Nvidia Releases Beta XFree86 4.0 Drivers 213
A lot of folks have been submitting the news from Nvidia that they've released
beta drivers for XFree86. They've got OpenGL acceleration - but are still in beta. You've been warned. *grin*
Matrox (Score:1)
The sign I've been waiting for... (Score:3)
Also, for all fellow Redhat users out there, the nVidia FAQ indicates that there are now RPMs at the Redhat mirror sites.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! (Score:1)
Those bastards! (Score:1)
Seriously, this a a Good Thing, i've been waiting more than a year for these drivers, and had almost lost faith in nvidia ever releasing them. I saw a demo of a geforce in linux with an earlyier verision of these drivers at LinuxWorld and it was were very very fast. Now i wont have to trade my tnt2 for a G400.
--
If you don't get before slashdot you don't get it. (Score:1)
Then I went for the src.rpm and realized that the story by now was probably on slashdot, which turned out to be correct. Oh well, I'll get it tomorrow
Binary? What do those .src.rpm contain then??? (Score:2)
URL (Score:2)
---------------------------------
No source... no way... (Score:2)
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or
disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the
source code. No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a
single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more
than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts. No
Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else.
Have fun, guys... I'm sticking with hardware that has free drivers.
________________________________
Re:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! (Score:1)
Brandon
Re:Matrox (Score:1)
That implies that having two monitors is extremely important.
From what I know most of the dual headed cards out there only worked in WinNT but I may be mistaken. The only ones I have seen are in trade journals and they said that windows basically had drivers for them.
BOO HISS! (Score:2)
This isn't an open source driver. They forbid "Reverse-engineering".. you must own an nvidia card to even /use/ the software... the list goes on. "But wait.. I have an nvidia card and I want my driver. It's free!" Yes, you get your driver.. for linux. Only. No BeOS, no herd, no *BSD, nothing. Open Source allows the BSD crew to grab a linux driver, hack it to use BSD, and offer that support. Why can't Nvidia release the source so other (maybe less popular) OS' have a chance?
Blah. Nvidia needs to make a commitment - first it was obfusciated drivers, now just a binary. What next - shall we sign an NDA?
wow... (Score:1)
i would've had 1st post if the damn fone hadn't rung...
--DV
What if... (Score:1)
/*--Why can't I find the QNX OS on any warez sites?
* (above comment useless as of 4-26-2000)
*/
By the way... (Score:2)
Don't be fooled by the .src.rpm's. They do not contain source code. (did they think they could get that by us?)
Let's hope that ATI releases open source drivers for the Radeon. It looks like that card will be the best thing out there in the next few months. (yes, it beats the GeForce 2 IMHO)
------
Click through agreement -- up their ass, it goes! (Score:1)
Send nVidia a letter. I did. (Score:5)
to: info@nvidia.com
I wasn't sure where else to send this, so I'm sending it to this address.
Thank you for your support of Linux and 3D. nVidia makes great 3D accellerators. I own a TNT2, and have been very impressed by the value it provided me. I have been looking forward to a high-performance driver solution for my card under Linux, and it's great to see your support of DRI. Thank you!
I speak for many Linux users when I say: Can we expect open-source drivers? While the binary-only module that you provide is well-supported in XFree 4.0 on x86/Linux, it does not address the needs of PPC users, Alpha users, *BSD users, and others who can also use XFree 4.0. I would like to note that your competitors (3DFx, ATI, and Matrox) have not only released open-source drivers (un-obfuscated!) but hardware register-level specs as well. Note that even the ATI Rage Pro (a weak card) was consistently out-performing even your GeForce GPU in Linux. While that may have changed as of this driver release, still it was the Linux community who wrote, tested, and finalized the ATI driver (mostly through the efforts of John Carmack). The Matrox G200 handily beat the TNT2 in Linux, thanks to the community. We both know the TNT2 kicks the G200 hard under Win32. My old Voodoo 2 slams all of these cards handily, since open-source drivers have been available the longest for this card. Plus, 3DFx actively supports these drivers themselves.
While I am not a businessman, I don't see how you can lose business by releasing these drivers and specs. Admittedly, some of these users would be a pretty small market, I don't think it costs much to release what you've already developed for another platform.
Your upcoming GeForce 2 sounds like a winner in the specs department, and I'd love to have one. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for your Linux support, but I'm leaning toward the purchase of another kind of card, either a 3DFx V5, or Matrox G450. Neither of these cards has all the specs that your Geforce 2 has (the fillrate plus features; EMBM, Cubic Mapping, 3D Textures, etc) but these companies have open Linux drivers and specs now, and I know I can expect this from them in the future.
Thanks for your time, and your Linux support,
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:4)
Too bad they can't release the source code legally due to various NDA's between them and other companies.
------
Linuxgames already has a first look/benchmarks (Score:4)
--
As we desced to madness.. (Score:2)
So now, here's a release of binaries. For x86-Linux only. Nothing for x86-BSD. Or for PPC-anything. With source comes the option to port it. With the source and specs, heaven forbid we decide to IMPROVE their driver.
