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]

x86] link=topic=6614.msg80363#msg80363 date=1152722331]
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:

x86] link=topic=6614.msg80363#msg80363 date=1152722331]
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]

x86] link=topic=6614.msg80410#msg80410 date=1152732176]
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.