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

[kevinbenko]

While I may be in the minority on my position, I can find no fault with Nvidia dropping their FOSS driver and opting to keep their real driver proprietary.
Within the past month, I purchased another computer and one of the things I insisted on was that the graphics chipset be Nvidia. And, yes, the machine runs Linux exclusively. I have a DVD drive in my computer, and I'm sure that many Linux users have DVD drives. But, in the United States, I am not permitted to watch some DVDs on my DVD drive unless I use a set of codecs that I am not, legally, permitted to use. Similarly with the MP3 codecs.

Yes, it is my choice to do these things. It is my choice to run proprietary software/codecs on my Linux machine as a matter of my own convenience.

But isn't it implied in the concept of a free operating system that I am also free to choose to run non-free software?

And, yes, RMS would not be pleased with this.
But Linc Fessenden would approve.

[V!NCENT]

This is exactly why I am buying AMD ATI cards. More bang for the bug and a better product. Dead simple. Suck it down nVidia <_<'

And Synthil, what the fsck is that about seperior, Windows and Mac is one swntence? KDE whipes the floor with those outdated tech GUI's. What's this BS about the desktop being a liability for the Linux kernel? AmaroK Vs. iTunes Vs. Windows Media Player. Kdenlive Vs. iMovie Vs. Windows Movie Maker Vs. Sony Vegas. KMymoney Vs. Quicken (thats what it's called right?) or any other personal financing software for that matter.

My Sony mp3 player is awesome. Way more awesome than the Zune and the iPod. It works with AmaroK like a charm.

The day Steam comes native to Linux I will literaly ritualy burn all my Windows disks. I'm glad I don't own anything Apple has ever made. Both companies suck and their products suck even harder.
/rant && /truth

[pingufunkybeat]

I'd like to point out that I don't really care about the decision to drop the "nv" driver, which was a pile of crap anyway.

If nVidia simply released enough documentation to write an open-source driver (like ATi did), I'd be perfectly happy with nVidia. Then at least other people (nouveau developers) would be able to write good free drivers.

[pingufunkybeat]

But isn't it implied in the concept of a free operating system that I am also free to choose to run non-free software?

If your operating system cannot do anything beyond a text terminal and an unaccelerated framebuffer without injecting a binary blob into it, then it is not a Free operating system.

Once you have a fully functioning Free operating system, I agree, you can run whatever you want on it. Maya, Photoshop, Heroes of Newearth, whatever you like. But if you need a blob to watch a movie or resize a window without waiting for a minute, then it's not much of a "system".

[mlau]

If your operating system cannot do anything beyond a text terminal and an unaccelerated framebuffer without injecting a binary blob into it, then it is not a Free operating system.

Your definition of "Free Operating Systems" depends on accelerated
framebuffer? Your narrow-minded views of Free software do more harm
than good me thinks.

[MostAwesomeDude]

nouveau is a fork of nv. It would not be as successful as it has been, if it were not for the nv and Utah codebases, and the various bits of programming information provided by nVidia.

You may continue raging. :3

[smitty3268]

I'm another one who thinks that nv was useless anyway, so this isn't that big of a deal. But I do think it makes reverse engineering a little bit more difficult for the nouveou developers, and it sounds like that's the main reason NVidia stopped, because they'd have to start putting in more and more 3d functionality with the 2d hardware going away.

In the end, this is just another reminder that Nvidia doesn't care about open source and isn't going to do anything to try to change that. Whether that bothers you or not depends on your viewpoint.

[nanonyme]

nouveau is a fork of nv. It would not be as successful as it has been, if it were not for the nv and Utah codebases, and the various bits of programming information provided by nVidia

Good point, haven't thought of that. I was just thinking of going yay that the confusion with different drivers reduces a bit (there's still radeon and radeonhd going on, we'll see how long that continues) but I guess xf86-video-nv actually deserves a quiet moment while we're waiting for the final buryal.

[pingufunkybeat]

Your definition of "Free Operating Systems" depends on accelerated framebuffer?

No, I expect any modern operating system to be able to play videos full-screen, for example. Or be able to scroll in a web browser.

