On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:00:33 +1300 Timothy Musson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Rout, 2003-11-25 23:11:39: > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:17:35 +1300 > > Peter Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > wondering about the GeForce card(s) - as in don't they use an nvidia > > > chipset& doesn't this present problems/hassles for linux users > > > I say what???? nvidia drivers may be closed source, but they have > > excellent linux suport. > > Oxymoron! :P no it is not an oxymoron. excellent linux support does not have to equate to open source drivers. I agree OS is preferable. I am not sure why the big 3 3d board manufacturers do not open their drivers. after all you cannnot use the driver without buying the card. Perhaps the details necessary to open the driver would give away too much about their hardware details. If that is the case then they have a legitimate concern. graphics chips are a very competitive market. [snip long quote from LJ] > > (Hey Nick, I'm not flaming, okay? I just disagree, so I'm saying so :^) > > I don't find it positive that more and more companies are jumping on the > "Linux" bandwagon, by providing proprietary software and claiming to > "support" me. I find it insulting and offensive. > > If people just go along with this kind of thing, what was the point in > the first place? We might as well give up and switch to Microsoft, > Apple, etc., where everything's just peachy and the following things are > a fact of life: > > Lock-in, bugs you can't do anything about, misery, desolation, distrust, > secret file formats, viruses, plagues, pimples and warts, hair-loss, > data-loss, adware, famine, forced upgrades, lies and dishonesty, > uncertainty, crashes, split-ends and hang-nails, spyware, death, > restricted freedom, and dags. > > There's nothing positive about it. take a few things as given and you will see that nvidia are the best choice (maybe the best of a bad bunch, but we are talking practicalities here) premise one: the big 3 three-d manufacturers are closed source for commercial reasons (I only have the LJ article as justification for that statement, I am assuming it to be correct).. premise two: nvidia are helpful to the point that a single end user can get hold of a nvidia engineer and solve a problem with compatibility between an nvidia graphics card and a bleeding edge dual processor opteron 64 bit motherboard (maybe it heklped that the single end user was writing the "ultimate linux box" article for LJ?). also nv have, it seems, an engineer helping linux people on online for about 50% of his working day (source again the LJ article) premise three: the other 3d card manufactuers are not as helpful premise four: 3d graphics is desirable (not true for everyone or every machine) Taking those four premises I'd say nv do have good linux support, and are worth supporting. Taking away premise one and saying "oh but it would be so much better if the open sourced" is not what we are talking about, we are talking real world and in the real world it appears that premise one remains. If someone does open source a good and cheap modern 3d chipset then my view will change. i guess it comes to this rhtorical statement: whats the next best thing to open source drivers and open specifications: a company like nvidia that actually does help people. PS before a whole lot of people (in particular Volker I know you have your views on this) comment on the nv motherboard/ethernet issues, this conversation and my views are restricted to graphics boards. > > As for drivers: hardware manufacturers making specifications available > (i.e., to allow the development of free drivers), _that_ would be > positive. > > see above - i guess they have secrets to protect. > Tim > -- > Timothy Musson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~trmusson/ > A day for firm decisions!!!! Or is it? > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