I reall wish nVidia would wake up. We can all say 'Hooray, drivers at last!' But as soon as we find bugs, we're SCREWED until they finally decide to release their next revision. And given how long these took to arive, and nVidia's track record for maintaining their previous 3.3.x GLX drivers.. Well.. Fuck em. Go buy a REAL video card. One that comes from a company that cares about you, the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the review of the drivers... (Score:1)
I wonder... (Score:1)
My own experience:
AMD 751 Irongate - the chipset sucks, not supported with current AGP code in the kernel (yah it's there but doesn't work), can get it working on X 3.3.x with utah-glx [sourceforge.net] and a m em hack [sourceforge.net], but forget X 4.0 (at least till the agp code is working).
My recommendation would be to install X 4.0 into some other directory - ie not
Re:Binary? What do those .src.rpm contain then??? (Score:2)
This should be interesting - it'll certainly take me at least a few days to get everything set up to try it out. Meanwhile I'll be looking for performance numbers.
Until it's fully open-source, though, I still won't recommend nVidia stuff to my friends.
Installation and speed (Score:5)
I have the installation FAQ [nvidia.com] in front of me, and it's a long and careful list of things to do. From a quick scan, it looks like people of a nervous disposition should think twice before going down this list - making a quick backup of your current Xfree installation might not be a bad idea, or at least keep the old Xfree86 rpms at hand in case of crisis. Beyond that, it looks like it may conflict a bit with Mesa, so those modules need to be deleted or renamed as well (all in the FAQ).
For a speed comparison under the new drivers, Linux Games has a First Look [linuxgames.com] up which gives me hope that I'll finally see some speed on my TNT2 card!
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:2)
If you actually have a BSD system you might want to install it and see if it works.
Sproingies is going to rock! (Score:1)
--
Re:What if... (Score:1)
--hunter
NVIDIA Driver Article (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
GPL violation? (question!) (Score:1)
Or what is the kernel modification to the GPL that allows this kind of weird things?
---
Re:Matrox (Score:1)
Re:Matrox (Score:1)
Fire up q3a's mod q3f with fulldetails, texture slider 2tha max 800*600 ( on a 22" tube ) and still playable !
love my max.
But how do I change brightness in Q3a...mesa environement vars have no ffect...
All we need is the XF4 module, dual head support, and, non root direct hardware accel. ( I saw a guy using a perl script for this uid stuff )
Source is here, someone screwed up (Score:2)
Because there is src rpms available right here:
ftp://ftp1.detonator.nvidia.com/pub/drivers/eng
No reverse engineering required.
Of course they may be obfuscated, still waiting for the download (damn the slashdot effect).
Nvidia beta drivers for xf86 4.0 (Score:1)
Re:No source... no way... (Score:3)
But given the level of dissatisfaction with the people in just my household (three people, each with nvidia cards) and their *Windows* drivers, I'm more than happy to shop around for my next card. Nvidia aren't winning any friends by doing this, and providing a piss poor kernel module.
I run 2.3.99-pre5 - 2.4.0 will be out soon (relatively) - do we have to wait another 6 months before they support that? It's pathetic.
- Andy (who's waiting for the Voodoo 6)
Re:Send nVidia a letter. I did. (Score:2)
Incidentally, I would prefer that their drivers were Free Software. I also noticed on their home page it says that they just receive $200 Million from Microsoft.
SRC RPMS and tarballs available (Score:1)
ftp://ftp1.detonator.nvidia.com/pub/drivers/eng
and
ftp://ftp2.detonator.nvidia.com/pub/drivers/eng
Re:Matrox dual head support comming (Score:1)
(so imagine when DRI will come, and dualhead too
---
Re:Click through agreement -- up their ass, it goe (Score:1)
Re:Send nVidia a letter. I did. (Score:1)
Re:No source... no way... (Score:4)
US Copyright law specifically allows reverse engineering of any methods described in copyrighted material. I think most of these EULAs are pretty off on this one, and that they will get hosed pretty hard if they are ever challenged.
I mean, the entire purpose of the patent system is providing limited protection on implementations with claims. If you somehow contort the law to allow the same level of protection for copyrighted materials, it makes a mockery of the entire patent system. Now, some aspects of patent law deserve such mockery, but I doubt anyone will challenge the right of people who invest SUBSTANTIAL time and effort in developing intellectual property to have it protected.
Put another way, if I buy a new VW bug, I can unbuild it, measure its parts, and reassemble it. I can even BUY manuals made by third parties that tell me exactly how to do it. But, for some reason, if I buy an NVIDIA card, I don't have those same rights ?!@?!?
Something is seriously wrong.
Re:SRC RPMS and tarballs available (Score:1)
Bzzzz... No source in the src rpm's.
________________________________
Hmm (Score:4)
Listen up Nvidia... (Score:1)
Mirrors? (Score:1)
Re:Send nVidia a letter. I did. (Score:1)
Re:No source... no way... (Score:2)
Some of us are actually 3D graphics enthusiasts who do get alot out of viewing and tweaking source code. Just because you happen to be a 12 year old kid who only uses the 3D card his mommy bought him to play Quake, that doesn't mean everyone is that unfortunate.