If you can't do that without closed-source software, than this is very basic functionality you are missing if you choose to use a completely free software system.

Remember, this is why GNOME was started when KDE was not under a Free Software license. I think that graphics drivers are a bit more fundamental than either KDE or GNOME.

[mugginz]

Who's not allowing anybody to run a completely open-source system? If you want a completely open-source system with respect to software, nVidia is clearly not the best choice of graphics card vendor. Simply choose another.

Which is what I did.

I can still find nVidia's stance on open-source software ("you don't need it, here's your blob, shut up") sad.

I'm still unable to understand why you conclude that nVidia's position is one of "("you don't need it, here's your blob, shut up")"

Not providing hardware specs doesn't mean they're anti FOSS, it only means they themselves, for internal reasons, are unable to provide specs for their hardware. Their legal and management teams have come to a different position on this than have Intel's and AMD's and is sub-optimal from an open-source O/S users point of view, but that in itself isn't anti FOSS.

Are there any vendors providing completely unfettered access to their hardware documentation? If not then they are only being more open than nVidia, but not completely open so they would be at least partially guilty of what you claim nVidia are guilty of. Last time I checked even Intel were filtering all their info through their legal team.

Last time I checked, both ATi and Intel opened up virtually all the documentation necessary to write open-source drivers. nVidia have never provided anything.

If partially guilty refers to the closed-off DRM parts needed for Hollywood movies, then yeah, they are partially guilty (I'd like documentation for that too), but you have to admit that it's a fundamentally different approach toward openness.

Well whether they're being completely open as apposed to somewhat open could be argued till the cows come home but even their own positions validate at least partially nVidia's position. Also, nVidia may be in a slightly different boat than both AMD and Intel as far as I.P. agreements with other vendors goes which may place a different burden on them.

I myself would prefer them to open their specs but without the intimate knowledge of the internal factors which are part of their decision making process, and in the absence of any evidence that they're trying to actively harm FOSS in any way, I can only be disappointed in the lack of open specs, but I cannot find any reason to be either hateful or disrespectful towards nVidia in any way.

I might add that if your ideology is all about open development, where are all of the calls to the hardware guys to provide open source hardware?

I'd love it!

But until then, I still prefer closed hardware with fully open specs and documentation and open-source drivers to closed hardware with fully closed specs and no documentation, which only run using closed-source software.

Your own stated position here demonstrates your preparedness to acknowledge that we must make pragmatic decisions based on the specific constraints and from the choices we have available in a given situation. We should all at least grant nVidia this as well.

I understand that for some people this is not a big issue. It's not a big issue for me if they choose to run closed binary blob drivers. But I'd like to be able run an open source system. There are many closed-source ones to choose from if you want the best binary performance. If the biggest GPU manufacturer (discrete cards, not on-board solutions) does not want you to run their hardware on an open-source system, then this is sad.

I feel that device drivers for crucial hardware components are very different from a 3d modelling tool. Imagine if you had to download a binary driver to get Linux to work on your CPU. This is not why people run open-source systems.

Again, you're being selective in your own openness here. You're saying it's quite O.K. to run open software on a closed platform.

I think I do understand the main thrust of your argument, and I think I agree with some of it in some ways. I just don't think nVidia deserve to be labeled as anti-FOSS. Clearly in a perfect world we would like everything to be open. If in two years the open drivers for ATI cards are kickin' arse, and nVidia are loosing market position and mind share due to this, they might change their mind a little on this but I personally don't see this happening. Luckily, most people who take the time to appraise themselves of the Linux graphics card landscape before purchase will be able to include in their purchase decision the level of openness of the vendor's drivers vs the level of performance and fitness for purpose provided by said driver and card.

nVidia aren't getting pissy.

Badly worded on my part. There are fanboys on the internet who get pissy whenever somebody asks for documentation or open drivers.

I think that this is a reasonable thing to ask for.

Completely reasonable to ask for, but not reasonable to demand. Some out there on the internets are making an unwarranted leap from nVidia don't provide specs to the FOSS community to nVidia are teh evil and should be destroyed.