Blame Fedora. Again. [LWN.net]

By Jonathan Corbet
May 21, 2008

As your editor writes, the Fedora development list is the scene of an extended, heated discussion about Fedora 9. One might think that some users would be unhappy about the inclusion of KDE 4, say, or maybe it's an issue with Firefox 3, with its refusal to run older extensions and persistent fsync() bug. It would not be hard to imagine users being upset by the continued presence of Codeina. In fact, nobody seems to have much to say about those issues. Instead, a small group of very vocal users is complaining about the X Window System.

That, too, might not be completely beyond imagination. Your editor can certainly attest that Rawhide users had more than their share of X-related fun over the course of the Fedora 9 development cycle. The interesting thing, though, is that just about all of the problems reported by Rawhide users got fixed before the final release. So, while Fedora 9 has a lot of very new X infrastructure, it seems to be fairly solid infrastructure.

The problem, instead, is that NVIDIA has not shipped a version of its binary-only graphics driver which works on Fedora 9. These vocal users feel that the Fedora Project has done them a major disservice by shipping a release without an NVIDIA-compatible X server. Instead, they say, Fedora should either have declined to ship a "pre-release" server, or it should provide a separate set of packages with an older server for NVIDIA users. NVIDIA seems to agree:

Fedora 9 is shipping a pre-release X server. If you can't wait for an updated NVIDIA graphics driver and the limited support provided in 173.08 graphics driver release is insufficient for your purposes, please use the X.Org nv driver or fall back to a supported distribution.

There are a few responses to be made to this set of claims, starting with the "pre-release" bit. The server is only "pre-release" by a relatively short period of time, and, more importantly, the ABI for this server release has been frozen for a few months now. The X developers have made it clear that the ABI will not change before the 1.5 release ships. So there's no real reason why NVIDIA could not release a driver if it chose to do so.

But NVIDIA has not so chosen. More to the point, NVIDIA has implemented a clear policy of not releasing drivers for a given X version until that version appears in a stable release by a major distribution. This is a policy which forces some distributor to ship a version of X which is not supported by NVIDIA. Criticizing a distribution like Fedora for being the first one out with a new X version seems misplaced; if one is averse to the use of new software, there are probably better distributions to be running.

But what about the compatibility packages request? Beyond the inconvenient fact that putting resources into supporting proprietary software is contrary to Fedora's policies, that sort of support is expensive to provide. See Adam Jackson's response for a blunt summary of just how expensive. If Fedora developers start putting their time into that sort of project, they will be putting less time into making Fedora itself better. This does not seem like a good tradeoff for Fedora users who, after all, have chosen a distribution with a "100% free software" policy.

And, certainly, some Fedora users appreciate the priorities that the developers have taken:

Well I'm an Intel & Radeon user and Xorg in F9 is dramatically better better for all my machines. So, yes, if new code improves life for the open source drivers, lets do this again & again in future releases. I don't want my desktop experience held hostage by one company with binary drivers.

In fact, X has gotten significantly better, and it has gotten better more quickly as a result of Fedora's decision to go with the upcoming release. Any attempt to maintain compatibility with proprietary drivers would, at best, slow that progress down significantly.

Users unquestionably have the right to hook binary-only drivers into their systems. But ensuring that those drivers work with current free software is their problem - not the free software developers' problem. The use of proprietary software may have some advantages for some people, but it does put users at the mercy of the only people who can fix or update that software: the software's owner. Most developers (most!) do not overtly wish to make life difficult for users of binary drivers. But asking them to go out of their way to shield binary driver users from the decisions made by their vendors is not just excessive; it actively risks making things worse for free software users.

Anybody who wants to criticize Fedora can certainly find any number of valid things to gripe about. Your editor would start with the two obnoxious PackageKit icons which materialized on the GNOME panel, and which, it seems, cannot be made to go away without the application of a fair amount of dynamite. Why does a Rawhide user need a constant reminder that there are updates available? But the failure to provide an NVIDIA-compatible X server does not seem like an appropriate thing to complain about. One should not blame Fedora for being free software.

to post comments

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 1:55 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (guest, #24648) [Link]

While we're here playing the blame game, understand that NVIDIA's stable drivers fail to build the kernel module in 2.6.25[.x]. Their 173.08 driver works fine, but it is currently considered beta quality.

I had the same experience as the F9 users when I first tried installing one of NVIDIA's stable drivers with the vanilla 2.6.25[.x] on Slackware 12. But, their (beta) 173.08 driver hasn't given me any trouble so far.

