Lonni J Friedman wrote:
OK, random example: where is the nvidia bug tracker? Pretty standard
support tool for anything linux-related - the kernel, xorg, gnome, kde,
openoffice...
Its available to all of NVIDIA's customers. If you have to ask where
it is, then you're not an nvidia customer.
Hmm, I didn't order my Intel GPU direct from Intel either, but I can
still access the driver bugzilla. I guess you finally have some evidence
of how open source support can be better.
How is being forced to purchase a specific display device in order to
use the GPU a lower hurdle than using any display device with the GPU?
You can plan for hardware requirements. The closed-source bugs and
kernel incompatibilities of the binary drivers are harder to manage.
Many people are editing movies on laptops. Just not with Intel GPUs.
OK, agreed, they should use closed drivers and ati/nvidia hardware.
> As long as "everyone else" doesn't include anyone running workstation
> graphics applications or anyone in the film industry or anyone doing
> GPGPU work, or even casual gamers who want to play Quake every now &
> then. I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. You're
> concept of "everyone else" is an extremely small percentage of the
> graphics market from a revenue perspective.
Fair enough - from a revenue perspective. MS Windows also dominates
server OS sales - from a revenue perspective. Not true from a count of
installations, of course.
We're talking about hardware, not software. Please don't change the
focus just to bolster your argument.
It's an analogy - see the parallels? The "power users" are of course the
big spenders, so they will dominate the revenue picture. But most users
simply do not need the power of the latest nvidia/ati hardware.
I'm saying that open sourcing a driver does not equate with support.
I'm sure that Intel does the best job that they can to support
whomever they deem as important to their business. However,
pretending that just because they have open source drivers their
support is somehow better is delusional.
So intel has open source drivers AND good support, and nvidia just has
good support (well, for its direct OEM customers, at least).
In what way is the closed nvidia code and process better than being
open? How does that benefit users?
I never claimed that it was better. I just said that its certainly no
worse.
Exactly equal, perhaps :-)
No one here has yet to provide any concrete evidence to prove
otherwise.
OK, how about the fact that kernel developers can't debug kernel<>driver
relationship issues because the driver is closed? Hence the kernel
bugzilla prohibition against reports from nvidia users? Does that not
count as evidence?
- Mike
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
