Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions pageSponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
(Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 14, 2006 20:05 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link]
> Of course, there's also a vocal contingent that complains that Ubuntu and other distros are unsuitable for general users because they don't ship with Nvidia or other binary drivers enabled.
Not to mention another, perhaps not vocal enough, contingent that complains that Nvidia and other devices are unsuitable for general users because they don't ship with open source drivers.
Sigh.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 14, 2006 22:50 UTC (Tue) by sveinrn (subscriber, #2827) [Link]
Good point! I myself am stuck with an ATI card. I even checked before buying the card that ATI had open source drivers. But I didn't dig deep enough, and found out too late that the support ended with the 9200 cards while I got a 9600.
So my next computer I will, for the first time in my life, be one with "Intel Inside" and on-board Intel graphics adapter. But I cannot afford a new one this year and probably not the next...
So for me, a Linux-distribution with included binary drivers is a good thing. And also, many people trying out Linux for the first time will be very disappointed with the performance after trying Fedora, or even worse, Debian on their new computer with the latest and greatest nVidia card.
So if one of our goals is widespread use of Linux, I think that the binary drivers are necessary at this stage. But if enough existing and potentially new Linux users drop ATI and nVidia cards from now on, it should not take long before the open source drivers are back again.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 15, 2006 1:21 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> be one with "Intel Inside" and on-board Intel graphics adapter
That's exactly how and why I picked the notebook I'm writing this on (it has Intel 945). Works fine with FC6 AIGLX goodies (compiz etc.).
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 15, 2006 22:19 UTC (Wed) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
But even the Radeon 9600s has had support out-of-tree for a while. The R300 DRI project lists its status as "works well, no lockups" as of 18 months ago. So by now free software support for your 3d card should not be a problem.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 15, 2006 9:47 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
Nvidia and other devices are unsuitable for general users because they don't ship with open source drivers.I'm afraid these devices are perfectly suitable to general users. They are not suitable to "free software only" users, but they are just a subset of general users.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 20:18 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
I'd love to see somebody fork Ubuntu and create a super-binary-friendly distro. But, to start shipping binary video drivers in Feisty by default? That's horrible. Is there any chance the SABDFL will reconsider this?
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 20:25 UTC (Tue) by mspevack (subscriber, #36977) [Link]
I guess you've got Gnewsense if you want to live in the .deb family.
Fedora is RPM-based but as always, refuses to ship any binary drivers in our Fedora Core or Fedora Extras repositories.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 20:53 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
FSF-approved OSes tend to die quickly and quietly. Given the project goals and small development team, I expect that gnewsense will suffer the same fate in about a year. So, if Feisty indeed goes binary-video-by-default then, yeah, I suppose I'll try to move back to Fedora.
Without networking, you're flat out stuck. I understand why a distro would choose to have binary-wireless-by-default. But binary-video-by-default? Especially when existing free drivers are slower at 3D but work fine? And all it takes is a few clicks in a package manager to fix it? That just doesn't make sense.
Why a whole new distribution? bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 21:16 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
How about just using the package management system? Make all binary drivers depend on a metapackage called binary-drivers and make that conflict with another metapackage, an "antipackage" called no-binary-drivers?
apt-get install no-binary-drivers and Bob's your uncle -- no YAF*buntu needed.
apt-get install no-binary-drivers
Posted Nov 14, 2006 22:02 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Hmm, if you remove dpkg's common-sense particle, you could do "apt-get install binary-drivers no-binary-drivers".
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 21:17 UTC (Tue) by pbardet (subscriber, #22762) [Link]
I think a few click will work for you if you don't like the binary drivers that work for most other people... If you're techie enough to request open-source ony, you can do it yourself. Regular users like me will prefer the default setup that works best on my setup.
And it's not if you didn't have a choice... Fedora
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 21:44 UTC (Tue) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
You know, that Debian started as an FSF-sponsored project and it is still here...
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 22:18 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
A lot of people have this misconception. I don't know where it comes from. Yes, Debian was sponsored by the FSF for one year starting in late 1994. However, it was started without the FSF in mid-1993 and has continued without them since 1996.
It's true that the ideals of the FSF and free software guide Debian's actions at every turn. But Debian has followed its own course. (And thank goodness! Without Debian, who would have fought the G"F"DL?)