Perhaps I want the source so I can run it on an Alpha or PowerPC machine, whose binaries are noticably ABSENT from NVIDIA's web site.
Besides, what Linux user in his right mind would install a binary only KERNEL MODULE, not to mention one that is totally unsupported?
________________________________
binary drivers, but why? (Score:2)
This is a genuine question, not rhetorical; I'm not a video driver programmer so I don't know how much the source gives away about the underlying hardware, but my gut says that it can't be very much. An OpenGL driver is an OpenGL driver, surely.
Open specs: Don't leave home without it (Score:5)
What is Nvidia doing? [wgz.org]
There's a lot of information there about their (lack of) support for free OS's, issues with the DRI, etc. It was put together shortly after the Nvidia and Linux Troubles [slashdot.org] article on
Have to add, of course, that if ATI's new Radeon hardware really does outdo the GeForce 2, and ATI releases programming specs for that puppy-- Nvidia is toast.
You don't need to program to benefit from OS (Score:2)
However.
If I had the source, I could recompile it for a different platform, and possibly port it to a different OS.
If I had the source, Alan Cox and John Carmack would have the source too, and that would most likely be a good thing.
Saying "YOU don't know what to do with the source" does NOT mean that source availability would not improve the driver.
---
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:2)
From what I've heard about it, XFree86 4.0 server binaries work on all operating systems written for the same architecture so the Linux binary should work with *BSD.
If you actually have a BSD system you might want to install it and see if it works.
So if I were running NetBSD on a PPC system, this binary would work? Somehow I don't think so.
----
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:3)
Assuming that is true, do they still need to put a fascist license that says WE are not allowed to reverse engineer, use on multiple computers, etc? Do their agreements make them do that? If so they've signed some bad agreements and we shouldn't get swept into their mess. If not, then it is their decision to go above and beyond their commitments and do what almost every closed source system (unfortunately) does, which is to say it is illegal for us to use the software as we see fit
No source is bad.
Prohibitions on what we can do is even worse. Adding an extremely restrictive license agreement (*) to a piece of closed software changes it from bad to absolutely intolerable.
Just because something is for Linux does not make it good.
Linux can become just another Windows when it comes to what is really important: freedom (as in liberty, not just free of charge). Sure the core of the kernel will be open source, but all the apps, drivers, and kernel modules will be closed. All the problems of Microsoft without any of the advantages (widespread deployment). If we let that happen, WE LOSE. No two ways about it.
(*) I hate End User License Agreements. Even the name is insulting. I want the option to be more than an end user, I want the option to be a developer. But the software cartel doesn't want that.
Re:GPL violation? (question!) (Score:2)
Re:No source... no way... (Score:2)
thanks for nothing nvidia, i'm buying 3dfx or matrox next time
Re:Source is here, someone screwed up (Score:4)
~luge
Yep, you're right. (Score:2)
----------------------------
Re:Source is here, someone screwed up (Score:4)
riva 128 opengl/glx? (Score:2)
bash: ispell: command not found
May not be good for OSS, but hell yeah! (Score:3)
first impressions (Score:2)
In quake, texture-intensive levels that really sucked in windows (q3tourney4) now run as fast as everything else.
My only concern is the mouse input. has anyone found a good bunch of settings that make the mouse input smoother? Things I've tried: in_dgamouse, sensitivity, and xset m X Y. anyone have the magic combination?
Source is supplied for the kernel module (Score:2)
Blank Screen with Riva TNT (Score:4)
I have a Riva TNT, also experienced the blank screen, and from examining XFree86.0.log I found this interesting tidbit:
(**) NVIDIA(0): VideoRAM: 0 kBytes
I, uh, have a 16 meg card, setting the VideoRam parameter in the device setup seems to have no effect, whatever happens there is always 0 KB of video ram detected. Er, Slight bug huh NVidia? Maybe if they were open source drivers we could fix it instead of having to wait for you.
-- iCEBaLM
WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:5)
A) This is good for Linux. The OSS die hards might not like it, and it is unfortunate that the Alpha people can't use it, but overall it is good. It furthers Linux in the home market and the desktop 3D workstation market. It make linux a higher quality, more usable environment.
B) It is good for Linux users. Now people with the fastest cards (GeForces) can lay the smack down on people puttering on with G400s and Voodoo 3s.
C) It shows that Linux is being treated equally among OSs. nVidia wouldn't release their source to Microsoft, and they aren't doing it for the OSS community.
I really don't care whether or not nVidia releases sources. Some people may, and if nVidia does, good for them. In the meantime, those people should congratulte nVidia on the release, and gently encourage them to release more source. (Hey I could benefit. BeOS needs GeForce specs!) Ultimately, however, it is their decision, and it is up to them what they want to do with their work. I do think, however, than an overly negitive response (as opposed to a positive, but gently encouraging response) could clam nVidia up from releasing sources. I doubt they'd be turned off to the Linux market, because SGI and nVidia have their own plans for Linux, but they may become even more closed and not port to other OSs (ahem, BeOS.)