Blame who you will, but my personal thoughts are (1) this is the price I pay for mixing FLOSS and proprietary binary driver code, and (2) Fedora should not be blamed for the NVIDIA's proprietary driver not working on F9.

You make a deal with the devil.

Posted May 22, 2008 6:22 UTC (Thu) by AndyCap (subscriber, #33480) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm a nvidia user since they do have nice drivers for linux, but I wouldn't think to blame
Fedora for pushing the envelope to the detriment of closed source users. I like the new
software, and for the box with an nvidia card, nobody forces me to upgrade to the latest
release. In my opinion people who feel the need to complain about the state of affairs should
be talking to their card vendor and nvidia about better support in *free* software, so one
could avoid this problem in the future. I do have Intel and ATI hardware as well, but alas the
Intel won't let me play bzflag and I haven't quite been able to figure out why yet. I'm
cautiously optimistic though.

You make a deal with the devil.

Posted May 22, 2008 8:47 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Indeed, Fedora 8 is still supported.  So what's the problem?

Do not blame Fedora!

Posted May 22, 2008 7:42 UTC (Thu) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link]

Anybody still asking the kernel to have a stable ABI? Anybody? Good. Because now we know the
price for trying to support binary blobs: no innovation. Thanks Fedora for not following that
road (this time... http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/).

Although not a Fedora user, I _do_ support their decision, especially as they clearly stated
they want a _free_ distribution. I just hope Nouveau is making good progress, because I would
really like no proprietary drivers on my computer either.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 9:33 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] (4 responses)

I have had the same Fedora fun as your editor, it's the same for every version. Something is always broken, missing or poorly implemented. Here, udev for example: [request], [reply]. Also, the time (my) bugs rot in bugzilla seems rather high compared to Novell.

<slight-bias>I am much more satisfied with openSUSE and Debian.</> You can run their betas/sid quite reasonably on production servers, while in Fedora, you cannot even run their regular releasesyour editor probably knows that by now.
As for OpenSUSE, there is no problem with 2.6.25 and nvidia on 10.3 (=xorg 7.2) (I do not have all the kernel modules for no reason!). I have not tried xorg 7.3 with nvidia yet nor recently tried Debian with 2.6.25, but someone else can probably report about the state of success.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 19:29 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] (3 responses)

To be fair, Red Hat is doing a lot more low level software development 
than Debian (which, AFAIK like Ubuntu mostly just packages upstream 
packages) or I guess even Novell, so their users get more bleeding edge 
software (issues)...

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 23, 2008 1:57 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Debian is getting the software to work together. It's a much more unified system then anything
else I've seen. The thoughtfulness of documentation, configurations, and scripts supplied with
Debian is fantastic for the end user and goes on to benefit other distributions. They take all
the different, disparage, software put out by the community and unifies it. They do this to a
much greater extent then other distributions. And they do it without any commercial support or
corporate control, unlike every other popular distribution.

Who supports the vast majority of software for their distro?
Who makes sure that everything compiles and works well on PowerPC, ARM, and etc?

-------------------------------------------------------

Ubuntu simply copies Debian's packages and sticks them in 'universe' and occasionally does
stupid things that break things.

But Ubuntu is able to take Debian and Gnome and create a (usually) _very_ solid and thoughtful
desktop experience. They may not be the most technical savvy people out there, but they do do
a fantastic job at making things user friendly. It's all in the details and it shows.

Fedora or Debian gives a much more fractured experience. Much more difficult for people that
have no prior Linux experience.

---------------------------------------------------------------

And like you said Fedora does a LOT more development on the actual OS then any other
distribution, except maybe Novell and their Suse stuff.

They take much bigger chances and push the envelope much harder. Always with mixed results but
they do do a fantastic job. I always have the feeling that Fedora has much closer
relationships with upstream developers then anybody else.

All the newer technologies that are making Linux a modern commercially competitive system seem
to come from Fedora-way. It reads like a laundry list. SELinux, for example.

Without Fedora breaking in new software all us Debian and Ubuntu users would be in for a MUCH
MUCH rougher ride. Seriously.

---------------------------------------------------------

Everything is a trade off. Ubuntu vs Fedora vs Debian vs whoever.. they all have their
laughably bad moments.

What the pro-nvidia-support folks don't realise is that they are essentially they are telling
Fedora that they should hold back on features and improvements that have a very positive
impact on open source video drivers and a great number of users for the sake of making
Nvidia's job easier.