I like Debian a lot. Heck I used it almost exclusively from 2000 to 2004. Alas, I've found it wholly unsuitable for a production environment. Unstable is too old, testing is too unstable. Give me a newish, rock solid Debian (hopefully one without chatty debconf), and I'll definitely try it again.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 23:50 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
STABLE is too old, testing is too unstable.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 14:38 UTC (Wed) by errare_est (guest, #14275) [Link]
and unstable is stable enough x)
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 5:44 UTC (Wed) by cleary (guest, #41669) [Link]
I've found Kanotix : http://www.kanotix.com : meets these requirements (at least for me).Essentially it stabilises debian sid by applying it's own patches and fixes to the official sid release as packages. It's current, easy to maintain and has a great support network :)
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 1:54 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well you pretty much described Ubuntu also. (take Sid, patch the kernel, update desktop packages)
Me? I prefer Debian to just track Debian testing or unstable.
Testing is new enough for me. More stable then my experiances with Ubuntu or most other Linux distros have seemed to indicate.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 17, 2006 21:44 UTC (Fri) by h2 (subscriber, #27965) [Link]
<<< Well you pretty much described Ubuntu also. >>>
No, ubuntu freezes the sid pool to create a stabilized distro then works from that within each release version. Kanotix actually works live, in real time, with sid. You're not working with some subset of sid frozen, you are working directly in sid. I believe that Kanotix is pretty much the only distro do this, aside from of course Debian Sid itself.
Kanotix has done very well at this process, and often has had fixes out before they hit sid. Sid is unstable, and it takes work to keep desktops current and running. Kanotix makes that process easier.
As for sid being behind, sometimes in some cases, yes it's a few weeks behind as some major upgrade, say Xorg 7.0, 7.1, is tested in experimental, but usually it's pretty current. For example, I had kde 3.5.5 as my desktop before kde 3.5.5 was announced here on lwn.net. And often Kanotix has the newest kernels released more or less the same day they are announced here.
Aside from the ongoing issues Debian itself is having with Mozilla products, sid is pretty current. Filezilla linux 3.0 beta, for example, was in sid before it hit any other distro's package management system.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 8:41 UTC (Wed) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
I think the current plan is _not_ to enable binary drivers for those ATI cards that have working 3D support. Have to keep eye on it, but that would mean basically that the binary driver is only enabled for X1300-X1950 cards.
NVIDIA does not have any working 3D open source driver... yet - see Nouveau, http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/
And if Nouveau becomes stable, it will be again the default driver, even if it does not support 100% of the NVIDIA binary driver performance. Or this's what I've heard from an ubuntu developer, and I think/hope that this is the general consensus there.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 22:47 UTC (Tue) by a9db0 (subscriber, #2181) [Link]
"To binary or not to binary..."
It's a double edged sword, and so far I'm falling on both sides. I do use the binary nVidia drivers, as it's the only way to get decent performance for MythTV on my hardware. There really is a discernable, repeatable difference in performance and quality. However, the nv driver works perfectly well for everything else I do.
That said, I disagree with distributing binary drivers by default. It puts me as a user in a somewhat precarious position - if I download Feisty can I redistribute it? What happens if nVidia decides to change/revoke their drivers? It lessens the impetus for companies to release more free software friendly drivers. And it is a disincentive to driver hackers to continue working on free alternatives.
Free software is about choice, and I think users should have the option to use proprietary software if they like. But in the Linux world, which is built on the principles of free software, we should default to free software and let users make the choice. I use Kubuntu on my desktop - still Dapper Drake, but will be Edgy soon. And I run Debian testing on my servers. I was considering a move to Dapper LTS on one of my servers, to see how it managed over time. But perhaps under the circumstances I'll stick with Etch. And if the Ubuntu team makes the choice that Feisty ships with the nVidia enabled by default, I'm not sure I will choose to have it make an appearance on my desktop.
