NVIDIA Drivers for 2.6 Kernel 437
fmileto writes "Kerneltrap.org is reporting that Nvidia has released drivers for the 2.6 series kernel. The driver and install directions can be found on Nvidia's website."
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.
GPL soul (Score:5, Funny)
My soul is proprietary, thank-you-very-much. (Under an exclusive license, at that.
Proprietary, yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Kjella
Re:Proprietary, yes... (Score:3, Funny)
'Cause I have!
Re:GPL soul (Score:2)
Release Highlights from Nvidia.com (Score:5, Informative)
* Support for Linux 2.6 kernels.
* Fixed AGP failures on some VIA motherboards.
* Fixed a problem that prevented X from running on Samsung X10 laptops.
Re:Release Highlights from Nvidia.com (Score:2)
On a slightly OT note, anyone know why the mouse is nonfunctional and/or haywire for a few seconds after x starts on 2.6.x kernels?
Re:Release Highlights from Nvidia.com (Score:2)
Re:Release Highlights from Nvidia.com (Score:4, Funny)
* Currently, there are drivers for both Linux and FreeBSD.
See - Nvidia confirms it: *BSD is *not* dying after all! ;)
Re:Release Highlights from Nvidia.com (Score:5, Funny)
I think you missed the point here. nVidia released BSD drivers so we can all watch it die in realtime at 248 fps in 1600x1200 on a 21" monitor!
Re:mod parent down (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
I've been running the 2.6-series kernel since test6 (IIRC), and all the time using the Nvidia GFX drivers for my Ti4600. This story suggests that Nvidia users have had to wait for a new 2.6-compatible release of the drivers, which clearly isn't the case.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
BTW..... the gentoo sources did contain those patches:)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
You had 3D acceleration?
Fer sure, and its definitely been working (smooth 3D viewing of 100,000 polygon meshes). Either that, or the Underpant Gnomes installed a 10GHz processor in my machine while I was asleep...
However, its worth noting that I'm using the drivers as packaged by Gentoo. This may include the patch which another reply to my OP mentions; I wasn't aware of this patch when I posted.
Excellent - OS ones worked OK though... (Score:2)
I'd download the new ones but my Linux box is broken
BTW, does anyone know how to Overclock a GeForce 5600 in Linux? Haven't found anything yet...
Re:Excellent - OS ones worked OK though... (Score:2)
The thought of a voltage regulator *literally* poping just grabs me. I can hear the heavenly choir from here!
Re:Excellent - OS ones worked OK though... (Score:2)
Re:Excellent - OS ones worked OK though... (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, does anyone know how to Overclock a GeForce 5600 in Linux? Haven't found anything yet...
Why do I get the impression that your motherboard problem wasn't entirely unprovoked?
Re:Excellent - OS ones worked OK though... (Score:2)
I have a computer case that looks like Tux - and each side of his bow-tie is a button. One power, one reset.
So I go to reset it, and hit the power button by accident. Then I hit it again right away to turn it on. Then it smokes...
So now I've installed two power buttons (have to hit both at once)...
The 2.6 compatibility is good but... (Score:2, Informative)
Official Feedback Thread (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Official Feedback Thread (Score:2)
If it weren't for the GPL and the non-binary rule, NVIDIA could actually release a linux based PVR ISO for their nForce boards. Oh well... maybe they can do something in BSD?
Re:Official Feedback Thread (Score:3, Informative)
Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
The next question is when will they release drivers for Keith Packard's/Freedektop.org's Xserver, because to be honest, I'm very interested in seeing what that can do...
Jedidiah
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe we should all download it, even if we don't have an NVidia card, just in case they are monitoring the stats of Windows and Linux driver downloads.
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
Debian (Score:2, Interesting)
I tried installing it on a new Debian Woody (stable) installation, but it could not determine the module file name. I tried several options to point it to the kernel source and headers, but it didn't work. Eventually, I installed an older version using http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/index.php [debian.org].
Does anyone know how to install this new version? I didn't even know it was this new, except for the distinct lack of hints that Google provides so far.