PS: What is wrong with you people? Do any of you care about speed? Voodoo 5 has already shown to be only moderatly faster than a GeForce but you'd prefer an open Voodoo, rather than a closed GeForce 2? Doesn't anyone care about SPEEEED!??
Stop Whinging (Score:2)
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do" - I don't remeber
HHHhhhhhmmmmmm..... (Score:2)
a) It's a binary only release, with no specs for the chipsets, etc
b) It's a beta.
a) sucks for all the obvious reasons - the "community" can't make bug fixes or learn from it, only x86 Linux is supported so everyone else is SOL, etc.
b) sucks for a slightly less obvious reason. Both of the previous driver releases, for XFree3, were also beta "development only" releases. When are we going to get the real thing?
Yes, I realise that this isn't easy, and that they have a decade or two more man-hours in Windows driver development, and that Linux is a niche market, etc etc, but damnit, I want real drivers! Failing that, I want the chance to fail to write them myself!
Thank you, NVidia, for a really good graphics card, but I'm afraid that my next card is going to have to be from a company that shows a little more commitment to my OS of choice.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:May not be good for OSS, but hell yeah! (Score:2)
My boycott of nVidia is based on the fact that they allow no reverse engineering and specifically don't want free software drivers for their hardware. There can only be one reason for this, it is because at some future date they intend to yank the rug out from under Linux users in favor of exclusivity deals with Micros~1 or someone else.
Hardware is hardware, if I'm not allowed to write software to make it work, why would I buy it? It might make a good coaster, but it won't be of any use to me. I also think that hardware manufacturers need to be encouraged to see the truth, that free software is empowering and profitable for companies that are primarily hardware vendors.
I'll stick with Matrox, thanks. Maybe nVidia will decide that deals with the Empire are not worth the losses they will incur, maybe not. So what? They have viable competition, so why does the GNU/Linux community need a company that deliberately spits in our faces?
As to the mainstreaming of Linux, if Linux goes mainstream but the ideals of free software are lost, then what was the point? We might just has well used M$ (or a more fitting analogy, the doomed OS/2) and saved ourself the trouble.
Linux is not just an alternate OS, it is a philosophy of doing business in the software world. No graphics card is worth giving up my ideals for.
Obligatory recommendation to buy Matrox goes here (Score:3)
--
Re:Blank Screen with Riva TNT (Score:4)
Well this was a classic case of user error, Nick at Nvidia helped me to determine that the problem was I didn't run the install.sh script for the Kernel Module which sets up the
Let this be a lesson to you, don't wantonly ignore install.sh files!
Kudos to Nick at Nvidia who saw my comment and emailed me, this is certainly above and beyond the call of duty as I have NEVER had support like that from any other company.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:binary drivers, but why? (Score:2)
However, welcome to the depths of cross-licensing hell. NVIDIA is free to disclose its own patents and inventions, open source its proprietary stuff, whatever. The problem is that modern drivers include quite a bit of code licensed from some other company, which WOULDN'T appreciate an open source driver. I believe John Carmack has commented several times that the DMA and AGP techniques NVIDIA uses to get peak performance from its cards is licensed from some other place. Without the licensed code, the driver speed goes to hell. With it, the chance of an open-sourced driver goes to hell. And now that NVIDIA has added a few more cross-licenses to its belt (S3TC, etc.) don't expect any open-source miracles to happen.
If you are really desperate to learn 3D programming, buying a good theory book like Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice would teach you infinitely more than looking at code for a driver would, anyway. Granted, this doesn't help you when Linux changes kernel builds from 2.39.049.beta.help-me-please-I-can't-help-myself-
no, I really don't care about speed. (Score:2)
I don't think that nvidia is evil, but stupid I wouldn't bet against. They could have had these drivers written for them, free! Why wouldn't they want that? I had to sign a non-disclosure once, to get some schematics (computer industry, but a different part of it), and when I saw them, I saw why. They must have been ashamed of their work, and afraid that the world would find out just how bad their design was. It was full of text-book no-no's. I figure that you only hide things you are ashamed of. Any competitor who's serious could buy a board, take the chips apart in a clean room, and so on... I can't imagine that they really think that they're protecting themselves.
So, I'm not going to buy an nvidia board until I see open source, accelerated drivers for it. Not because of ideology, not because I hate nvidia, but just because I want my machine to work, today and next year, and the year after that.
I'm not criticising nvidia, nor suggesting that releasing these binary drivers is bad. But I can't get excited over this. It's not good enough news to get me to trust them to deliver working software, when I need it. If someone with the resources of Microsoft can't deliver that, little nvidia never will.
Re:But agreeing to the EULA waives those rights (Score:2)
There is also fair use in the purchase of copyrighted material. Can you imagine buying a cookbook and not being able to use any of the recipes because reverse engineering of its methods was prohibited ?? There is no aspect of copyright law that protects against reverse engineering of the methods used in that copyright (only against reverse engineering measures designed to protect copyright itself, such as DMCA).
