X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules [LWN.net]

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 2:16 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266)
Parent article: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Well, as much as it pains me to admit it, I am one of the nVidia users who would be in a very bad spot if Fedora Core 5 upgraded X and there wasn't a nVidia driver available. The sad reality is that there is no open source driver that meets my needs. If there were, I'd use it, but it JUST DOESN'T EXIST. And considering the situation with FC5 when it was released (no binary module support), it'd be silly for Fedora to break binary graphics drivers now.

As it stands, I am going to have to wait until a NVidia driver is available for my linux distro. The free NV driver is unacceptable slow (if it even works on my current card... haven't tried it in years). If FC6 ships with X.org 7.1 (which I think it should) and nVidia doesn't have a driver, then I will have to wait until that driver arrives before installing FC6. If nVidia is late releasing the driver, I will be mad at them and consider switching cards, as I did with ATI when I had driver issues with them. But if Fedora breaks my working system, it won't be nVidia that I'll blame; it'll be Fedora.

to post comments

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 6:13 UTC (Tue) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link] (5 responses)

This entire saga is a balance between what you, as non-free linux user (you are not using an open source OS, see Dave Airlied's OLS talk) want and what the people who bought an open source supported card need. The later is of course all Intel graphics (40% market share) and a chunk of ATI users (R300), both of which have drivers that made a huge leap forward in X 7.1, adding lots of hardware support.

It's not a clear case that your position is worth more than the other users position...

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 7:50 UTC (Tue) by warmcat1 (guest, #31975) [Link] (4 responses)

> It's not a clear case that your position
> is worth more than the other users position...

It's not clear, but it is pretty clear a chunk of the Fedora userbase cliff face would crack off and fall into the sea over having their working desktops broken, tainted or not. It's legitimate to shrug one's shoulders over that and go on anyway, but obviously after a few such decisions Fedora as a project will be looking at an eroded and calcified userbase with reduced new user blood coming in because of the word of mouth. Fedora can even shrug its shoulders at that situation, since it has the bubbling wellspring of Redhat money underpinning it so doesn't have to care if all around is a desert.

Binary drivers are bad news, no doubt, and keeping them at a distance and in the cold is good, but right now they bridge the gap between what some users must have and what Fedora can provide.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 10:27 UTC (Tue) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't disagree that a distribution must consider usability as well as
freedom, and that there is room for different choices. However, Fedora
has made this choice. Fedora _does not_ support binary drivers. This
bridge was already crossed.

It seems the discussion found some other issues which were important as
well, and so have decided to keep with 7.0 on the balance.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 10:44 UTC (Tue) by warmcat1 (guest, #31975) [Link]

Yes Fedora has always had that stance, I think it is a good stance.

However many Fedora users for whatever reason ARE using binary drivers of one flavour or another, it's a fact. Therefore there are ramifications to 4KSTACKS or xorg 7.1 or whatever the next problem will be that shows the fissure between the open codebase that can move with it en bloc and the closed codebase that is fragile.

It is a political decision how to balance those needs, the damage to binary driver users got plenty of airing on fedora-devel and I am sure it was part of the considerations in not pushing all updating FC5 users on to xorg 7.1. And that's probably a good thing, some realpolitik, because this running sore will be with us for a long time AFAICT.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 10:58 UTC (Tue) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link] (1 responses)

there is another angle as well; and that is the chicken-and-egg one. NVidia won't release a 7.1 driver until a major distro uses 7.1. And if the major distros won't go to 7.1 until nvidia supports it... nothing ever changes and progress is harmed.

Progress is harmed for the majority of users; last market share numbers that were on theregister.net were something like "intel 40%, nvidia 20% ati 20%". Both Intel and ATI users gain from 7.1 with better suppoprt for their hardware, much better support in fact.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 11:14 UTC (Tue) by warmcat1 (guest, #31975) [Link]

Yes, fair enough. But in this particular situation it is not the stasis of "nothing ever changes": nobody argues against xorg 7.1 in FC6. FC6 is very close, many (most?) FC5 people will be updating in the next month or two. Any delay in exposing xorg 7.1 to mass usage on Fedora is therefore very limited.

Stepping between FCn versions is in the hands of the user and he knows he can expect strong differences (eg, FC1 -> FC2 == 2.4 -> 2.6 ). Such a user might receive the result of nVidia binary breakage with a shrug and use nv or vesa until the new binary release, because he knows he can expect 'excitement' of the good or the bad kind from updating to a new release. It seems a good place to bring in a large core component update regardless of the binary question. The fact that an FC5 user can actually use the development repo xorg packages to get the new stuff if they really needed it (as I do) makes it even less objectionable to the FC5 user.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 9:57 UTC (Tue) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (9 responses)

You have the option to stop upgrading, downgrade to FC4, or buy a new video card. It was your decision to buy Nvidia. You knew the score before you bought it.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 11:51 UTC (Tue) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Is downgrading really an option, when it could open up security holes?

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 13:39 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link] (7 responses)

Come on, downgrade, or stop upgrading? Please. First of all, this opens me up to security vulnerabilities. Second of all, this means I have to know when an update is going to break my working system. Anyway, I can turn this around: anyone who wants xorg 7.1 right now can just update it manually.

The fact is: Fedora Core 5 has a certain set of features. Compatibility with the nVidia binary driver is one of those features, and it is an important enough feature that the first FC5 kernel update contained a fix that compatibility. An update to a distro (esp. one that is nearing the end of its life-cycle, since FC6 is nearly ready) should NOT remove features without a damn good reason. Breaking your users' systems is BAD.

You can argue that some users actually need the enhancements in 7.1. That's fine, but by NOT delivering 7.1 you're not breaking their working systems, you're simply not supporting their potentially working systems. And it's not as if you can't provide, via something like an optional yum repository, support for 7.1 for people who need it. But to force 7.1 down the throats of users who don't want it (yet)? That's a good way to alienate your userbase.

It's a pretty clear-cut case. Installing xorg 7.1 breaks some users. Not installing it doesn't break any users. FC6 will be out soon and will include xorg 7.1. Therefore, FC5 stays at 7.0.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 14:43 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (6 responses)

The simple fact is: RH let themselves be forced to operate based on the whims of a closed-source vendor. This is an extremely bad situation.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 15:16 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link]

Let's not get over-dramatic. Fedora decided not to break users' systems. They didn't decide to cancel upgrading to 7.1. They didn't decide that xorg 7.1 will never be in Fedora Core 5, ever. They just aren't shipping it now, but I bet that when the binary drivers are available it will be pushed out as an update. Users who want it now can get it. Users who don't want it have working systems. This is not a question of Fedora abandonning its principles. They aren't going to start shipping the binary drivers, or the mp3 codecs, or any of those other products that users arguably want but violate, in some way, the politics of Fedora/RedHat.

Consider this: pushing xorg 7.1 into yum's updates will force people to upgrade, since it's a cumbersome task to manage this update process and somehow exclude xorg. Furthermore it means that Fedora will stop supporting xorg 7.0 and this may leave non-upgrading users vulnerable to security problems. But by NOT pushing xorg everyone who has a working Fedora system gets to keep using it, and anyone who wants xorg 7.1 can get it somewhere else (like, FC6 or fedora development).

Frankly I'm glad that Fedora made the decision that causes the least harm to their users. And I think it's clear that this stance is the proper stance, no matter what the cause of the delay is, whether it's lack of a popular binary driver, or some other incompatibility that is outside of Fedora's control. This is what a responsible distro does: it packages quality software together, and coordinates and manages the releases to maximize the user's productivity and convenience. So I say Thank You to the Fedora developers.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 15:36 UTC (Tue) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link] (3 responses)

...on the whims of a closed-source vendor

What a weird interpretation. Did NVidia command the Fedora board not to upgrade? You seem to think that NVidia is somehow acting against the community, or trying to force everyone to comply with their will. In fact they are trying to support Linux - in their own way, which is admittedly suboptimal.

I don't like the hostility in your statement (and others on this page). There are quite a few companies freedom-loving people can justifiably detest. But I don't think ATI and NVidia are among them.

The availability of a closed source driver harms free software development by attenuating the need for free ones - conceded. But that doesn't mean that NVidia (or ATI, for that matter) are enemies of Linux or Open Source. No more than any other company (say Google, say Sun, ...) which doesn't open up all their source code.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 17:27 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (2 responses)

My intentions were not so hostile to NVidia. This is mere business logic. The question is who can apply pressure to whom.

