Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 112

Thread: NVIDIA Drops Their Open-Source Driver, Refers Users To VESA

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Sure I want OpenGL 4.0 in games... it provides stuff to work with which is great

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    Wrong, they do.
    Xreal its the only one and thats only a stubit Quake3 port

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    By analizing Qaridarium's points, intead of the way he put it; I realy have to agree with his last two posts... entirely.
    oh thank you very much :-)

    "intead of the way he put it"

    i do my best... but my english is still worst ever..

    "entirely"

    yes entirely,entirely,entirely,entirely....

    my last catalyst isn't good driver fail was to install ubuntu 10-04...

    not a good idear if you wana use fglrx... in simple words fglrx do not work for me and for a frend with complete diverend hardware it do not work to!

    AMD really makes good PR for the Opensource driver wow radeon is the 'BEST' because radeon works!

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Xreal its the only one and thats only a stubit Quake3 port
    If you only know that engine, then yes, this might be true... but there is more in the world than just Xreal.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    The xf86-video-nv driver is described as "open source", and maybe that
    is true, but I think it isn't free software. If the "source code" is
    obfuscated, then it isn't real source code. It appears that the real
    source code for this program is not available, which means it's not
    free software. Its discontinuation is no loss.

    To say that nvidia' motive is to "protect their intellectual property"
    is basically vacuous, because "intellectual property" is so vague that
    it doesn't mean anything, so it lends itself only to confusion. If
    you want to make a clear statement, that's always easier if you avoid
    that term. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.)

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    794

    Default

    OMG. The FOSS guru was here!


    Quote Originally Posted by rmstallman View Post
    Its discontinuation is no loss.
    Well, I see that code obfuscation is a pretty lame thing when you want to call a program still free software. So yes, it might not have been a wonderful piece of freeness but for those who bought their chips before they were aware of free as in freedom hardware designs or "at least" free drivers and all that - it gave them an opportunity to use their chips at all without relying to a completely closed system (nvidia-blob) that would even abandon support for these older chips (legacy).
    So I was still quite happy that nv was around.
    Of course if nouveau will be finished it will be the far better alternative (even though it is probably mainly made "just" be reverse engineering).

    Quote Originally Posted by rmstallman
    "intellectual property"
    I.P. is a stupid thing every way. I believe that there is private knowledge that has to be protected but on the other hand there is public knowledge that should be freed.
    A real int. property is hard to imagine since everything we build is made upon the knowledge and research of our forefathers (and mothers, 'kay). As a chemist I know that well. And I know that all I do is recombine the things I learned and found in publications to create something new. But still all this is based upon research that started in the early days of mankind (making fire e.g.). So how could I call that property?

    I like to speak of intellectual work or an int. achievement.
    That sounds far better and more true to me than property.

    But try to tell that to the "content mafia".

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmstallman View Post
    The xf86-video-nv driver is described as "open source", and maybe that
    is true, but I think it isn't free software. If the "source code" is
    obfuscated, then it isn't real source code. It appears that the real
    source code for this program is not available, which means it's not
    free software. Its discontinuation is no loss.

    To say that nvidia' motive is to "protect their intellectual property"
    is basically vacuous, because "intellectual property" is so vague that
    it doesn't mean anything, so it lends itself only to confusion. If
    you want to make a clear statement, that's always easier if you avoid
    that term. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.)
    Totally agree with you here. What's the point of having a feature-crippled obfuscated "open-source" driver if you can have the almost perfectly-working blob? I mean, for ATI you have arguments like "if the blob crashes the system the kernel devs won't help you" but for nvidia it's still "if the OSS driver crashes the kernel devs CAN'T help you", since they can't understand the source code. So what's the point? Obfuscated source is just the same as no source, so I wonder why distributions were bundling that driver at all instead of just falling back to vesa or something

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoBrain View Post
    so I wonder why distributions were bundling that driver at all instead of just falling back to vesa or something
    Go, work with a VESA driver and then lets talk again. It was a matter of pragmatism of distributors to put xf86-video-nv in. I honor VESA driver cause if all else fails this sometimes still works but it brings you a graphic surface. Nothing else. Try to actually work using xf86-video-vesa and you'll end up crying most of the time.
    Zero acceleration, you can't even scroll in a browser without getting seasick. No energy management, not all resolutions supported, 50 Hz or something, just nothing. Sometimes it feels like being on Windows 3.11 on a 80286.
    (I admit it was the only one capable of firing up my VGA out on the old laptop for presentations though.)
    So nv was something that most people would accept and a lot of non-idealists (but more pragmatist) would download the blob later anyway.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmstallman View Post
    The xf86-video-nv driver is described as "open source", and maybe that is true, but I think it isn't free software. If the "source code" is obfuscated, then it isn't real source code. It appears that the real source code for this program is not available, which means it's not free software. Its discontinuation is no loss.
    Completely agree with this and is largely why I find a lot of the outrage about nVidia's recent decision weird. Whether the nv driver is maintained or not has no large functional impact on what people are currently doing with their nVidia cards.

    Quote Originally Posted by rmstallman View Post
    To say that nvidia' motive is to "protect their intellectual property" is basically vacuous, because "intellectual property" is so vague that it doesn't mean anything, so it lends itself only to confusion.
    While I largely agree that the term should die in a fire, the very fact the the concepts of Intellectual Property have the force of law make the issues surrounding I.P. that nVidia need to consider relevant here. nVidia can themselves openly rally against the legitimacy of the term I.P. in a purely intellectual sense, but until they or someone else changes the law, they need to factor its ramifications into the decisions they make.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    I think nVidia anti-opensource behavior has nothing to do with actual state of intellectual property law. Of course they are limited, but that does not mean they can not do anything. AMD has same IP "problems" like nVidia, but they were able to deal with them, and release at least specification of their hardware and activelly help to build new OSS driver. Now look at nVidia and think about their IP. Why they refuse to release specification? I hardly believe argument they protect their hardware secrets, because ATI hardware is considered to be superior these days, and ATI use very different strategy.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •