Linux driver support...

[Newby]

...the lack of driver support is not Linux's fault. It's the hardware manufacturer's fault who refuse to cooperate with anything but M$.

Release your driver to the open-source community. Somebody will port it, and bam, said driver works.

It's just sad that this will never happen. I hate the fucks that refuse to switch to Linux because of a lack of driver support. If we all just sent e-mails to ATi, Lexmark, etc., all those motherfuckers that refuse to help out the open source community, stating how you feel they'll never get business again (because we'll be switching to nVidia, HP, etc.), they suddenly might start releasing drivers.

Hell, it makes sense to release drivers open source anyway. People can keep them up-to-date and whatnot. Less of a load on the company!

[/rant]

[iago]

I totally agree.  That's why I hate video cards (ATI / nVidia). 

[Sidoh]

I totally agree.  That's why I hate video cards (ATI / nVidia). 

O_o

nVidia has awesome support for Linux.  They have a universal driver that works just as well for Linux as it does Windows.

[Ergot]

I totally agree.  That's why I hate video cards (ATI / nVidia). 

O_o

nVidia has awesome support for Linux.  They have a universal driver that works just as well for Linux as it does Windows.

Nvidia rocks.

[Blaze]

I have a really good ATI driver for my card... *shrug*

[iago]

I totally agree.  That's why I hate video cards (ATI / nVidia). 

O_o

nVidia has awesome support for Linux.  They have a universal driver that works just as well for Linux as it does Windows.

I was using it at work, but it would crash about once/day, at random (sometimes at night, sometimes while I was working, etc)

The problem is that the drivers aren't opensource, so they can't be included with X.  Thus, it's annoying for newbs to install.  Thus, it sucks. 

[MyndFyre]

Hell, it makes sense to release drivers open source anyway. People can keep them up-to-date and whatnot. Less of a load on the company!

You just think that.  What will happen is, open-source branded drivers will pop up all over, for Windows and Linux, particularly if they open-source the Windows driver.

As these become more frequent, people Googling will find the open-source drivers.  Maybe they'll have heard FireFox is open-source, and they're using it, so open-source drivers must be better!

Then there will be a bug in the driver, and the user won't know how to fix it.  The user will try to call ATI, or whoever, and they'll say "Sorry, we don't support it."

Now, NVidia supports their Linux drivers, and regularly updates them.  You might see other rewrites of it, but not because NVidia oesn't support their drivers.

So as a business decision to support Linux, they need to decide whether they:
a.) provide a major rewrite to their drivers and keep them updated and supported, or
b.) turn customers away.

Either way it's a major investment, and both are decisions that will cost them in the long term.  Because Windows enjoys such a massive market share over Linux, it's not that Microsoft has an evil conspiracy against Linux - it's because it's not worth the return on investment to write to Linux.  As you all constantly tout, Linux is used predominantly in the server market, where you won't find Radeon 9800s or GeForce GTX 7950s.

So there you go - there are the business reasons for not going open-source with your drivers.  When people say they're releasing a "driver for the NVidia Xxx", NVidia is going to get a phone call when the driver doesn't work.

[Newby]

It's not that hard to say "we don't endorse the open-source driver for <x> graphics card, please use our official one."

[Ergot]

It's not that hard to say "we don't endorse the open-source driver for <x> graphics card, please use our official one."

It's not that hard to skim passed it with the rest of the bullcrap they make you read.

[Newby]

With font like this above the downloads, or on the open-source driver page, it isn't hard to see.

[iago]

You just think that.  What will happen is, open-source branded drivers will pop up all over, for Windows and Linux, particularly if they open-source the Windows driver.

I disagree.  There are plenty of open drivers, and I've never seen more than one branch/stream turn up as a result.  If the driver works well on Windows, it's not likely that people will change it.  If the driver is ported to Linux, then Linux users can find it themselves with "Linux ipw2200" or whatever.  That's always worked well for me, and I've never seen any driver that could accidentally be the wrong version. 

The same can be said for any other software, too. I haven't heard any cases of somebody downloading gAIM while looking for AIM, or downloading OpenOffice while searching for Office.  Additionally, even though xmms is opensource, there aren't xmms-like programs popping up all over. 

I strongly feel that your premise is faulty, since all current evidence contradicts it. 

So the dilemma you sketched out is false:

So as a business decision to support Linux, they need to decide whether they:
a.) provide a major rewrite to their drivers and keep them updated and supported, or
b.) turn customers away.

The third option: document the interface/hardware.  Let other develop for it, provided they don't claim it's the real thing. 

[MyndFyre]

I'm not going to argue with the rest of the stuff because I do not have evidence at the moment, but this:

The third option: document the interface/hardware.  Let other develop for it, provided they don't claim it's the real thing. 

Why would vendors do that?  Then they would have competing chip makers.

As it stands that can license the chip documentation under NDAs, charge for the license, and have vendor lock-in.

[iago]

I'm not going to argue with the rest of the stuff because I do not have evidence at the moment, but this:

The third option: document the interface/hardware.  Let other develop for it, provided they don't claim it's the real thing. 