Re:Debian (Score:2)
Does anyone know how to install this new version?
Well, not sure how well it would work on stable, but on unstable if you roll your own kernel using make-kpkg it's easy:
sudo apt-get install nvidia-kernel-sourcecd
tar zxvf nvidia-kernel-source.tar.gz
cd linux-2.6.1
fakeroot make-kpkg modules sudo dpkg -i
sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx
This is great news (Score:2, Insightful)
I also hope they'll be more stable than the 2.4 + 2.6patch was... I know a fair few people for whom lack of stable videocard support was the factor stopping them upgrade to 2.6.
Do they still suck? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Do they still suck? (Score:2)
at least we get a driver... (Score:5, Insightful)
im quite happy with that.
I understand the IP issues involved probably prohibit a source release.
I would just.. let this one go and thank them for at least supporting the linux driver.
cutting edge technology (Score:3, Funny)
bugs are still there (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bugs are still there (Score:2)
Turn off your frame buffer (Score:3, Informative)
This has been around for a loong time, before the last 3 releases. It's not directly NVidia's bug, it's related to the riva frame buffer conflicting with the NVidia drivers.
Turn off frame buffer support and use a plain console and you will be fine.
GPL soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I support the GPL and don't particularly like binary-only drivers, I reckon this little phrase has no place in this announcement. To NVidia's credit, they seem to be somewhat serious about supporting Linux in a somewhat timely manner. This sort of allusion won't be a great incentive for other hardware vendors to support Linux at all, they'll just think "whatever we do to be nice to them, those Linux folks will always have something to complain about".
When Linux has 80% marketshare and is a true force to be reckoned with, then perhaps the community will be able to afford sarcasm and get away with it, but in the meantime, there must be other, more constructive ways to entice vendors to embrace open-source.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.
Easy solution: If you want to stick to your principles, then don't use the NVIDIA drivers, or buy a card that has open drivers. whatever you do, don't use the closed-source NVIDIA drivers and then complain about your principles not being followed, as you wouldn't be doing anybody any favours, and you'd lose your credibility
Note: this isn't directed at you personally, I just have a thing for people who talk the talk, but
Re:GPL soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get a bit annoyed (OK, sometimes REALLY annoyed) at people in the Linux world equating the use of Linux and being an OSS zealot.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. If Linux does the job I want it to, better or cheaper than someone else, then I'll use it. If I want to use it, I'll use it. I am not, however, going to town banging on doors and windows about GPL, OSS, and the purity of my morals. If someone else wants to, that's fine. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us. (i.e. by discouraging companies who make good hardware from supporting Linux at all.)
Your post doesn't make me think that you're one of these, but it was a good segue to my point.
As for the car analogy, it brings up the question of compromise. To wit: I live in an area where I can't do without a car, so I had to buy one. I did, however, put fuel efficiency and reliability near the top of my 'important features' list, to cut down on the environmental costs. Furthermore - because I can, I take the bus to work.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for your post, cuz I think we're in the same boat. I think the GPL is cool and all, it definitely addresses some important issues, and it makes things interesting in the world of software development. I use Linux at school and at home, because it's good enough for me, and I like the philosophy behind it. I also use the NVIDIA drivers because their cards are cheap, and they are supporting my OS. The point of my post wasn't to say this was a good thing or bad thing in itself, as I don't really ca
Re:GPL soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that positive advocacy, proposing free GPL and open-source philosophy introductory meetings with company decision-makers, conducted by free-software figureheads, or just plain boycott with (polite and argumented) emails explaining why you prefer not to buy close-source products, would work better than nasty remarks.
I'm sure NVidia thinks they're doing us a great favor here : if we diss them
Re:GPL soul? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
Be happy for the compromise or use a card that was reverse engineered or is somehow open.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
How about introducing our principles in an even handed manner, as well as taking into consideration the needs of others.
"Thank you for the driver, nVidia. We'll use it, but it would be that much better if you open sourced it. Yes, we can help you keep that valuable IP from ATI, too, if that matters."
Soko
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
It's difficult to have any movement at all in hardware-related fields without support from major players.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's difficult to have a useful principle-based movement without substantial movement also.
