From: Sean <seanlkml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > There are clearly cases where the benefit of using a proprietary solution > outweigh the risks involved. By "proprietary" do you mean proprietary "source", or "standard" or both? See how quickly the over-simplification of "open" v. "proprietary" can get? I don't like the fact that the nVidia "nvidia" driver is proprietary any more than you do, but there are sound, legal reasons for it (even if I'm not aware of all the latest developments -- I just remember the ones from the XFree86 3.3.x nVidia GLX release fiasco, as well as the initial nvnet drivers, etc...). At the same time, at least *1* person was unaware that most of the latest nVidia GeForce 6000 series card (NV40, 42, 43, 45, etc...) work "out-of-the-box" with Fedora Core 4, and even the 6800 (NV40) did with Fedora Core 3. I know, I loaded it on an Athlon64 PCIe GeForce 6800GT and bam! It worked solid at 2D. ATI is _no_better_ than nVidia, and they have only more recently joined them on the "unified driver" approach and are 3+ years behind. > However, there are _way_ too many people making excuses for > abandoning open source. Many of whom seem motivated > by brand loyalty without any concern for system integrity or overall > viability of open source alternatives. And I agree with you. IBM gets far too much credit right now, while people demonize them. Heck, even Sun gets demonized compared to IBM, and people don't stop to think that IBM and Sun aren't much different when it comes to licenses -- and at least Sun gave us StarOffice/OpenOffice.org with a dual-license that includes LGPL. > These bloody zealots for nVidia are every bit as much engaged in > religion (or not) as the supporters of open source software (ie. both > are just supporting what they believe in). No offense, but I _am_ as much of an "apologist" for nVidia as Red Hat, because there _are_ legal issues involved. Whether it's NDAs or trademarks, sometimes the hands of people are tied by 3rd party, Common Law, etc... Eventually these details _will_ get commodity. I already appreciate the fact that more and more chipset-integrated GPUs are supported out-of-the-box by GLX. I spent 20 months in the semiconductor industry, and have many colleagues at both ATI and nVidia. I was there when the whole portage of CAM and EDA tools to Linux happened, as nVidia started offering quality GLX support for Linux. A lot of vendors already had "lite" versions running on Win32/GLX (via X11 emulation), and were working on Win32/DX ports. But once Linux opened up an "economies-of-scale" POSIX/GLX platform, those vendors went to Linux instead. It's not the game market -- it was the CAM/EDA market that put nVidia where it's at. Games are chump change in the Linux realm. Sure, Sony is going to change that, and GNU is already the development platform outside of Microsoft for games. But the reality is that most people are completely oblivious of how important it was for an viable, performance capable GLX solution to be available for Linux before the mass ports started to Win32/DX. > Anyway, my comments were not about abolishing personal choice or in > denying the existence of _exceptional_ cases, rather as a counterbalance > to the unthinking there-is-no-cost-at-all-in-using-binary-modules > mentality. I don't think _anyone_ is saying that. I think people are just tired of ATI being "held up high" or other vendors when nVidia _does_ put a number of people on the MIT 2D drivers. I typically find that XFree/Xorg works _better_ out-of-the-box on newer nVidia cards than ATI -- and the lag between release date is not much different at all (typically in nVidia's favor). Yes, sometimes there are new cards of a new nVidia NV3x or NV4x series that aren't supported in the MIT drivers until the next XFree/Xorg revision. But same deal for ATI! Same deal for Matrox! Same deal for a number of vendors! In fact, Matrox isn't open either. Now from what I understand, the AGPgart and memory logic in nVidia's kernel driver is becoming more open, because Intel just freed nVidia of some contractual obligations on some of their more NDA stuff. I don't have all the details, because I'm not privy to them, but it explains a lot. > That applies both in terms of system integrity and the social > implications. Agreed. But understand not all of us are "ignorant" of them. In fact, we are no more "ignorant" of them than those who are "ignorant" of the benefit nVidia provided by having a GLX option in lieu of virtually no other viable solution. And the last time I checked, even the Freedomware BSD/MIT GLX implementations aren't the best in stability either. Which is how this whole thread started -- people complaining its the proprietary model. The reality is that we're talking about products being released and obsoleted so fast that the drivers don't have time to mature -- be they proprietary or open! ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