Why would vendors do that?  Then they would have competing chip makers.

As it stands that can license the chip documentation under NDAs, charge for the license, and have vendor lock-in.

Hmm, yeah, and Microsoft publishing MSDN online creates competing operating systems.  Because giving people the specifications for the interface lets them re-write the code. 

[MyndFyre]

Hmm, yeah, and Microsoft publishing MSDN online creates competing operating systems.  Because giving people the specifications for the interface lets them re-write the code. 

Uhh, WINE?

AMD making a binary-compatible microprocessor?

[Warrior]

They'd be giving up their trade secrets which Microsoft probably paid money for by releasing a standard. They also arn't going to (easily) release drivers and let alone open drivers for Linux. My advice: Be happy with propriatary drivers, most OSes would kill for atleast *some* 3D support.

I think it's pretty selfish of Linux users to demand drivers when other companies (Microsoft) are willingly paying money and signing an NDA for the drivers. They don't comply with YOU, you comply with THEM.

As long as Linux is open source I believe this is how it will remain. Money is valued over any kind of morals people seem to have, sorry.

[iago]

In response to Warrior and MyndFyre (who both have obnoxiously long signatures.. coincidence?):

Well ok, just to Mynd: WINE wasn't created because Microsoft gives documentation.  And WINE also doesn't undermind Microsoft or make them lose money, and nobody has yet gotten WINE mixed up with Windows (as far as I know).  Also, I thought of another example:  how often have you looked for a linksys driver and accidentally found tulip (the open-source driver for Linksys)? 

And to Warrior: nobody is asking companies to write them special drivers, which is what it sounds like.  Nobody is even asking them to release source code for current drivers (it would be nice, but that's fine).  They need only release a schematic of the interface, or make it possible for somebody to access the schematic.  Although Linux is opensource, there are a lot of very capable Linux developers who would sign an NDA and write a closed-source Linux driver for propriatary hardware.  The hardware companies would benefit greatly by doing so, and most Linux users would use it regardless of the license.  The hardware company gets free labour, and the Linux users get a free driver.  What's the problem?

[Warrior]

And to Warrior: nobody is asking companies to write them special drivers, which is what it sounds like.  Nobody is even asking them to release source code for current drivers (it would be nice, but that's fine).  They need only release a schematic of the interface, or make it possible for somebody to access the schematic.  Although Linux is opensource, there are a lot of very capable Linux developers who would sign an NDA and write a closed-source Linux driver for propriatary hardware.  The hardware companies would benefit greatly by doing so, and most Linux users would use it regardless of the license.  The hardware company gets free labour, and the Linux users get a free driver.  What's the problem?

You're right, that would work and I doubt nVidia or ATi would have a problem provided they sign an NDA and are willing to pay the same price the others have paid. I'm basing my post from the majority of issues I've seen is people shunning propriatary drivers and demanding open source drivers.

 I'm all for you guys having video drivers, hell it evens the playing field. I know I was making a generalization before but this is surely not the way to go. If and only if they approach this in a non demanding way and show ATi and nVidia that they benefit then it works.

I'm sorry but I'm just really against people who believe GPL is the only way for Open source to be and that's the attitude of most people I've talked with. You can spread open source if you want, hell it's a damned good idea if enough people like it but using GPL as a tactic to do so is just stupid. It started off as a good idea but now it's a load of bull.

Back on topic howerver, is reverse engineering (even by Clean Room Design) possible?
I mean if the developers can atleast get a feel for what instructions and ports to write to and access 3D functions it would be better than nothing. With that they could build onto it and improve it over time. Perhaps this may even concern ATi due to quality issues and make them release a more stable propriatary driver?

From the information I've personally read (2D Radeon drivers, VMWare 2D/3D Drivers, etc..) if you have 2D acceleration you're already atleast in the playing field of 3D Accel and it's only a matter of some unknown registers and portwriting.

[Newby]

I think it's pretty selfish of Linux users to demand drivers when other companies (Microsoft) are willingly paying money and signing an NDA for the drivers. They don't comply with YOU, you comply with THEM.

I don't comply with fucking shit. I stop buying high-end products from companies that refuse to cooperate with the release of good open-source drivers (or at the very least, schematics so people can develop the drivers) and move to ones that have some cooperation.

Just an FYI, the last statement you said in my quote only works for Microsoft, who could literally not sell another product from this day on and STILL afford to pay their employees until they died. Companies ala ATi should comply with their users, because nVidia complies better than they do with Linux and my next card is guaranteed to be an nVidia card. ATi just lost any future purchases I would have made.

[Warrior]

I think it's pretty selfish of Linux users to demand drivers when other companies (Microsoft) are willingly paying money and signing an NDA for the drivers. They don't comply with YOU, you comply with THEM.

I don't comply with fucking shit. I stop buying high-end products from companies that refuse to cooperate with the release of good open-source drivers (or at the very least, schematics so people can develop the drivers) and move to ones that have some cooperation.