Why does it never occur to zealots that their chosen nemesis can have any valid reasons for their actions.
Does it ever occur to an open source zealot that maybe there are valid reasons a company can't provide non-binary drivers? Take, for instance, trade secrets. If the company publishes code which clearly describes their specializ
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
When Linux has 80% marketshare and is a true force to be reckoned with, then perhaps the community will be able to afford sarcasm and get away with it, but in the meantime, there must be other, more constructive ways to entice vendors to embrace open-source.
...like, for instance, not buying NVidia at all, and restricting yourself to a Radeon 9200 or lower so that you *can* use open-source drivers. That's very constructive market feedback. Buy what does what you want.
-Rob
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
They don't have to support Linux at all. I have free OSS, but still non-GPL, drivers through XFree86 that work just fine. Its nice of them to consider Linux a viable platform, but I think their support leaves much to be desired.
And if they are unwilling to do it why not open source the driver and give the OSS community a hand at providing FULL support on Linux, eh? What have you got to lose? Some lame IP
Re:GPL soul? (Score:2)
Re:You think this is being constructive? (Score:2)
But you don't understand : there's no question we don't like their binary-only releases, but they did make a step in our direction. To them, they think readable code gives away their hardware secrets. No need to be nasty to them (and given the level of OSS support for hi-perf video boards out there, we probably ought not to), I'm just saying it's more constructive t
Re:GPL soul? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really get tired of hearing this same dispute come up every time nVidia and Linux are mentioned. nVidia can not release their drivers as open source due to the licensing for the AGP interface code in their drivers-pure plain and simple. There is not some huge conspiracy within nVidia to keep you from getting their source, they are not sitting here playing games with you, they are trying to support a market as best as they can within the restrictions imposed upon them by a business decision. If you don't believe me, the do a search here on slashdot into the history of this-even Carmack has chimed in on this one.
I sometimes wonder if there is a more thankless group out there than the Linux user market. Yes, it would be great if the nVidia drivers were open source. The truth of the matter is that unless someone wants to reverse engineer everything in these drivers, you're not going to have that anytime soon.
Re:GPL soul? (Score:3, Insightful)
This depends on the terms of the licensing agreement for the AGP code. nVidia may be barred from writing something to replace that code (I doubt that). Or they may have to do a "clean room" reverse engineering of it, without allowing anyone who has seen the old code base (any part of the driver, no matter how small) to work on the new code. That's a huge investment on their part for what is, in all fairness, a small market. That means that everyone who has worked on the video drivers from at least the
Stuck in nvidia hell (Score:2, Informative)
The proprietary graphics drivers have been a huge pain.. nvidia support has been terrible when compared to the open source community. For much of 2003 the video would go blank once you exited X11 (forcing a reboot whenever you exited X!).
And now they have gone to a monolithic installer "to make things easier". Right.
The little bit I saved pales in comparison to the time I have spent dealing with this BS.
And
Re:Stuck in nvidia hell (Score:2)
Obsolete? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they're supporting a card that old, I don't think you're going to have to worry anytime soon. I'm impressed that they're supporting their entire post-Riva lineup with a single driver.
Personally, the Free drivers never worked for me; X just looked mangled.
PowerPC not yet (Score:5, Informative)
Holding me back (Score:2)
Anyone know if the AMD64 ones also work? (Score:2)
one down, two to go (Score:4, Informative)
To all the Open Source Whiners (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for Open Source, but there are probably far too few 3D/OpenGL engineers who have the time to work on and release quality Open Source 3D/OpenGL drivers. NVIDIA has practically their whole driver engineering team working for us. I consider the closed part just an extended piece of 'firmware' for the (closed source) video hardware. The 'loader' and glue code are open source.
It would take a couple of man years to produce quality drivers that even come close to what we have now, and by that time the current crop of 3D hardware cards will be thrice obsoleted (hi Matrox!)
Better to spend our resources improving other things (like GNOME, D-BUS, whatnot) than to duplicate driver magic, just for the sake of being open source.
