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

[DoDoENT]

Actually I am pleased with these news, especially if that means better support with their binary driver.

Currently, I am owner of two ATi Radeon cards, none of which I can use to its full potential, thanks to 'excellent' AMD drivers.

On the other hand, all NVIDIA cards have excellent support with their binary driver, so one can use its card to its full potential - and that is what drivers are for, isn't it?

This summer I'm definitely buying a Fermi graphics card...

[mugginz]

The problem remains that, if not for the valiant efforts of nouveau developers, it would be impossible to run nVidia hardware on an open-source operating system, other than in text mode or using the most basic VESA functionality.

I'd argue that it's never been a viable proposition to run nVidia hardware with an open driver. At least not for a desktop system. Say take a Pentium III system and some manky VGA card. Maybe an nVidia TNT2 or something. Then install Windows 98SE onto that system with it's associated binary graphics driver. Now perform some normal desktop style operations with that system. Say, video playback, or a paint program. Maybe even use WinAmp to playback some music with a visualisation or something. Now try that on modern hardware with the nv driver.

I'd be surprised if the modern gear with the nv driver provided a better experience than the 10 year old gear save for maybe hard-drive performance.

All other major vendors are providing open-source drivers of varying quality, or at least providing specs.

Yes they are. Now lets look at what they provide.

For sure they provide a more compelling experience than does the nv driver. But that would be extremely easy. Again I would argue that the nv driver has never provided anything that would embarrass a 10 year old computer.

Now if you compare the open drivers to the binary blobs of either AMD or nVidia you'll find them left wanting in various areas. When you're talking about the nVidia blob specifically, the open drivers look pretty sad in comparison.

It's not a battle about not allowing anybody to run proprietary software -- I'm fine with anyone running whatever they want.

And that's probably the position everyone should take. If we're all about freedom, surely we should all support each individual in their choice of configuration. We may not choose for out system what another individual chooses but that's the beauty of freedom.

It's about not allowing anybody to run a completely open-source system,

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. If your after the best performance, nVidia are the best choice at the moment. It's quite O.K. to say you don't like nVidia's open driver and that's why you don't want to run their hardware. It's not O.K. to accuse them of all sorts of vileness just because they don't subscribe to your ideology with regards to open vs closed development.

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.

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'm sure someone who is so for open development would be prepared to forgo a lot of CPU throughput in order to have an open CPU design.

and getting pissy when people actually try.

nVidia aren't getting pissy. I think you may have them confused with someone else. For that matter, nVidia have openly stated they will not stand in the way of the Nouveau guys.

And without the reverse-engineering achievements of nouveau (many of them are paid by RedHat, I believe), it would be impossible to run nVidia hardware on an open-source system.

Well for sure we should all be very grateful for the work of the Nouveau team and their financial backers. Even if you don't run nVidia hardware at the moment you can be happy for those that do.

Why should I have to inject tens of megabytes of closed-source whatnot straight into the kernel in order to draw a pixel? :/

Why should you? Well you shouldn't have to and you don't have to but if you do you get much better performance and better functionality just to name two reasons.

And this is horrible.

Why is it horrible?

[pingufunkybeat]

The problem remains that, if not for the valiant efforts of nouveau developers, it would be impossible to run nVidia hardware on an open-source operating system, other than in text mode or using the most basic VESA functionality.

All other major vendors are providing open-source drivers of varying quality, or at least providing specs.

It's not a battle about not allowing anybody to run proprietary software -- I'm fine with anyone running whatever they want.

It's about not allowing anybody to run a completely open-source system, and getting pissy when people actually try. And without the reverse-engineering achievements of nouveau (many of them are paid by RedHat, I believe), it would be impossible to run nVidia hardware on an open-source system. Why should I have to inject tens of megabytes of closed-source whatnot straight into the kernel in order to draw a pixel? :/

And this is horrible.

[mugginz]

No, Linux himself is very clear about closed-source not belonging anywhere near the kernel, and is kicking out all proprietary firmware out of the kernel tree as we speak.

There is a difference between using a proprietary program on top of a completely open-source system, and needing a proprietary blob to see a pixel, let alone watch a movie or use 3D.

Well if Linus himself is kicking out all proprietary firmware out of the kernel tree there must of been a change of heart somewhere along the way. It had been officially recongised that binary firmware, where needed to operate hardware, and where that firmware resided solely on the hardware was fine as far as they were concerned. (Firmware can reside on the system to be uploaded to hardware)

Also I get the feeling that the majority of kernel developers seem to have a pretty pragmatic view of things when it comes to the reality and necessity at least at the moment of proprietary drivers.

(Quote is from the Linux Foundation.)
Are the kernel developers expecting vendors to Open Source the code for all their binary drivers?

While we feel that opening those drivers would be desirable, we recognize that such a step may actually be impossible in some cases since a lot of binary drivers contain code from a variety of different sources whose permission would have to be sought before the code could be released. However, for these cases we do ask that vendors help us to provide an open source driver for their product; we have the resources of the Linux Driver Project to do this, all we ask is for documentation (which may even be provided under NDA using the Linux Foundation NDA Program to assuage intellectual property concerns).

[pingufunkybeat]

No I don't think it misses the point. Linus himself admits that linux's future lies in a shade of grey.

No, Linux himself is very clear about closed-source not belonging anywhere near the kernel, and is kicking out all proprietary firmware out of the kernel tree as we speak.

There is a difference between using a proprietary program on top of a completely open-source system, and needing a proprietary blob to see a pixel, let alone watch a movie or use 3D.

[pingufunkybeat]

and have decided to maintain the best performing, non-sacrificing feature rich, solution in linux.

This is a bit like providing the best performing, non-sacrificing pork chops in Teheran.

Or providing the best performing beef steak at a hindu wedding.

At least they provide an alternative -- the VESA driver.

[mugginz]

mugginz, I have nothing but total respect for your rational views.

Thanx deanjo. (Probably comes from having been round the block once or twice)

[deanjo]

I agree. T <--snip--> they call for.

mugginz, I have nothing but total respect for your rational views.

[synthil]

Again, kraftman, rhetoric! Linux is obviously the best solution for us, but commercial and global community feeling is definitely opposed to it.

[kraftman]

Then use their software. What's the point of using Linux, a clearly inferior solution to proprietary ones such as Windows 7 and Mac OS X?

There are points like security, many distros aren't resource hogs like proprietary systems, usability - nothing better then Linux package management (at least for me), powerful and feature rich environments, reliability and probably more. If good desktop means for you good 3D then good for you (however, you can use binary blobs with excellent 3D on Linux, but usually with rather poor 2D), but for many people good 3D or accelerated flash player isn't so important.

If I wanted the best desktop experience (and indeed the best 3D experience), then I'd migrate to Apple software.

I love Linux too and guess what? I have different opinion. The best 3D experience gives me so far KDE4 + its apps + open source Radeon driver.

If I wanted the best 3D gaming experience, then I'd migrate to Windows. But I don't.

I want the best gaming experience and I keep Windows next to Linux, but games are the only things why it still consumes some part of my hard drive.