Don't forget that out of the people that use ATI, Intel, Via, or Nvidia hardware that the
Nvidia proprietary driver users are the much smaller minority.

And anyways. Nvidia has to support Fedora eventually, because within a couple months every
other distribution is going to have the same software with the same API/ABI interfaces.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 23, 2008 10:26 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, slightly tangential to the topic, but I wonder how many DDs are actively working on
the lower-level stuff. I do not believe it is an insignificant figure. For LWN's kernel
contributor analysis, redhat shows up because the contributors are using their @redhat.com
addresses. It would be nice to see some people use their @debian.org ones and see if Debian
could get into the charts. However I expect DDs who are employed to work on kernels are using
their employer's address for commits.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 24, 2008 12:28 UTC (Sat) by jkeating (guest, #35963) [Link]

For all the Red Hat folks using @redhat.com there are many Red Hat folks who use their
personal addresses for upstream contribution.  Some fairly significant ones too.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 11:26 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

I'm not a Fedora user currently, but I certainly like their priorities - rock on Fedora team!

I'm a happy Fedora user

Posted May 22, 2008 14:20 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link]

I'm a happy Fedora user. Proprietary drivers have ALWAYS been a problem with Linux systems, be they NVIDIA or the wireless drivers that require ndiswrapper. In fact, they're a problem for Windows, too - notice the large number of hardware devices that Vista doesn't support, because it lacks the drivers.

The short-term solution is to wait and NOT upgrade to Fedora 9 until the drivers you need are available. I do not automatically replace my system the day Fedora is out. I may replace one or two less-critical systems, to see how it works. But for anything important, I'll wait a few weeks, then test it (e.g., run a live CD) to see if it "basically works". Then, once I see it's okay, I'll install. That's a good plan for ANY infrastructure component, not just Fedora.

The long-term solution is for open source software drivers to be developed that replace the proprietary ones. And yes, I _do_ buy products depending on whether or not there are open source software drivers. My condolences to those who are stuck with only proprietary drivers.

In the short term, I think Fedora should try to encourage developers of key proprietary components work with their product. But Fedora should not be BEHOLDEN to them; that's where I think these complaints go too far. I don't think it's reasonable to blame Fedora for this! The blame is squarely on NVIDIA, who do not provide an open source software driver nor the data necessary to quickly build one.

The X folks have tried to create stable binary APIs, but they have to change occasionally. Stable binary APIs don't work so well in changing environments!

There _IS_ a standard device API for Linux. It's called "source code". NVIDIA is simply refusing to follow the standard.

Next weeks QOTW!

Posted May 22, 2008 17:07 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link]

From Adam Jackson's response to the idea of compatibility packages:

How's no sound? Is no good for you? No's great for me.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 17:37 UTC (Thu) by kjp (guest, #39639) [Link]

NVIDIA proprietary blobs are the only scourge left on my home box.  I'm eagerly anticipating
getting an Intel card to get away from this madness.  
I don't even use 3d - just tv out. 

Go fedora team.  And I hope you're reading, NVIDIA.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 22, 2008 18:08 UTC (Thu) by yyidth (guest, #18842) [Link] (1 responses)

Lot's a broke is par for the course with anything from Redhat, this sort of short sighted
choice is to be expected. But, it doesn't really effect the bulk of users since most folks are
aware that one should be waiting for the proverbial first service pack anyway.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 23, 2008 1:45 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

How so? RHEL is solid. Fedora is bleeding edge, and works just fine if you take a minimum of care selecting supported hardware (nothing new here, Linux has always be this way).

The trouble our esteemed editor mentions was with rawhide, the experimental branch of Fedora (yes, that is also what I run here. Stable releases are just too boring ;-)

KDE 4 is a horrible

Posted May 25, 2008 15:40 UTC (Sun) by dwkunkel (guest, #5999) [Link] (3 responses)

The only issue I have so far with Fedora 9 is really not Fedora's fault. The KDE 4 interface
is incredibly bad! Fortunately I have other choices.

KDE 4 is a horrible

Posted May 28, 2008 0:05 UTC (Wed) by lakeland (guest, #1157) [Link] (2 responses)

Try 4.1, I view 4.0 as a preview release and 4.1 as the real release.

KDE 4 is a horrible

Posted May 29, 2008 14:14 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (1 responses)

The following is written with the conscious realization that I'm not a KDE 
dev, just a (rather avid power) user...