Now, if you're a PowerPC user, I take everything I said back *grin*
-adnans
I don't have and NVIDIA card but (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? I'm sure they keep count of the linux driver downloads. If they see a boost in the numbers, maybe we will get quicker updates.
I have an ATI card, but that won't stop me from buying an NVIDIA card in the future if they provide some serious 3d support ala Windows.
Does this sound dumb? I know it's fudging the numbers, but with computers and software there is always that chicken and egg problem we have seen so many times before.
Discuss.
--
Re:But when (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But when (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But when (Score:2)
Re:But when (Score:2)
So you've never ran the 2.6 kernel up until now?
See my post below [slashdot.org]. I've been running 2.6 since it was released, and have never had a problem with the Nvidia binary drivers. YMMV, however.
Re:But when (Score:5, Interesting)
For the video drivers that might be true. Although I doubt there is really anything really new in there... a lot of manufacturers overestimate their own brilliance.
But for there chipset drivers (e.g. nForce) they are just plain assholes.
Jeroen
Re:But when (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But when (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But when (Score:2)
We're basically screwed. Nvidia's success with binary-only drivers has made ATI do the same thing. Unless the Weather Channel [linuxgames.com] decides to fund development of drivers for the newer cards, Radeon 8500 is the end of the open-source line. And no one else really exists in the high-performance 3D graphics card market.
I hope Red Hat uses some of their new half a billion [lwn.net] to do something about this, but they've
Re:But when (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, build your own card. Because their aren't any. The open source drivers in linux weren't made by the card manufacturers, that is why they will never perform as well as the closed source ones. So if you want an open source driver that performs, you will have to create your own. If and when Linux ever gets the market share to create a demand, I think you will find distributions selling a separate dri
Re:But when (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But when (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeroen
Re:But when (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless there is a huge change in their business model, they will never make them open source.
The code for these drivers contains a lot of information about the underlying design... of both the hardware and the accelleration (sp?) techniques that give this product the edge... exactly the sort of stuff competing companies would love to get their hands on. Remember that a good driver can really have a marked effect on the performance of a graphics card.
Of cours
Re:But when (Score:3, Insightful)
I know what you mean. I recently put together an SFF Athlon 64 system (Based off of the Biostar iDeq 200P), and I was torn with what to do for a graphics card, because I want to run gentoo as my primary OS. (With windows for the occasional test-compile for work).
I chose an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro because they have better open source drivers (community developed) for they're slightly older stuff, as well as binary support for what's current, but they can't be bothered to release 2.6 AMD64 compiled drivers, and
Re:But when (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually in the long run having the source code and/or specs to build a driver/module would be better in that the OS dri
Rome wasn't built in a day (Score:5, Informative)
1) There is a natural desire to keep technical details (both in the hardware and in the driver implimentation) secret from one's competitors, so as to build a competitive advantage.
2) You may not own all the technology in the hardware or the drivers, and your licencing agreement with the 3rd-party technology providers may include terms of non-disclosure.
This tends to disincline one from open-sourcing the drivers.
The advantages of having them opened up everybody here is well aware of. But realizing those advantages takes time to sink in at the hardware company - especially when their Linux market is very small (so the perceived risks outweigh the rewards)
As time goes on, and especially as the Linux market grows (to the point where it is providing a signifigant fraction of a company's revenue) I believe the value of opening up the drivers will become more compelling to the driver authors (and more importantly, their management)
Baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day.
In the meantime, there is value in supporting companies who provide closed-source drivers for products where there is no other alternative. Help them build the Linux experience - both on the technical and social aspects - that will eventually lead them along the path to opening their drivers up.
Would I prefer to see fully open-and-GPLed NVIDIA drivers? You bet your ass. But for whatever reason, they aren't ready to jump off that particular cliff, so I'll support them anyway in anticipation of the day when they DO open the drivers up.
We're fighting 20 years of a culture of secrecy and code-hording here. It'll take time to work through that.
DG
Patents (Score:2)
Sure, one could blame the game developers for requiring patented code, but when you get to the people who want to just use their computers (like me), it all comes down to "does the damn thing work or not?"