Dave
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 14, 2006 23:42 UTC (Tue) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]
Regarding your concerns about "What happens if NVIDIA decides to change/revoke their drivers?", here is the relevant portion of the NVIDIA driver license covering redistribution:2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).Obviously it is not a free software license. But the terms are fair, and apparently irrevocable. This is not a contract, and the other terms are standard boilerplate (no reverse engineering, etc...). So long as the distributor itself (e.g. Canonical or its employees) doesn't violate the terms, I see nothing legally problematic with this. It's basically the same regime that you see with Windows or OS X, both of which ship with large chunks of binary code under license to the manufacturer.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 3:04 UTC (Wed) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]
The GPL does not allow the Linux kernel to be distributed with nvidia drivers attached to it. Or something like that.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 5:35 UTC (Wed) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link]
The NVIDIA binary drivers are not linked directly with the kernel. They have a GPL kernel modulethat provides an interface that loads the actual binary drivers and runs them. This approach, I
believe, has been blessed by the kernel maintainers, although I seem to recall there was some
debate recently about marking as "tainted" any kernel module that did this, which would not allow
that module to access GPL-only symbols. It sounded like the ndiswrapper project was upset about
this, because they load proprietary wireless drivers, but are themselves 100% GPL. I don't know if
the NVIDIA folks have the same problem; they may be getting away with using only the generic,
non-GPL interfaces.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 8:39 UTC (Wed) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link]
you're assumption is wrong; the kernel maintainers haven't given anyone permission to do binary drivers or to copy kernel code into binary drivers.
It's up to the lawyers to decide if the kernel maintainers would need to bless/allow this, but if the answer is "they do" then there is a problem for ubuntu ;)
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 10:44 UTC (Thu) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link]
It's up to the lawyers to decide if the kernel maintainers would need to bless/allow this, but if the answer is "they do" then there is a problem for ubuntu ;)
This would be the same problem that Kororaa ran into? IIUC, shipping the same package that is obtainable from nVidia on the same media as the Linux kernel would not be a violation by the distributor. Shipping precompiled binary kernel modules from that package would be a violation by the distributor. "Distributor" would include anyone downstream, as well, such as Uncle Clueless copying his working system onto friends' and relatives' machines.
If such binary kernel modules are derivative works and distribution is a violation of the GPL, aren't the hardware manufacturers guilty of encouraging infringement?
Then again, maybe I'm Uncle Clueless in this situation.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 16:36 UTC (Thu) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link]
NVIDIA's in the clear as long as they're not the ones shipping the kernel modules. As for Ubuntu, they've got a cutesy little dodge in which the blob is only linked to kernel code when the system is booted. It's despicable, but it doesn't seem to be a GPL violation.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:43 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]
> Shipping precompiled binary kernel modules from that package would be a violation by the distributor.
So presumably, running the compiler as part of the installation process for that package would be OK...? After all, a user isn't going to notice the difference (installation means the same thing whatever) but it means that the user chooses to perform the step that distributors cannot, so the distributor isn't distributing a derived work.
...As a law student, I can't help suspecting that a legal distinction that narrow is a bit vulnerable to pressure. If I were a Linux distributor, I'd be loath to do any more for my distributees than point them at where they could get a copy of the drivers and give them really good installation instructions, and maybe a script to do the downloading (and to tell them that if they think this is a problem - and they really should; it *is* a problem - the appropriate people to complain to are nVIDIA for not making something as critical as a kernel module wholly free).
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:02 UTC (Thu) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link]
...As a law studentAs a working programmer with legal opinions, I guess I'm a little surprised at that analysis. Clearly the only people with the standing to complain about Ubuntu's distribution of the NVIDIA kernel binaries (which is clearly within the scope of the NVIDIA license) are the copyright holders of the kernel code. And they (specifically, Linus) have made it abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, that they do not think that the linking of non-free code into the kernel is not a GPL violation.
Basically, they punted. They aren't condoning the practice, and it's quite clear that they frown upon it. But they clearly aren't agitating for distributors to halt the practice either. So I guess, from a legal perspective, Ubuntu et. al. are "safe" right now. I have a hard time believing that the kernel folks are really going to get snippy about this. They want it to stop, but they don't want to hurt the distro companies.
As a side note: Ubuntu itself does not actually ship the driver in the default installation. The user must proactively download it from the universe repository. So for what it's worth, there's actually a second layer of "protection" there: the user has to choose to install the driver before the "link the module at boot" trick can even be used. There's no click-through license, though.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 17, 2006 3:07 UTC (Fri) by notamisfit (subscriber, #40886) [Link]
Actually, at OLS earlier in the year, Greg KH pointed out in no uncertain terms that binary-only kernel modules are, in his opinion, illegal. A quick glance at Google's lkml archives seems to show that he's not the only one. Most distributions that include the kernel modules use some cutesy trick to ensure they're not actually distributing a GPL-violating kernel module; Kooraa's XGL LiveCD got shut down over this one, then came back with Intel and r200/r300 ATI drivers. (FWIW, Linus once made a comment about some uses of binary-only kernel modules not being infringing eleven years ago, and has been living it down ever since.)