Just an FYI, the last statement you said in my quote only works for Microsoft, who could literally not sell another product from this day on and STILL afford to pay their employees until they died. Companies ala ATi should comply with their users, because nVidia complies better than they do with Linux and my next card is guaranteed to be an nVidia card. ATi just lost any future purchases I would have made.

Sorry but that's not going to make them care, I can see them caring if Linux had like 20% marketshare.

[Newby]

Sorry but that's not going to make them care, I can see them caring if Linux had like 20% marketshare.

When suddenly nVidia gets that many more customers and ATi loses the number of customers they gain, they might get a clue.

And hey, even if they don't notice, it shows how much we mean to them.

[Warrior]

Sorry but that's not going to make them care, I can see them caring if Linux had like 20% marketshare.

When suddenly nVidia gets that many more customers and ATi loses the number of customers they gain, they might get a clue.

And hey, even if they don't notice, it shows how much we mean to them.

When that happens then yea, they probably will.

And yes, unfortunately companies value money over customers.

[iago]

You're right, that would work and I doubt nVidia or ATi would have a problem provided they sign an NDA and are willing to pay the same price the others have paid. I'm basing my post from the majority of issues I've seen is people shunning propriatary drivers and demanding open source drivers.

 I'm all for you guys having video drivers, hell it evens the playing field. I know I was making a generalization before but this is surely not the way to go. If and only if they approach this in a non demanding way and show ATi and nVidia that they benefit then it works.

I'm sorry but I'm just really against people who believe GPL is the only way for Open source to be and that's the attitude of most people I've talked with. You can spread open source if you want, hell it's a damned good idea if enough people like it but using GPL as a tactic to do so is just stupid. It started off as a good idea but now it's a load of bull.

Back on topic howerver, is reverse engineering (even by Clean Room Design) possible?
I mean if the developers can atleast get a feel for what instructions and ports to write to and access 3D functions it would be better than nothing. With that they could build onto it and improve it over time. Perhaps this may even concern ATi due to quality issues and make them release a more stable propriatary driver?

From the information I've personally read (2D Radeon drivers, VMWare 2D/3D Drivers, etc..) if you have 2D acceleration you're already atleast in the playing field of 3D Accel and it's only a matter of some unknown registers and portwriting.

I would prefer that the developer didn't have to pay for the driver specs, just sign the NDA.  The reason is, Linux developers often don't make much money for their development, and allowing a developer for a free OS access to the specs won't harm anything. 

In any case, you're right that we aren't likely going to see a GPL'ed driver with blessings from the company.  It would be nice, but I don't expect it.  I do support GNU and GPL, and think that they are great systems.  They create a inter-friendly pocket of applications that work well and are helpful to people.  There are problems, yes, but I still support the principal.  I'm also aware that it's impossible for the whole world go to GPL, even if the FSF would like that.  Again, it would be nice, but it's not realistic. 

[Warrior]

You're right, that would work and I doubt nVidia or ATi would have a problem provided they sign an NDA and are willing to pay the same price the others have paid. I'm basing my post from the majority of issues I've seen is people shunning propriatary drivers and demanding open source drivers.

 I'm all for you guys having video drivers, hell it evens the playing field. I know I was making a generalization before but this is surely not the way to go. If and only if they approach this in a non demanding way and show ATi and nVidia that they benefit then it works.

I'm sorry but I'm just really against people who believe GPL is the only way for Open source to be and that's the attitude of most people I've talked with. You can spread open source if you want, hell it's a damned good idea if enough people like it but using GPL as a tactic to do so is just stupid. It started off as a good idea but now it's a load of bull.

Back on topic howerver, is reverse engineering (even by Clean Room Design) possible?
I mean if the developers can atleast get a feel for what instructions and ports to write to and access 3D functions it would be better than nothing. With that they could build onto it and improve it over time. Perhaps this may even concern ATi due to quality issues and make them release a more stable propriatary driver?

From the information I've personally read (2D Radeon drivers, VMWare 2D/3D Drivers, etc..) if you have 2D acceleration you're already atleast in the playing field of 3D Accel and it's only a matter of some unknown registers and portwriting.

I would prefer that the developer didn't have to pay for the driver specs, just sign the NDA.  The reason is, Linux developers often don't make much money for their development, and allowing a developer for a free OS access to the specs won't harm anything. 

In any case, you're right that we aren't likely going to see a GPL'ed driver with blessings from the company.  It would be nice, but I don't expect it.  I do support GNU and GPL, and think that they are great systems.  They create a inter-friendly pocket of applications that work well and are helpful to people.  There are problems, yes, but I still support the principal.  I'm also aware that it's impossible for the whole world go to GPL, even if the FSF would like that.  Again, it would be nice, but it's not realistic. 

Well maybe them paying is too much, I don't know a lot about ATi's stipulations but last I heard it was like  $5,000 per spec under NDA and if they had interest in you. It was a semi unreliable source so I don't know.

[iago]

I could understand charging a commercial company like Microsoft or Apple, since they're trying to make money.  But you'd hope that they'd allow volunteers to do it for free, provided they signed the NDA and didn't ask for any help.