windoze user. and replaced it with an "evil" nvidia, and the "evil" nvidia drivers. The machine was rock solid from that day on.

So sorry, I've no patience left for political correctness. I want something that works, and nvidia delivers the goods. When you find a fully open source option that's anywhere near as fast, featureful and reliable as nvidias, I will gladly use it. Until then, don't condemn me for wanting a usable platform. Unlike most of the readers here, I don't retreat to ms windows to play games or do multimedia.

The real point

Posted May 16, 2006 8:58 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Dude, relax. I'm not condemning you in any way! I have used proprietary drivers when I have had to, even if I prefer to use free software. I use Windows at work when I'm forced to. I still prefer to use libre software; otherwise, why bother? For me, freedom is my most important need and the biggest strength in Linux.

Nevertheless, I think a free software project has some responsibilities, first and foremost to comply with the licenses. And if it is a technologic showcase, requiring proprietary drivers shows a shortcoming of libre software, not a strength. If all you want is cool 3D you could use a number of proprietary alternatives. Until it is really free I don't see the advantage of running a 3D desktop on top of Linux.

The real point

Posted May 16, 2006 9:49 UTC (Tue) by jpetso (guest, #36230) [Link]

> For me the point is to use, advocate and support the best all-around OS
> available. IMHO that's Linux.

If it were just for the usability, eye-candy, and overall quality of the
OS, I'd probably go with MacOS X. The only real argument for Linux is
that it does what the user wants, it can be extended by anyone, and can't
be controlled by any company with evil intentions. This is all due to the
freedom of its code, and the most important thing for Linux (IMHO) is to
preserve that freedom.

Closed source drivers are taking away the developers' control over Linux,
and are a threat to the very essence of what Linux is. If you say Windows
is crappy, take a sec to think about how it was possible for Linux to
grow better. The reason is not better developers or more effective
marketing, the reason is the freedom of the code. Not providing
ATI/nVidia drivers doesn't kill Linux, but depending on closed source
software does.

An interesting question would be, which arguments do you bring for saying
that Linux is the best all-around OS available? Do you really think code
freedom doesn't matter and it's just the technical excellency? Well.

> The advice was always to use the older radeons and the in-kernel DRI.
> Every time I tried to seriously use the GPL'd radeon driver,
> I suffered lockups.

Well, at least for me, when I switched from ATI's Radeon driver to the
GPL one, all the lockups went away, so it may be better or worse for
different people. But that's not the point. Open source drivers can be
improved (yes, also by nVidia and ATI themselves, once they decide they
don't really need them closed) while depending on binary bubbles makes
you depend on the vendor.

Even if nVidia is creating fine drivers today, who says they won't quit
supporting your card in 3 years and only provide drivers for newer cards?
I don't have to worry about that if the driver is open.

The real point

Posted May 16, 2006 11:12 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

So sorry, I've no patience left for political correctness. I want something that works, and nvidia delivers the goods.

Fine, until you try and install that nVidia driver on your AMD64 or, even worse, PowerPC machine. Do nVidia do a power version of their driver?

Cheers,
Wol

The real point

Posted May 16, 2006 16:53 UTC (Tue) by carcassonne (guest, #31569) [Link]

Fine, until you try and install that nVidia driver on your AMD64...

I run the nVidia driver on my MSI K8N Neo4 (Dual core AMD64) without any problems at all using a Ge6600 (or something that sounds like that) graphics card.

Simply do a YaST update and select the nVdia driver.

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 4:08 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

Fine, until you try and install that nVidia driver on your AMD64 or, even worse, PowerPC machine. Do nVidia do a power version of their driver?

Actually nvidia's amd64 driver is current with their x86 driver, and their freebsd and solaris drivers are also current. Only the ia-64 drivers are lagging behind, but it's highly unlikely that linux on itanium users are using it on the desktop.

You are right about PPC though, and that's a problem. For reasons like that it's important to continue *in parallel* the efforts towards more open source drivers...

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 6:16 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

*in parallel*

In parallel? In parallel with ATI and nVidia's efforts to make us accept proprietary drivers? Or in parallel with our requests that they free up their code and save everyone some person-years of reverse engineering?

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 6:31 UTC (Wed) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link]

"In parallel" meaning using the most suitable video drivers for ones needs, even if they are not libre, while *simultaneously* advocating open source drivers, and switching to them if they become viable. In my case, the intel 9xx drivers look promising, and if/when brought up to feature parity with nvidia they will be preferred - but until then I am using nvidia wherever fast, reliable OpenGL is required. Naturally that sort of thing is irrelevant in the server room, but on the desktop it's crucial.

So no, I'm not willing to retreat to the hobbyist realm and cede the desktop to some crappy monopolist until there are in-kernel video drivers of acceptable quality. I'm going to stay in the game with linux now, even if that means using non-libre video drivers.

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 9:49 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

So no, I'm not willing to retreat to the hobbyist realm and cede the desktop to some crappy monopolist until there are in-kernel video drivers of acceptable quality. I'm going to stay in the game with linux now, even if that means using non-libre video drivers.

Would that be the hobbyist realm wherein so many MS Windows 3d games reside? I'm a little confused. How does your use of the closed video drivers for gaming video cards keep you from retreating to the hobbyist realm?

The corporate desktop is hampered by multiple factors, but these 3d video cards with closed drivers do not appear high on the list. Fear and inertia play a large role, especially in the U.S.

Home desktop adoption of GNU/Linux is hampered most by at least one of the factors at play in corporate desktop adoption, which is the preinstallation of MS Windows on almost every PC in every store in the U.S. (There appears to be a little effort to export this idea).

