NVIDIA Publishes Code For X Synchronization Fences

[pingufunkybeat]

But how does the availability of the closed drivers make Linux completely dependant on them?

It doesn't.

It's the LACK OF OPEN DRIVERS that is making Linux completely dependent on the closed drivers.

And the lack of open drivers is directly related to Nvidia refusing to open specs, even under an NDA.

[pingufunkybeat]

EDIT:

Nvidia likes the fact that they have a huge influence on the Linux desktop, and instead of complaining about it and demanding open drivers, the people here are saying how open drivers are extremist and how anyone choosing open drivers over 15fps is an idiot.

And again, I can understand it if your specific use case requires functionality only provided by binary drivers at this time, but you, unlike some other people here, at least understand why an open alternative is needed, even if it doesn't match the binary blob performance 100%.

[mugginz]

It's the LACK OF OPEN DRIVERS that is making Linux completely dependent on the closed drivers.

The lack of open drivers for nVidia cards only makes users of nVidia cards partly dependant on closed drivers. When I was running the 9800GT Nouveau actually provided a desktop that was useful for some tasks. I would imaging I'd have been in a similar boat running the 9800GT and Nouveau as those running an Evergreen card and open drivers. Clearly if fully functional open drivers are critical for someone they should choose Intel or ATI where possible and then be careful which cards they choose there as well.

But I don't see that nVidia have any clandestine secret plan to undermine the Linux platform. For there to be a business case for them to invest money in their closed driver there must be sound reasons for them to not want the platform to be hurt. If they were trying to actively hurt Linux they would at the very same time be working against their own interests.

They've stated that open drivers are not part of their strategy. That much we know for fact. Why this is so, they're not saying. Or at least they aren't coming forward with enough detail for anyone to be able to judge their purity one way or the other on that particular matter.

So given that they're not doing an ATI, the practical ramifications of that for each individual is there for each individual to judge based of their very own special circumstances.

But to equate nVidia's current stance on assistance towards open drivers as anti FLOSS is a pretty long bow to draw.

The lack of active open source assistance isn't evidence of them actively trying to harm openness. It's simply is what it is. Had the factions inside of AMD that brigman mentioned triumphed and shut down the open driver assistance of AMD that also wouldn't of meant they were anti-FLOSS either, only that it didn't at that time make business sense for whatever internal reasons were predominant at that time.

I want nVidia to provide the same as far as open drivers are concerned that AMD provide. The fact that they don't doesn't mean I should hate them or refuse to use their products where their products make sense to use.

[mugginz]

Nvidia likes the fact that they have a huge influence on the Linux desktop,

I guess it stands to reason that a company would like to be in a dominant position in a market they compete in. The position they hold is that way for a reason though.

and instead of complaining about it and demanding open drivers, the people here are saying how open drivers are extremist and how anyone choosing open drivers over 15fps is an idiot.

No. They're not saying that at all.

Firstly some are accepting the benefits of nVidia's closed drivers and no wining about the lack of open drivers. Then there are some who use the closed drivers and also wine about the lack of open drivers.

Secondly, people aren't saying that open drivers are extremist.

You're twisting what's being said.

And again, I can understand it if your specific use case requires functionality only provided by binary drivers at this time, but you, unlike some other people here, at least understand why an open alternative is needed, even if it doesn't match the binary blob performance 100%.

But who is saying we must use closed drivers?

Those who use closed drivers want to continue to use them. You have people who are satisfied with the open drivers as well. Some of those who are satisfied with the open drivers are also suggesting that anyone using the closed drivers are anti-FLOSS in some way.

You're trying to attribute the faults of the "open drivers are good, closed drivers are bad" mob onto the supporters of "open drivers are good and closed drivers are good as well" people.

[pingufunkybeat]

Secondly, people aren't saying that open drivers are extremist.

No, they are saying that demanding open drivers is extremist, as functionality is the only thing that matters.

[mugginz]

No, they are saying that demanding open drivers is extremist, as functionality is the only thing that matters.

No they're not. They're saying that demanding only open drivers is extremist.