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 22, 2006 14:35 UTC (Wed) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]
Linus is, of course, only one of the copyright holders of the kernel code; many of the others have expressed the contrary view, and only one of them needs to start a lawsuit.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, andbling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 29, 2006 1:56 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]
Linus is, of course, only one of the copyright holders of the kernel code; many of the others have expressed the contrary view, and only one of them needs to start a lawsuit.... and more than one of them has already expressed an intention to do so ...
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 1:58 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
Ubuntu, and other distributions, should always have options that make it easy for people to choice to only install and/or copy open source software.That said, I strongly disagree with all the people who imply that they know better which video driver choices are in the best interests of other users than those users know for themselves. Following the links in the article, one comes to a commentary from a guy who makes his living working for a company producing a proprietary X server product and he's upset (no smileys) with Ubuntu for making this choice.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 2:25 UTC (Wed) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]
"That said, I strongly disagree with all the people who imply that they know better which video driver choices are in the best interests of other users than those users know for themselves"
That's not what people are saying at all. The problem with Ubuntu's actions is that it will have negative repercussions on the whole Free Software ecossystem.
A distribution is not a survey; it picks defaults for you. Ubuntu doesn't give you a selection of software to install, for example. And that's fine, because you can override their selections later. If it installs nv by default, you can then install nvidia; if installs the proprietary driver, you're free to replace it with the free driver. The issue being discussed is what choice Ubuntu makes for you, not if you're allowed or not to make a choice.
Now that Ubuntu is going this way for good, they should at least be honest and update their http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 4:15 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]
[[That said, I strongly disagree with all the people who imply that they know better which video driver choices are in the best interests of other users than those users know for themselves]][That's not what people are saying at all. The problem with Ubuntu's actions is that it will have negative repercussions on the whole Free Software ecossystem. A distribution is not a survey; it picks defaults for you. Ubuntu doesn't give you a selection of software to install, for example. And that's fine, because you can override their selections later. If it installs nv by default, you can then install nvidia; if installs the proprietary driver, you're free to replace it with the free driver. The issue being discussed is what choice Ubuntu makes for you, not if you're allowed or not to make a choice.]
Ubuntu is making decisions about how to best support their users based on estimates of what is most desirable overall to those users. Most people who commented negatively on this are not arguing that Ubuntu's estimates are wrong in this regard. Rather they are saying they don't like this criteria. That's because either they think it is bad for the users or they think it is bad for some other group of people (e.g. "the whole Free Software ecosystem"). Maybe you are right to think that I was being too charitable to interpret this criticism as concern for the users...
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:12 UTC (Sat) by JohnNilsson (subscriber, #41242) [Link]
I suggest that anyone who cares to understand this users vs. freedom conflict takes the time (30-40 minutes) to listen to Eben Moglen as he explains the stakes rather well.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 6:25 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
Ubuntu has made decision after decision not to choose free software when the free software choice would have involved a little more work for Ubuntu. This includes their primary support tool, their forum, their development support tools, and now their driver set.
Yes, often the free software path would involve more work shouldered by Ubuntu, but the dividends for having all these tools customized to meet their needs would pay off over the years easily, and would help other orgniazations who would pay them back by improving the tools again, and so on, one hand washes the other.
Ubuntu as an organization seems at best weakly commited to the Free Software philosophy. Cynic that I am, I believe they are, as an orgnization, purely opportunistic about it, and shortsightedly at that. There's nothing catastrophic about that. Even a shortsighted, opportunistic company who uses free software can benefit themselves and the free software community, but there is something I find difficult to respect about the strong disconnect between what they preach and what they practice.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and
Posted Nov 15, 2006 14:36 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
"That's not what people are saying at all. The problem with Ubuntu's actions is that it will have negative repercussions on the whole Free Software ecossystem"
While Ubuntu will enable those drivers by default, it will educate the users about dangers of binary drivers, and it will point them to hardware with free drivers. So it's not THAT bad.
What we have here is a question that should a system be designed for gurus or regural users. It's the gurus and Linux-enthusiasts who care deeply for free drivers. The regural users just want a system that Just Works out of the box. Currently, Ubuntu (or Linux for that matter) does not work for them, since it requires tinkering (like installing drivers for the vid-card). They are faced with a choice of using Windows that has everything up & running out of the box, or they have the choice of using Linux, which requires them to tinker.