I cannot imagine a judge upholding that an EULA actually does prohibit reverse engineering. It is a pretty absurd notion, and makes copyrights into patents. That is a large portion of the reason that copyright does NOT protect against reverse engineering - there is an entirely much more stringent form of protection for that - the patent. You actually have to apply for a patent, and be reviewed. I can scribble my name on the wall and copyright it. It is taking a triviality and trying to make it into a patent. It is just plain wrong, and I find it hard to believe any copyright scholar would argue the point. There are some rights that cannot be placed in EULAs by law, and I think reverse engineering is one of them.
Section 10.0b, US copyright law
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:3)
No, it is not. It makes Linux a lower quality, less usable environment. Why? Well, if you buy nVidia's products, and use their binary-only drivers, you are sending the message that that level of support (ie practically none) is acceptable. If every hardware vendor offers drivers under the same license, your once-stable unix-like operating system has become the hell that is NT. Worse still, do you really want to get yourself in a situation wherein you can't upgrade your OS (let's say a major security hole was found and patched...) because you're tied to a binary-only driver? Bottom line: binary-only ANYTHING is BAD, BAD, BAD.
It is good for Linux users.
No, it is not. See above.
It shows that Linux is being treated equally among OSs. nVidia wouldn't release their source to Microsoft, and they aren't doing it for the OSS community.
How is this good? The purpose of Free software is not to gain a place in the proprietary software world as an equal to Microsoft's offerings!!! It's to be a fundamentally different, and better, way of using computers.
Ultimately, however, it is their decision, and it is up to them what they want to do with their work.
On this, at least, you are right. And, in exactly the same way, it is your choice whether to give them your business. Not me, man.
Do any of you care about speed? Voodoo 5 has already shown to be only moderatly faster than a GeForce but you'd prefer an open Voodoo, rather than a closed GeForce 2? Doesn't anyone care about SPEEEED!?? :)
Your argument makes no sense. Voodoo5 is faster AND more open than nVidia's offerings...where's the beef? Besides, if I really cared about 3d graphics speed, I'd go with either Sun's new Expert3d or one of many fine offerings from SGI. Sun and SGI may not offer source either, but at least their stuff is FAST and HIGH QUALITY. If SGI ships me a binary IRIX driver for (let's say) an Infinite Reality Engine, I'm pretty damn sure that it'll work and not crash my system. Do you really place the same level of faith in nVidia? Coding for a system they most likely don't understand well? Sure, kid.
Nvidia marketing faux pas (Score:2)
Consider, who is most likely to what the highest horsepower graphics cards out there? Well, that would be those people who play lots of games, like lots of high-tech toys, and basically are "in the know" when it comes to computers. In some senses, that is US my fellow slashdotters.
Well, let's see here, it also happens to be the case that we are also the life, liberty, and the open source way kind of people. Hence by not playing straight with their drivers (and bowing to M$'s demands), they are estranging their main purchasing base.
Now, this does assume a high degree of overlap between those who want the card but won't buy the card because they are TRUE BELIEVERS, but I think it is a fair statement. Even if it isn't, we're smart enough to realize that even if I'm driving a Ferrari, it needs to have good fuel to make it run. That is, no matter what the card, if its software component is stuck in, oh say, reverse, then it is not worthwhile.
Regards.
Re:May not be good for OSS, but hell yeah! (Score:2)
Do you
A) Open your specs to please 100 or so OSS fanatics, and in addition give up even 5% of your technological advantage to your competitors. OR
B) Keep the source closed. Piss off the fanatics, but ignore the 100 sales you lost due to your proposition. In addition, you get a growing new user base, many of which don't care about OSS and just want the hardware support, plus you get your toe in the door for midrange Linux based workstations which will be used by companies who also don't care about Open Source.
I don't have any ideals about software, but I know which one I would choose. As far as your boycott, I pointed out that nVidia is making baby steps into the linux world. If it is met with the mongol OSS hoardes, then it might turn around. As for the mainstreaming of Linux. If the ideals of free software are lost, I couldn't care less. Some do, but many don't. There is a point to it. The point is that Linux is better than Windows. This release just makes Linux better, and what's wrong with that? Don't think of nVidia spitting in the GNU/Linux communities face. Think of it as a wake up call that if you want all the cool stuff on Linux, then you're going to have to pony up some freedom. If the satisfaction of using a great environment like Linux outweighs the slight loss of freedom, then great. If it doesn't, console yourself in the fact that Linux can never lose the Open spirit. Too much of Linux is based on open code and standards. So what's a very measly drivers? Or even an OpenGL implementation for that matter? If this were, for example, a great new windowing system to replace X, I can see people being worried. But it's a graphics driver. It'll be replaced in a year anyway. Get over it.
PS: Have you actually ever written a graphics driver? Has that graphics driver ever outperformed on written by the card's company? Look at the windows world for an example. If you deal with high quality companies, you'll see that drivers are released timely, they're well optimized, and very stable. They rarely have any bugs for you to fix. (At least nVidia drivers.)
PS2: You can stick with matrox. I'm giving this thing a whirl. Eat my 32bpp 60fps 200 megapixel per second dust
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:3)
Dude, chill out. Yeah, I want open source drivers as much as you do. And I know why they are important. That's one reason why I am planning to wait for the ATI Radeon rather than buy a GeForce 2 (I hope ATI goes open source). All I was saying is that we should not get mad at nVidia for making a small mistake back in the day when they had never heard of open source.