Preview release?  KDE 4.0 didn't have anywhere near full feature or 
functionality implementation yet, so an early alpha or an early technology 
preview.  

4.1 has /most/ functionality implemented, but not all (no proxy support in 
a full release?? you ARE kidding, right?? unfortunately not, so not all 
even sanely expected functionality implemented even with 4.1), so it's a 
late alpha or a late technology preview.

So it'll apparently be at least KDE 4.2 before we even get sanely expected 
features implemented and at least generally working (if not yet bug free), 
which would make it finally beta quality.

Again, all this said as a very avid KDE 3.x power user, because nothing 
else fits my power user needs as well, an avid power user who fully 
expects KDE 4 to get there and then surpass KDE 3... some day.  However, 
that day isn't today, and apparently isn't going to be any time in the 
immediate future, certainly not 4.1, but possibly 4.2, and hopefully by 
4.3 at the very latest, for rough parity.  If they stick to the six-ish 
month 4.x release schedule, that'll be Q1 or Q3, next year.

Duncan

KDE 4 is a horrible

Posted Jun 5, 2008 8:20 UTC (Thu) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"Preview release?  KDE 4.0 didn't have anywhere near full feature or 
functionality implementation yet, so an early alpha or an early technology 
preview."

It was the initial release of the KDE4-technology. It wasn't really intended for
everyday-users. The devs were quite clear on that point.

"4.1 has /most/ functionality implemented, but not all (no proxy support in 
a full release?? you ARE kidding, right?? "

I tested the Beta1, and there was settings for proxy in System Settings. Am I missing
something?

And if all the reports around the net are to be believed, 4.1 is A LOT more "complete" than
4.0 is. There's buttload of polish and lots of new features. 4.1 just might be the ideal point
to jump aboard the KDE4-train.

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 29, 2008 7:08 UTC (Thu) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

Hats off (no pun intended) to Fedora!

Their pushing of the envelope helps all free X drivers, including nouveau.

The choice what to support with their blob and when is nvidia's alone. WYSIWG.

I'm a bit shocked that providing compat packages seem to be a 60h job. Be that as it may, the
people who absolutely must run F9 and the blob NOW can of course build these themselves, or
motivate someone (with money??) to do it. Crying "wanna wanna wanna" proved not to be a good
motivator...

(Where's ESR when you need him?)

Blame Fedora. Again.

Posted May 30, 2008 14:37 UTC (Fri) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]

In this case, many other distros need to be blamed too. As it looks like the Nvidia drivers are not only having trouble with the latest Fedora, but also - to mention a couple - with Ubuntu 8.04 and Archlinux. Specifically, the latest Nvidia binary drivers for the legacy Geoforce 2 do not play well with KDE 3.5.9. When you log off your kde session, rather than getting back to the kdm login window, one just gets a black screen with the X server just hanging.

Blame Fedora. Again.-------- who me!!!

Posted Jun 4, 2008 4:30 UTC (Wed) by cavin1 (guest, #28766) [Link] (1 responses)

I love Fedora, well I did until FC9, now I'm not sure. As Jonathan says "Well I'm an Intel and Radeon user and Xorg in FC9 is dramatically better", well let me say this ole chap I have been trying to get FC9 to load the driver/server for my Radeon 7000 (Chip 6200) since the day FC9 was released, to no avail. It works fine in text mode but no GUI, neither Gnome nor KDE. Hence I'm not sure 'bout FC9 and even Suse or Ubuntu are looking good, not to mention PCLOS. I have been using Fedora since FC4 with no issues, yikes !!! Regards Des Cavin

Blame Fedora. Again.-------- who me!!!

Posted Nov 18, 2008 4:37 UTC (Tue) by davis8 (guest, #55238) [Link]

My sympathy is with Des Cavin. I tried to install a Fedora Core 9 DVD from the October 2008 issue of a Linux magazine. All was well until I opted for graphical installation as shown in the magazine's illustrated screen shots. The Anaconda installer detected my Radeon 9600 video card, the monitor went blank and lost all feed, and the computer went into a trance only curable by switching off and rebooting. Two repeat episodes later, I tried the text install option which worked - that is, unless you wanted a graphical display when the operating system was loaded.
The blame problem could be substantially reduced by provision of more information. No computer can run every operating system, and no operating system can run every bit of hardware. Why not publish a list of incompatible hardware, or compatible hardware, for Fedora Core 9, to lessen the number of people upset by installation or program glitches? Regards, Norm Davis