[numasan]

My dream is being able to use only FLOSS from top to bottom, for ideological reasons. The thing is, even though this dream is almost true after a decade of using Linux (also professionally on graphical workstations), some things aren't ready yet for my needs.

I guess many of you who trash Nvidia and swear by the in-progress open ATI-driver only have limited needs of modern GPU's (desktop-compositing, video-playback, q3-engine games, etc.), and that's lucky for you. It doesn't make it the best solution for everyone just because it's open source, no matter how much we all would like it. As it is now, if you need the best OpenGL performance (look past games here) we need the proprietary drivers. If I were to buy a new gfx-card it would be because I need the extra punch of performance for my task. As much as I would like to buy the newest ATI offering and use the open drivers with it, what would I gain by having performance that is lower than my current 4 year old Nvidia card? And sorry, choosing between the closed Nvidia or ATI driver, I'd choose Nvidia...

I have strong belief in FLOSS, and I have no doubt that in time the performance and feature-set between open and closed drivers will be negligible, but until then (3+ years?) I choose a (good) closed driver on a Linux platform, because that is where I get the best workstation performance compared to Win/Mac.

Also, a question to you who only will use open ATI drivers and a free platform: Say you have a powerful machine with an ATI-48xx/58xx and id Software's Rage comes out to Linux, who will you be angry at when it won't be able to run properly? Or do you skip everything closed and wait for the idtech-4 engine to become free (and then wait for someone to make a game with it) so you can be 100% FLOSS? At that time, said powerful machine should be able to run OpenDoom3 OK with the open drivers I guess...

[kazetsukai]

He didn't say that you're better off running Windows, he said that you might as well be running Windows or OSX.

Huge difference. And....

And you can do that with MS Windows as well.

Or I can just run Linux with a driver that works. ... here it is.

Pretty much everything you can do on Linux, you can also do on Windows, and in the case of video games and graphics-intensive tasks, you can often do it better under Windows.

That's talking about function.

Then go advocate Windows, you obviously don't know the real benefits of running Linux if being Open is the only one you can come up with. Some people want the good graphics -ON LINUX-. And *gasp* you can get that using the NVIDIA blob.

What you ignore is that many people run Linux BECAUSE of the philosophy, not because it's faster or cooler than Windows or OSX. People want a free operating system.

Some. Most want a working reliable computer. You can get that easier out of Linux than Windows. The most computer-illiterate people I know can use Linux if it is setup for them, and it never breaks because -they can't-. They don't really care all that much if it is an open system.

Why on Earth is this extremist? Nobody is stopping you from running closed source if you want to. Why do you insist on preventing "extremists" from running Free software?

I never did. But your group constantly hops the fence to take shots needlessly. You're here telling everyone to either run Open drivers or they'd be better off running Windows. Don't believe me? see your own post above!

And anyone who has been around the scene should know that the Linux scene has always demanded open drivers.

Of course. But it isn't as if NVIDIA is the exception to the rule here- plenty of hardware vendors do not release spec or driver source. For a long time, ATI didn't. Will NVIDIA ever? Who knows, I hope so.

...and that companies such as RedHat and SUSE hate closed drivers and that this is one of the reasons why they spend money to develop free ones.

Who is blamed when a distro doesn't automagically work with your hardware? Not the hardware vendor, the distro is. Contributing to driver development is definitely within the best interests of the distribution provider.

The fact that you are surprised that people want free drivers on Linux is difficult to comprehend.

No, I'm not. I don't understand why you and every other ATI user on this forum is so unhappy with your solution that you feel the need to cross the river and shoot flames in all directions.

[pingufunkybeat]

No they're not. They're saying that demanding only open drivers is extremist.

Now who's building strawmen?

[mugginz]

No they're not. They're saying that demanding only open drivers is extremist.

Now who's building strawmen?

Dude, are you serious?

That's the basis for most of this discussion.

Why would anyone have an issue with open drivers while they are also free to use the closed ones?

On the other hand it's easy to see why either the open driver users or the closed driver users would have a problem if it was being suggested that the drivers they're currently using are somehow illegitimate.



Whether your argument re openness of drivers is ridiculous or not is one thing, but trying to shift the brokenness of your own argument onto someone else just makes you look foolish at best.