And everyone puts the "no reverse egineering" clause in their agreements. Guess what? The law says you can reverse engineer it anyway if your purpose is compatibility (i.e. port to a different OS).
But, yeah, I'm an open source freak too. I just think of it as a privilege rather than a right.
------
Re:May not be good for OSS, but hell yeah! (Score:2)
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do realize that MS is lying when it says that drivers are at fault. Look at any other freaking closed source OS. The drivers rarely cause the problems in an OS. BeOS drivers are hacked up by Be engineers based on sketchy specs and still BeOS 5 hasn't crashed yet. Same for Sun, SGI, and QNX drivers. Take a look at the Windows 95 nVidia drivers. They are rock solid and fast as hell. That's more than I can say for most OSS projects. So what if it is closed source? Unless you're dealing with a crappy company like S3, drivers are rarely the problem.
No it's not, see above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is. It advances Linux in the home and workstation markets, and gives users an incentive to use linux. (The linux drivers run about as fast s the Windows ones yet they're still in beta!) For those who already use it, it makes they're experience much more enjoyable. If you don't like closed source, buy a Matrox card, but the percentage of users who care more about some privlage they likely will never need (or could) use, is small compared to the number of people doing actual 3D work (or play!) and needing great 3D performance in a stable environment on pc-level hardware.
How is this good? The purpose of Free software is not to gain a place in the proprietary software world as an equal to Microsoft's offerings!!! It's to be a fundamentally different, and better, way of using computers.
>>>>>>>>>>
You miss my point. I general, Linux has been treated as an afterthought OS. This has nothing to do with it's quality. If a company treats Linux equal to Microsoft it shows that they take Linux seriously, not that they think that the two OSs are of similar quality.
On this, at least, you are right. And, in exactly the same way, it is your choice whether to give them your business. Not me, man.
>>>>>>>>
Okay fine, not you. But my post really wasn't aimed at die hard OSS people. Outside
Your argument makes no sense. Voodoo5 is faster AND more open than nVidia's offerings...where's the beef? Besides, if I really cared about 3d graphics speed, I'd go with either Sun's new Expert3d or one of many fine offerings from SGI. >>>>>>>>>
Hello? Take a look at the preview of Voodoo 5. It shows that it is only moderatly faster than a SDR GeForce, (which is significantly slower than a DDR plus the SDR doesn't use texture compression), and is a generation ahead. This means that it will not be competitive with parts from its own generation, namely the GeForce 2 and the new ATI chip. Second, I'm a hacker at heart. Part of that is getting the most speed possible within one's means. All my programs are coded close to the hardware, all my hardware is overclocked, and I buy the fastest hardware for the price. If my price range was Expert 3D level, I'd buy that. However, my price range is GeForce level, and nVidia cards are the best available in that bracket.
Sun and SGI may not offer source either, but at least their stuff is FAST and HIGH QUALITY. If SGI ships me a binary IRIX driver for (let's say) an Infinite Reality Engine, I'm pretty damn sure that it'll work and not crash my system. Do you really place the same level of faith in nVidia? Coding for a system they most likely don't understand well? Sure, kid.
))))))))))))))))))
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:4)
Yeah I found that out the hard way when it plugged in my Matrox G400 and was shocked to learn that it didn't work. The nerve of some companies...
BTW your viewpoint is very politically correct amongst open source zealots (and moderators, unsurprisingly), but also rather asinine. You obviously don't actually own a Nvidia card. For the thousands of us that do, we'll happily take a closed source driver for Linux (like me, for example) rather than sniff our noses at their offerings and issue some sort of dumbass ultimatum a la "Nvidia needs to make a commitment (!!!)". You take what you can get.
What should not be done is to go on Slashdot and bitch and moan and use phrases like "Don't fall for it" and in general encourage people to ignore this very colossal step of even supporting alternative OSs. I personally would have soiled myself had I heard a year or two ago that Nvidia was going to actually support Linux. That's great. It's huge. Not many people are doing it. The only prayer you ever have of seeing them release their specs is if they realize that a large portion of their customer base uses alt. OSs and that they stand to gain a lot by doing so. And how do we do that? By praising them, buying their cards, sending in the bug reports, giving them a positive reception - in general showing them that they could easily realize some synergy between the very zealous and talented open-source community and their own engineers by releasing the specs and letting us help out. Not by being typical OSS snobs about the whole ordeal and bitching.
Can you guess where I stand on Stallman and his "Open Source purity" shenanigans after all this?
BTW I am very happy with my Nvidia X server. Haven't tried OpenGL yet, but just having that support straight from the manufacturer
--
I can't use these drivers! (Score:3)
Yes, the fact that they've released drivers is good, but you have to understand that Linux isn't just another operating system, that you can release binary drivers for and have them work - it's not like windows in this sense. There is no ABI for Linux, so there's no way that you can write a driver that will be guaranteed to work on more than one version of the kernel. It could easily break between minor versions (even of the stable kernel), and there's no way that it would work between major revisions. Now, if they'd released source for the kernel module at least, then that problem would go away, because people who wanted to use their nvidia cards under 2.3 would port the driver themselves, but with binary only, that can't happen.