RH decided not to upgrade a piece of critical infrastructure because a single(!) company failed to put out their closed source driver in time. From a consumer's perspective, this is not good.

I started out long ago with a similar sentiment like yours, that is, let's give NVidia a break and let's just accept that they're doing their Linux support in a different way. When Arjan van der Ven's (I think) piece on closed source drivers in the kernel came out, I thought it overdramatic at first.

However, it is now clear that any slack on the part of NVidia _is_ able to affect a distribution release adversely after all. Only a single vendor, mind you - but it can threaten RH with the anger of NVidia's users, anger that should be directed at NVidia.

What will happen if this starts affecting more than one driver, as A van der Ven theorized? Already with two perhaps conflicting vendor dependencies, we'll end up in a much more difficult situation ... do you chose X.org 7.5 which supports the latest card by Martian grafix, Inc - or do we ship X.org 7.3 instead, because the widely popular Obsolox Zillienium adapter is supported there, but not later?

Then think three conflicting vendors.

It may be possible to hold up everyone else's releases and follow only a single vendor's schedule, NVidia's. But if we allow one such case, there will be more. What then?

My take is: If vendors like NVidia insist on closed source, fine. But if they are then not fast enough to upgrade their drivers, this MUST be their problem, and that of their users. As it is now, suddenly the pressure is applied to everyone else to NOT upgrade, but not applied to NVidia to upgrade. How very wrong.

With this choice, we are moving towards the unmaintainability of the free software part that Arjan projected as his worst case scenario. That's a long way off - but he may have had a better point than I first thought.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 17:36 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree with most of what you're saying, except that the following distinction should be made: Fedora Core 5 is already shipped, installed, and stable. There is no compelling reason to break user functionality. I don't think anyone is saying that Fedora should delay including xorg 7.1 in FC6 if the nVidia driver isn't ready. At that point it will be nVidia's fault that their driver doesn't support a popular distribution. But at this point, with FC5, it is Fedora that would be breaking my working system, or, at best, forcing me to A) find out that a particular update will break my system, and B) figure out how to back out that update, and/or prevent it from applying, thus potentially leaving me open to other dependencies breaking and security vulnerabilities.

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 19:54 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Point taken; although gentoo's default choice continues to puzzle me a bit. Anyway, may NVidia one day see the light from all this debate ...

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 20:33 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

"The simple fact is: RH let themselves be forced to operate based on the whims of a closed-source vendor. This is an extremely bad situation."

My understanding is that at least with Nvidia drivers Redhat will refuse to support driver issues with that thing running. It's been a source of quite a few nasty bugs in the past.

For other stuff.. like apps that run on Redhat. Ya certification of propriatory apps is one of their major selling points so they would have to conform to closed source vendors they work with.

X.org free driver support for recent ATI cards

Posted Aug 16, 2006 2:28 UTC (Wed) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link] (1 responses)

The sad reality is that there is no open source driver that meets my needs. If there were, I'd use it, but it JUST DOESN'T EXIST.

I use ATI Radeon 9250 cards on all our machines for which free 3D support is excellent, however these cards cannot plug into current motherboards.

At a recent SLUG presentation, an Xorg developer spoke of better support for some later ATI cards in Xorg. Is there free support for later ATI video cards (those that support “PCI Express” motherboards) in Xorg 7.1?

X.org free driver support for recent ATI cards

Posted Aug 16, 2006 21:42 UTC (Wed) by droberge (guest, #10852) [Link]

I recently purchased a PCI Express motherboard and a Radeon X800 GTO card. The 'radeon' driver in X.org 7.1, along with the DRI kernel drivers in 2.6.17 and the latest Mesa support this out of the box, although I haven't had it long enough to see if the 3D is truly stable. AFAICT the 2D portion of the card is the same as earlier cards so the 2D portion of the driver works just fine. The driver supports the higher 9000-series Radeons as well as the X-series (but not the X1000 series).

It was a little difficult to find information on the status of the driver, but the documentation in the DRI Wiki (http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/) is getting better every day.