On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:12:49 +0100 Frank Barknecht <fbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > NVidia is the prime example. They provide closed source > drivers, a lot of (probably most) users are happy about this, NVidia > makes millions of dollars also in the Linux market. No free software > drivers? Bah, who the heck cares? And who the heck cares, that you > cannot buy a single modern 3D-card anymore, which has open source > drivers, by any manufacturer? Oh, that's not the fault of the linux > community, Matrox simply sucks, they don't provide binary only > drivers, NVidia rulez. Well, Matrox *does* suck. I bought a Matrox G550 because it was an upper-end card with an open driver. I repeat: the open driver was the biggest reason I bought a Matrox, and not another, card. So what happened? I spent over a year trying and failing to get a working 3D setup. What I got instead was constant hard lockups requiring a full system reset, and X log files filling up with error messages from the DRI drivers before the reset. Even with journalling filesystems, that's unacceptable. Passing the info on to Matrox merely got responses that OpenGL/3D under Linux was not supported. Passing the info on to the DRI project folks got no response at all; further queries revealed that the DRI project's Matrox experts effectively aren't involved in the DRI project anymore, so now no open source developers are working on the Matrox drivers. A little bit of time spent in the XF86/X.org/DRI bug tracking systems will show similar Matrox bugs that don't get any responses from the developers. So what to do? I need halfway-decent 3D performance for my work. Find a new line of work? Or buy a used old GF4 on ebay for $50? I wish nVidia's drivers were open. But the fact that they're not is a complete turnoff only if there is an acceptable alternative. Sticking with Matrox when I cannot get my work done with Matrox is not an acceptable alternative. I suspect many people feel the same way about closed source audio drivers. It's not that people don't value open drivers, or do not care about this issue. It's more a question of whether someone values open drivers so much that they're willing to forsake being able to do particular things with their music. For many (most? dunno.) users of proprietary software, free software alternatives exist that will do everything they want, and do it well. But for many others, that's not true. And telling those users to simply forego doing what they want or need to do as a stand for a cause is a very big request. Of course, people have sacrificed their economic health, and much more, for the cause of freedom before. But not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software; rather, it's been the freedoms accompanying equality of race or gender or religious background under the law. Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing their financial security for that freedom. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20041128/f2d71ef9/attachment.bin
