X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules
Posted Aug 15, 2006 13:53 UTC (Tue) by smulcahy
In reply to: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules
Parent article: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules
I've read a lot in the last week about the triumph that is Intel open sourcing their drivers. This is great news and I'm happy about it. But the sad reality of the matter is that the performance of Intel graphics devices is abysmal for uses such as gaming. For gaming graphics hardware, it's a 2 horse race with Nvidia and ATI (I can dig out reviews and benchmarks if you like).
Ok, as someone has pointed out, if you want to play games, go buy a PC with an Nvidia or ATI card and go play your games under Windows. What about us guys that want to do both? Play some games in the evening on Windows and spend their day doing development in Linux. I know, we're horrible realists who are undermining all the good work of the FSF, but I'm guessing there are a sizable minority of people in this group - does the "free software community" really want to cut us loose?
I'd love to have a decent open source driver for my nvidia and ati cards (I straddle both evil camps!) but in the meantime the binary drivers actually work pretty well with the occasional configuration headache.
I guess what I'm really getting at here is that Intel is not an option for a lot of us, despite their laudable efforts to open source their drivers. I think we need to continue gently encouraging Nvidia and ATI to open source while recognising that there are valid business obstacles to them doing so - the best thing that can happen is that, over time, the number of Linux users running Nvidia and ATI increases to the point where they can no longer ignore us.
This is far less likely to happen if the community as a whole turns us out in the cold. I applaud Fedora and Gentoo for balancing the needs of their users against other priorities, I think they've made a reasonable decision.
/me steps into his asbestos undies
to post comments)