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

X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

Posted Aug 15, 2006 13:39 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266)
In reply to: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules by russell
Parent article: X.org, distributors, and proprietary modules

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.

to post comments

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.