The enthusiasts don't mind that tinkering. If they want 3D, they wont have any problems installing the drivers. If they want free drivers, they don't have to do anything. They have it easy. But those regural users? They might want to play a game or two. They would like to have that Compiz eye-candy. But they can't, unless they tinker. So the burden of tinkering has been placed on the people who are the LEAST ready to do it. And that's far from ideal.
This new scheme would simply mean that the burden of tinkering would be placed on the people who don't mind the tinkering, while the regural users (who just want to use the computer with minimium of fuzz) don't have to worry about installing drivers. Don't want binary-drivers? Then don't use them. But why do you want to force regural users to go through the trouble of installing drivers, just because you don't want to use those drivers?
Will this harm free software? Hardly. Right now, many people choose to stick with Windows since it seems to them that they need to tinker with Linux, if they want to use it. THAT harms Linux. If we can move those people over to Linux, it will benefit free software. In short: which harms free software the most:
a) people keep on using Windows
b) people move to Linux, with few bits and pieces of closed software
How would scenario A be better than scenario B? And even in scenarion B, the people who want 100% free Linux, could still have it.
proprietary X drivers bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 8:07 UTC (Wed) by alexl (subscriber, #19068) [Link]
This sounds pretty bad for the future of X. If most users used proprietary X drivers its unlikely that there will continue to be anyone working on the free drivers, so they will deteriorate and die. This means that developers won't be able to do any work on X that requires changes to drivers, and X development will come to a standstill.
Do you think ATI or NVidia would spend time creating things like randr2, aiglx, or composite? Of course not, they only do the minimal amount of work needed that is expected for a current X driver.
proprietary X drivers bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 13:15 UTC (Wed) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link]
I agree with this; as it is already the nouveau project could use a lot more help; the same can be said for many of the wireless drivers.
There are GPL drivers out there for most if not all wireless cards. Some just need a bit of loving to make them work well (but not all that much).
It's the ease of cheaping out that holds all these things back...
and look at it from the other side: why would a vendor open source ANY driver in the future now? What is the advantage for them if their competition can stay closed and get even better support than the open drivers?
This is dangerously going into the direction where Linux will have no open drivers at all soon, at which point the entire development will come to a grinding halt.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 8:42 UTC (Wed) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link]
It's sad to see that Ubuntu hasn't chosen the road of helping projects like the Nouveau project (which is quite far along in rev engineering the nvidia hardware) or the open ATI drivers instead..
I can understand that people want good support for the HW. But shipping binary drivers when the open projects only need a little help... Sad.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 17:08 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]
The main Problem I have with the closed-source drivers is not that it's not easy to install (I'm using Debian Etch or Sid). It's that they're subjectively less stable, and more likely to break, than open source drivers. And not only the ATI ones, which are somewhat brittle, but the NVIDIA ones too.
I'm pragamtic, as long as they are the only way to get decent 3D-performance, I will use them, but I would prefer open-source drivers.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 15, 2006 17:18 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link]
There is some really good x.org news there I think!
Getting configuration to work better would be really nice. It would also
be cool if Ati released documentation for their cards, I really hope they
will. Also the open source Nvidia driver sounds promising.
Ubuntu Developer Summit report: X.org improvements, driver controversy, and bling (Linux.com)
Posted Nov 16, 2006 6:10 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes exactly.
The programmers that work on current open source drivers for things like the reverse engineered Free-software R300 drivers are _GOOD_ freaking developers. They positively kick-ass.
Think about it.. These guys are working under terrible conditions. No documentation. The manufacturer of the hardware is not only indifferent they are, at times, seem actively opposed to open source drivers. No documentation, no developer resources, no communication with engineers, no nothing, no help, no 'here is a patch to fix your problem'. Nothing. Nada.
And yet they are ablet to turn out drivers that, despite being slow, are more stable and just plain better then the drivers provided by 90% of the hardware manufacturers whose development teams have the benifit of having the guyd that designed the board down the hallway. (more or less)
Imagine how well it will work out if these guys don't have to reverse engineer anything, but have the benifit of manufacturer's assistance in understanding how the cards work?
Nvidia says: 'It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not help'.
Well then just strip their developers of everything that they use in their day-to-day jobs, hand them a PC, a debian install cdrom, 10 dollars for a budget, a black-box peice of hardware which they have no idea how it works and then tell them to make 3d drivers for it. Lets see how far they get with that.
I know that with open source developers we get pretty decent drivers. If that doesn't proof that open source driver developers are capable enough to make drivers, then I don't know what will.