It's pretty much the same with the X side of things, though the X developers go to more trouble to maintain binary compatibility. But even with that, there's a very good chance that things will fail at some point, and people will have to wait on nvidia for fixes. That's not good enough, not for an open source world.
And the final nail in the coffin of these drivers is the fact that they're ia32 only - there are a lot of PowerPC users out there, and the numbers are growing. They can't use these drivers, and they probably have absolutely no chance of getting working drivers for their platform. Again, if this was a source release, the problem would dissappear almost overnight.
Ultimately, the problem is that you can't treat Linux or any open source system the same way that you'd treat a binary-only OS. You can't treat the code the same way, because it behaves very differently, and you can't treat the users the same way, because they behave differently as well, and they expect different treatment. Nvidia might have produced some quite nice drivers for their cards here (and they do seem pretty fast, certainly compared to the original release), but they've screwed up in the long run by caring more about their paranoia than their customers. I don't know whether nvidia will lose out in the market in the long run, but I know they've lost out in the open source market because of this.
himi
Still pissed off . . .
--
Re:Send nVidia a letter. I did. (Score:2)
------
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
I'm sick of the blatant bias in the
These drivers are FAST, I mean REALLY fast! They are also extremely functional. This is probably the fastest most functional OpenGL implementation available for Linux, so set the OS issue aside and thank nVidia for seeing Linux as important enough to put in the development effort.
Ask them nicely for source code, begin that next step now that we have great hardware accelerated OpenGL on Linux. Don't flame off at them like rabid animals, appreciate what's been done but ask for more.
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:2)
Re:But agreeing to the EULA waives those rights (Score:2)
Also a total crock that would never hold up. If you stop licensing it, can you give it back to them ?? Are there any continued costs of usage ?? There are NO licensing fees, a critical aspect to licensing. You do not pay per unit time. You pay to be able to use software ad infinitum. The software company meets NO criteria for ownership even if their software EULA says so. These agreements are not worth the electrons used to print them. They can not and would not hold up in any court.
Consider this. You buy an NVIDIA card, but never read the licensing agreement. You instead scan the media that came with the card (that you bought), and download the XServer module and dump it into
The EULA is quite simply the result of software barons trying to extend their protection by bluffing people who don't know better.
Re:BOO HISS! (Score:2)
You throw around the term "alternative OS" without giving much thought to what it means. Alternative as in less than the majority of people using it? Hell, why not try a Mac, there's good hardware support for it, slick apps, basically a wholesome workstation environment that you can make good use of. Need some of that UNIX power? Go with SUN or DEC, they make some great "alternative" hardware and the software optimized to run on it.
But no, you have to use Linux. You have to fuck with the very philosophy of the OS. Why, may I ask? Because it's cool? Because it's free? Cheap? Obviously not because you understand that Linux is where it is today in its markets (servers and task-specific workstations, not gaming rigs, if I need to spell it out for you and the other Johnny-come-latelys-I-run-Linux-cause-it-allows-mXMMS GL Plugins (Score:2)
Ian
Re:TNT2 and Tax Refund (Score:2)
The Utah-glx project will provide open drivers.
Also, if you're the type of slashdot reader that opposes closed APIs protected by copyright law, then you probably don't want to support 3dfx, because of their attempts to monopolize the 3D card market with Glide.
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
Who is going to support me with no driver source? What makes nVidia any more interested in providing me with support than SGI, in the absence of a contract with either? In fact, nVidia would be significantly less interested, because their products are inexpensive commodity items. SGI has a motive (near-bankruptcy) to keep their customers, even small ones, happy; what's nVidia's motive? Not a damn thing. They don't care whether I buy their products now or ever. So in the end, if I want a decent level of support for an nVidia product, it'll have to be a community-based effort based on, as always, source availability (really, how do you have community support without source? "ok, now dd if=mypatch of=binarydriver offset=0x455fc count=0x458, sacrifice a chicken and a virgin, and pray that it works on your system"??? Come on now). Since nVidia doesn't seem to want that, I've the choice of paying SGI for support or using a product from a friendlier vendor. Either way, the nVidia way loses.
Re:XMMS GL Plugins (Score:2)
and are not the ones you want. glplanet works fine here. pulsar -fps gives
wildly oscillating values between 230 and 370 fps. PIII 450 & GeForce.
The xmms opengl plugins have always crashed for me so nothing's new there.
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
Speed vs. stability. I like to have both, which is why I use Linux. If you want pure speed, I hear Win98 SE is good at crashing rapidly
Sarcasm aside, as a BeOS user, I'd expect you'd be in agreement with the "OSS fanatics" about having drivers and specs for hardware. I can tell you, the main reason I don't use BeOS on workstations around my house is because the driver support level is at OS/2 levels. OpenBSD, Linux, and Windows are the only OSes that support all my hardware. I don't think OpenBSD and Linux support the hardware because companies released binaries, like they do for Windows. >:)
---
Nope, those rights cannot be given up (Score:2)
Re:What nVidia is doing... (Score:2)
Yes, I agree. But as often as the cries of "open source!" have been raised here, it's not the source code that really matters. It's the programming specs. Source means you can get a really good driver for XFree86. Specs means you get a really good driver for XFree86, BeOS, OS/2, GGI, SVGAlib, and any other OS/graphics system people care enough about. After all, if you want to write a driver for a system other than the one supported by the released source, you have to grok the specs from that source first. Published specs save you that big first step.
