On 6/26/07, alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > On 6/26/07, Mario Rossi <mariofutire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I've seen something with nVidia GE 7XXX or GE 8XXX. >> >> Alternative is ATI 1650SE >> >> Or should I go for one Intel integrated? >> >> >Yes. >> >> >Intel integrated + ADD2 DVI card + "intel" xorg driver >> >= open source solution. >> >> >The Intel driver is open source, not a binary blob. >> >> >> Thanks. >> You mean that the open source driver for Intel card has a much better >> support than the open source driver for ATI and nVidia. >> >> I think I will investigate again and look for the one you mentioned. > > Granted, I work at NVIDIA, so my opinions are going to be slanted > here, but I don't see how one defines support as better in one driver > versus the other unless you've got some written contract guarenteeing > a particular level of support. "Support" in this case means "I have source and can fix it if I need to".
If you're fixing the code yourself, then you're not getting support. For the vast majority of people, they are not going to fix the code themselves when something is broken, they need someone, somewhere to help.
It is not obscured by a large binary blob that the user cannot touch. Support contracts have little or nothing to do with it.
On the contrary, support contracts have a lot to do with it. Unless you're fixing the code yourself, there are no guarentees anywhere that any issues that someone has with a driver, be it closed or open source, will ever be addressed. Open source projects are full of long standing bugs which haven't been fixed. Just because code is open does not mean that a bug is going to get fixed faster unless you are the one who is capable of fixing it. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
