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

[kraftman]

i mean, supporting the basic nv driver doesn't require that much effort, nvidia has other reasons, or they are extremely short on programmers.

Is there any point to keep supporting nv driver while there's more advanced nouveau? Btw. nv was terrible

[Ex-Cyber]

On the internal/IP worries: Do they really have such a lot of stuff to lose? And the patent violations should be mutual.

Patents may be held by holding companies or research institutions (look at who publishes SIGGRRAPH papers; most of them aren't at GPU companies...) that have no interest in cross-licensing. Also, since GPUs are having more and more of their functionality defined by software, GPU vendors arguably run the risk of tripping over software patents that weren't necessarily obtained with graphics applications in mind. The overall degree of risk is not obvious, so different people can come to different conclusions.

[Adarion]

But I doubt they're that short on manpower/coders. Of course if you have some business guy on top of an enterprise they might just decide for lowest cost, regardless of quality.

On the internal/IP worries: Do they really have such a lot of stuff to lose? And the patent violations should be mutual.

[yoshi314]

i'm suspecting that nvidia is worried that support for modern gpus would require a serious modification to the driver, or might expose some sensitive internals, even with such a basic implementation.

i mean, supporting the basic nv driver doesn't require that much effort, nvidia has other reasons, or they are extremely short on programmers.

[Adarion]

Even a pragmatist will see the advantages a free software has.
A blob might work sooner because the enterprise behind it pumped some work into it. But I have seen also the opposite. Binary that were a horror (I have enough DOS & Windows experience to tell this).
Once that enterprise decides to discontinue support (for whatever reasons) for a certain product or the whole blob itself then you're alone.
Same is if there are security holes, bugs or other mishaps in the blob. You are dependent on their hopefully good mood to fix it. Or not. Then you're again alone.
If you want to use that software on a different OS or a different hardware arch (or both) then: you're alone as always.

With free software you have at least the chance that things will change. Code it for yourself if you can or hire somebody to do it. Or hope there is enough interest in the community so a solution will be found.
Errors can be discussed in public, there is a public review and everybody is welcome to improve and fix things.

I don't say the free OS community is free of errors and mistakes. Personal pride, coding errors, all that can happen. But this is mostly the same in a closed sources enterprise. You just don't see it that open.


Investing in something that will maybe only be usable for a mere 2 or 3 years before it will be abandoned is not a good investion for me. And no, I do not buy new components every now and then. Imagine you have an enterprise with 500 office computers and you would have to exchange hardware and software every three years because somebody who sold you the hardware/op.system chose to have it so. Not very cost efficient and reliable.
But with specs and a free driver you can still get things to run. I think that IS not just some ideological benefit, it is fine for the pragmatist as well!

[unix_epoch]

I have been running Linux on my desktop for 17 years now, because I want a free software desktop created by the people for the people. If I was willing to be beholden to corporations telling me what I can do (like upgrade to X.org or Kernel version whatever), through use of their proprietary software, drivers, plugins, or codecs, I would have just switched to Apple years ago, and been much happier for it. It saddens me greatly how few people running GNU/Linux have any ideology behind their choice.

I don't think the idealists have reduced in numbers, I just think a lot more pragmatists have joined the ranks, making the idealists a smaller percentage overall.

[mugginz]

After 10 years of running OSS software (almost) exclusively, I've learnt to appreciate it. I think that ATi and Intel are doing the right thing here, and I think that nVidia is doing the wrong thing.

It's quite likely that my next card will also be one from ATI.

My problem is I need the binary-blob for it as well.

[pingufunkybeat]

I don't know if I'm coming off as too anti-nVidia here, it might be the fanboys rubbing me the wrong way.

I just hate having to justify myself as some sort of leper just because I'd like to know what's in my computer and what's running on top of it. After 10 years of running OSS software (almost) exclusively, I've learnt to appreciate it. I think that ATi and Intel are doing the right thing here, and I think that nVidia is doing the wrong thing.

They probably have their reasons for doing it this way. They are not doing it just to piss off the Linux crowd. That's OK, but I still find it unfortunate, and I moved away from them as a result.

[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.

[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.