Come on, do you see Intel telling amd "here are the circuit layouts for our IA-64 architecure"
No, but Intel does publish the register and instruction interfaces. They tell you how to actually use their hardware.
Imagine if that weren't the case. Say that x86 Linux systems couldn't use gcc, because no docs are available to write up a machine specification. Instead, they bundle icc (Intel C compiler), which is available in binary-only form from Intel's FTP site. All binaries on the system are built with it. You can't program the CPU directly (in assembler) because the information necessary to do that is protected IP.
Does that not strike you as an utterly preposterous situation?
Should the register interface to a video card be any different?
I think a lot of people have lost sight of what sheer folly it is to sell computer hardware components without making available information on how to interface with them at the hardware level. That's not protected IP. That's something one ought to be able to take for granted!
Yes, it's true that Nvidia's register specs may contain trade secrets. It's actually the case that their driver implements a lot of functionality that would normally either be in firmware or silicon (Nvidia cards don't have a clean "register interface" in the usual sense, or at least they haven't). But what does that mean? That means they did not design the hardware correctly. They got careless. And 9 out of 10 says it's because they've been used to shipping only Windows drivers, where binary-only is not only a non-issue, it's the norm. There was no concrete reason to keep the interface IP-clean, or even publicly documented, so both those goals were dropped as soon as it was convenient.
in the meantime I'll be enjoying my nvidia cards, closed-source drivers and all. If nvidia is willing to maintain linux drivers for you, what are you complaining about?
Alpha and PPC users have plenty to complain about. BeOS and OS/2 users have plenty to complain about. GeForce on Linux users might very possibly have something to complain about when the GeForce 4 rolls around, and Nvidia wants to boost sales.
The real kicker, however, is that if Nvidia did things correctly, all those users could be made happy at no additional expense-- if only Nvidia would allow it!
A line needs to be drawn somewhere. What should be free, what shouldn't be free? The guys at nvidia put a lot of hard work into their designs and can't afford to give them away. They have to make _a_living_ off of this and I don't think they'll jeopardize their livelihood in the name of open-source.
Re:Matrox (Score:2)
If you want more games for Linux, it is, in a round-about way.
1) As a 3d graphics programmer, having 2 monitors hooked up via the voodoo has been a God-send. 3D output on the voodoo connector, source code on the vga connector. Very productive.
2) All the artists where I work, have dual monitors (even dual 17" work quite well.) Why? Because 3D Studio MAX pretty much requires it to get any "serious work" done. (Hey modelling game objects is serious work
Of course if we had a good modeller on Linux that would help. Anyone know of any at the same quality as 3D Studio Max ??
> most of the dual headed cards out there only worked in WinNT
For PC's, yes. Usually the modellers are running NT since most of the "high-end" modelling tools have been written for NT.
Cheers
Re:May not be good for OSS, but hell yeah! (Score:2)
How will giving out register programming information give their competitors an advantage? From the reviews I have read their competitors have been kicken their ass in the Linux realm(mostly because their drivers suck. If you don't think so play Quake III with a Gforece and then try the Voodoo III) and now it looks like their competitors have equally good, if not better performance in their own home of Windows.
If you don't release designs for your board but release the registers the need to be set for what ever the heck they do, will that really give an advantage to the other card makers? If so I want to know how and why.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
That's BS. (Score:2)
Even if NVidia has something super-special that their drivers reveal, that's what patents were made for! If it's patented, it can't be stolen and used by another hardware vendor even if the source is available.
Re:No source... no way... (Score:2)
Re:Blank Screen with Riva TNT (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:But agreeing to the EULA waives those rights (Score:2)
Except that you can download the rpms without accepting the license. Of course, the page says that by downloading you are accepting the license, but that is also a load of bull. No price, and no restrictions on access, and no signature equals no license. They make NO attempt to make you read the license, and place NO restrictions on license acceptance in order to receive the rpms.
Again, this is quite simply nonsense being pushed with the idea that you will not see through it. Besides, the drivers are copyrighted, and copyright NEVER protects against reverse engineering of the methods that are copyrighted (only copyright protection mechanisms may not be reverse engineered, and only in the US).
This entire change in public perception on the actual value of copyright is ridiculous. For example, Microsoft claims they have the right, through copyright protection, to mandate certain things occur on first bootup. The judge thinks that is ridiculous. Copyright provides NO such protections. The software industry stands to make a TREMENDOUS amount of money if things like UCITA and DMCA are upheld and/or extended. They would like to make money by taking rights you currently hold.
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
Re:WhooHaa, nVidia flame fest! (Score:2)
Re:"I got what I want so there" (Score:2)