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

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 9:44 UTC (Tue) by russell (guest, #10458)
Parent article: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

When I bought my laptop, I chose an Intel graphics solution because of their support for free drivers. Why didn't everyone else do the same? Looks like closed source drivers aren't the only problem. The people that buy that hardware are also a problem. Sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but why should people who see the value in freedom suffer from the choices of others.

to post comments

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 13:53 UTC (Tue) by smulcahy (guest, #2758) [Link] (4 responses)

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

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 15:23 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

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?

Yes: UNIX was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU project's philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software. But, applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to use a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package.

Sometimes it's Ok to use proproetary software. If you have to. If people lives depend from your work. Or if you are working on free drivers. But if games is the motivation behind NVidia choice - then you deserve breakage. After all you can start X.org 7.1 with old NVidia drivers if you'll use -ignoreABI option - and if sub-pixel rendering options makes a mess out of your desktop... you knew what you've bought...

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 16, 2006 10:08 UTC (Wed) by russell (guest, #10458) [Link] (2 responses)

If your playing games on windows, then what do you use the 3d aceleration for under Linux? Can you get by with the nv driver?

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 16, 2006 10:14 UTC (Wed) by smulcahy (guest, #2758) [Link] (1 responses)

Hi,

Yes, I don't have any compelling need for 3d under Linux other than for eye candy. The last time I checked the nv driver worked ok apart from 3d. I have an ATI X700 Pro in my desktop at the moment though and that does not seem to work with the free ati or radeon drivers (apologies for my ignorance, I'm no expert on the ati drivers but I do recall trying both before downloading the binary driver - which has consistently suprised me with how well it installs on versions of debian testing).

-stephen

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 18, 2006 3:04 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

> I have an ATI X700 Pro in my desktop at the moment though and that does not
> seem to work with the free ati or radeon drivers...

Unless that's one of the cards with no 2D core at all (and possibly even if it is), you should be able to use the VESA driver, right? Granted, it's not fast, but I do almost nothing but development, and there's virtually nothing (save only 2D scroll rate, perhaps) that would actually be significantly better with acceleration. Of course, that does assume the VESA modes suffice to drive the monitor at its/your preferred resolution. ;-)

Greg

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 15:05 UTC (Tue) by wilck (guest, #29844) [Link]

Your argument appeals to nobody but die-hard Linux fans. Normal users will ask their local PC dealer, who will tell them that NVidia/ATI's the best, and that NVidia/ATI "support Linux". They will find similar information on the Web, too (not on LWN, of course). That's why "everyone else didn't do the same" as you did.

I find it understandable that GPL compliance of drivers is not the first priority criterion for some people when buying hardware. Even for those who know about the problems with proprietary video drivers, their FPS performance may be tempting.