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 9:57 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Actually, I find einstein's comment quite reasonable. Many hobbysts seem to be ok with keeping a copy of Windows around just to play games. Proprietary drivers allow people to play on Linux instead; from this perspective they look like a lesser evil.

I have given up gaming; it's too hard on Linux, and it takes too much time anyway. But it is just one of those strongholds left to Windows and hampering Linux adoption. It is relevant for many people.

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 18:58 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

Actually, I find einstein's comment quite reasonable. Many hobbysts seem to be ok with keeping a copy of Windows around just to play games. Proprietary drivers allow people to play on Linux instead; from this perspective they look like a lesser evil.

That is what confuses me. If the hobbyist is most likely to need the extra functions in the closed drivers, how will abandoning those drivers to use only the libre drivers result in a "retreat to the hobbyist realm and cede the desktop"?

I have given up gaming; it's too hard on Linux, and it takes too much time anyway. But it is just one of those strongholds left to Windows and hampering Linux adoption. It is relevant for many people.

I agree with you with respect to time and relevancy. The others are not so clear. id Software games, in particular, are not hard to set up on Linux. Tuxgames handles commercial games and Happy Penguin features piles of free games from scrollers to 3d multiplayer.

The hampering comes more from the pre-installation of MS Windows, which provides gamers with a beginning platform and provides game vendors with market numbers. It's the chicken and egg syndrome.

The real point

Posted May 17, 2006 21:42 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

If the hobbyist is most likely to need the extra functions in the closed drivers, how will abandoning those drivers to use only the libre drivers result in a "retreat to the hobbyist realm and cede the desktop"?

Because said hobbyist will more likely defeat to legacy operating systems than stop playing GTA San Andreas. The strange ways of reality.

id Software games, in particular, are not hard to set up on Linux.

You know, games are more like movies. Having one or two, even ten, is hardly going to satisfy any enthusiast. They get excited with new releases, they visit specialist web sites and stores, they spend a lot of time and money on them. Even the casual player buys some titles from time to time; remember that games make more money than movies.

The real point

Posted May 18, 2006 23:29 UTC (Thu) by pak9rabid (guest, #37821) [Link]

No. We cannot demand that nVidia and ATI open the source to their drivers. And here is why.

There are trade secrets contained within the video drivers themselves that either vendor cannot afford to have open for the competition to see and copy. I'm not sure how familiar with people are with modern 3d-accelerated video drivers, but according to an article I read on AnandTech (www.anandtech.com) years ago, video drivers contain what's called a "runtime compiler". From what I understand, this is the part of the video driver that allows for a fully programmable GPU by allowing 3rd party developers to write their own programs to utilize the hardware on the video card. When a developer writes a program (such as a pixel shading function utilizing the pixel shaders on the card's hardware), the source code for the program must be compiled by the runtime compiler on the fly at runtime. The overall performance of the video card relies heavily on the ability of the video driver to compile these programs as fast as possible.

Some of you may remember back in 2000 when nVidia released their Detonator 3 and 4 drivers. These drivers alone increased performance on the GeForce-based cards by a great amount. This was made possible by finding ways to optimize the runtime compiler contained in the driver itself.

As you can see, the runtime compiler contained in the video driver plays a very important role in the overall performance of the video card. We all know how cut-throat of an industry the video chipset maket is. Because of this, each company must protect the source to their runtime complilers found in their drivers, otherwise they lose their trade secret, which they've invested lots of time and money in to develope and protect.

This isn't intended to be an argument for either side, just an explaination of why nVidia and ATI will not open-source their drivers and their reasoning behind it.

The real point

Posted May 19, 2006 1:24 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

And here is why.

Well, here comes the real explanation. Let's hold our collective breath now for a minute.

I'm not sure how familiar with people are with modern 3d-accelerated video drivers, but according to an article I read on AnandTech (www.anandtech.com) years ago, video drivers contain what's called a "runtime compiler".

Well, I don't know either how familiar with people are with modern 3d-accelerated video drivers, but if you read on AnandTech an article some years ago, it must be pretty advanced! Furthermore if said drivers contain what is called a "runtime compiler". This must mean that they are, wow, like, you know, compiling stuff or something. Like I said, wow, I mean, wow. Compile and stuff.

Some of you may remember back in 2000 when nVidia released their Detonator 3 and 4 drivers.

We may remember it because, wow, Detonator, I'm sure it compiled stuff into other stuff, or wow, I mean, compile dude! That's something. And it's called "Detonator", so it must be pretty wicked stuff.

This was made possible by finding ways to optimize the runtime compiler contained in the driver itself.

Yeah, like I said, wow dude, it finds ways to optimize the compiler, you know. Pretty advanced stuff, huh! Worth some trade secrets, and then some!

As you can see, the runtime compiler contained in the video driver plays a very important role in the overall performance of the video card.

Yeah, we saw that, dude. It was pretty clear, huh. So there is a little mean compiler contained into the driver and in every other card, dude! A very important role indeed.

Because of this, each company must protect the source to their runtime complilers found in their drivers, otherwise they lose their trade secret, which they've invested lots of time and money in to develope and protect.

Yeah! If they are, you know, like compiling stuff, then it's very much worth protecting, because, you know, they are like compiling! Without a trade secret, would people even learn how to compile stuff into other stuff? I very much doubt it, sir!

This isn't intended to be an argument for either side, just an explaination of why nVidia and ATI will not open-source their drivers and their reasoning behind it.

Now it's all clear. And we were running around in circles like headless chicken, in our ignorance; but now we have learnt the real truth! The real explaination behind why nVidia and ATI will not open-source their drivers. They are, you know, compiling stuff! Thank you very much sir! Now, if anyone could tell us how to do runtime compile optimization! But no, they would certainly lose their valuable runtime secret! No sir!