On a completely different note, it's a bit sad how (some) kernel developers want to purposefully hard for binary only drivers. Even if drivers have s
Answering my own question...link to README (Score:5, Informative)
From the README:
If you do not have a working XF86Config file, there are several ways
to start: there is a sample config file that comes with XFree86,
and there is a sample config file included with the NVIDIA driver
package (it gets installed in
You could also use a program like 'xf86config'; some distributions
provide their own tool for generating an XF86Config file. For more
on XF86Config file syntax, please refer to the man page.
If you already have an XF86Config file working with a different driver
(such as the 'nv' or 'vesa' driver), then all you need to do is find
the relevant Device section and replace the line:
Driver "nv"
(or Driver "vesa")
with
Driver "nvidia"
In the Module section, make sure you have:
Load "glx"
You should also remove the following lines:
Load "dri"
Load "GLcore"
if they exist. There are also numerous options that can be added to
the XF86Config file to fine-tune the NVIDIA XFree86 driver. Please see
Appendix D for a complete list of these options.
That's not framebuffer support (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ATI (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ATI (Score:2)
Of course game play is a bit better on the cheaper nvidia's I've played with..
Re:ATI (Score:2)
Re:ATI (Score:2)
On the other hand, my Radeon 9500 PRO has been quite suitable with the current drivers. Savage 2.00c and UT2003 play very nicely with the details cranked, and the drivers have been
Re:ATI (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ATI (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe he wants to play the linux versions of Unreal Tournament 2003, or Medal of Honor, or Neverwinter Nights, or Quake3, or Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or Enemy Territory, or Savage , or Rune, or SpaceTripper, or Tribes 2 or Serious Sam, or Postal2, or America's Army or another of the various [happypenguin.org] other games [icculus.org] on Linux that requires 3D acceleration. Sure, a far cry from what's available on windows, but more games then I'll ever have time to play.
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe his research was limited to the fanboy rantings of how superior the card is based on artificial benchmarks.
Why are the super tech geniouses of linux land always shocked to find the expensive hardware they just bought has no/little linux support?
Anyhow, for ATi to supply good linux support, that would mean true OpenGL support - something even the windows drivers for the Radeon seri
Re:Damn drivers. I want the SOURCES! (Score:3, Funny)
#include "stdio.h"
#define s 1
#define o 1
#define u 1
#define r 1
#define c 1
#define e printf("You won't get any source. Go away!\n -- signed: NVidia\n")
main()
{
s - o - u - r - c - e - s;
}
Enjoy...
Re:Damn drivers. I want the SOURCES! (Score:2)
But I get the feeling NVidia could release any damn source and say it was the video drivers and 90% of people who complain about the drivers not being open-source would be happy.
It could just have a makefile, and spend a lot of time configuring. Then it compiles some huge-ass program, and that program does nothing. Then it installs its own propetory driveres. Problem solved.
Re:Damn drivers. I want the SOURCES! (Score:2)
Well not quite. The problem is, without the sources, when the kernel API (or something else) changes, it won't compile anymore. Similarly, try to run the old Qseeme binary on modern Linux distros : you'll have the darndest time getting it to go (if you get it to go at all) because it's linked against libc5. If the sources for Qsee
Re:Mandrake pulling microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Mandrake pulling microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Mandrake pulling microsoft (Score:2)
Parent is absurd (Score:5, Informative)
First RPM doesn't give such error messages, nor does RPM prevent you from installing the RPM you desire (Remember: Unix assumes that root knows everything, and never limits root from doing anything either)
Secondly, you are possibly confusing the above error with something not done by mandrake, but the kernel. The kernel automatically complains about non GPL/BSD modules being loaded, however this DOES NOT prevent the modules from being loaded. Issue the
Lastly, as another poster already pointed. Mandrake sells a commercial version of their distro that automatically uses such binary only drivers. (Their 100% FLOSS distro does not ship with them but like *any* other distro, can use them.)
Sunny Dubey
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Informative)
No you don't need to get the 2.6 kernel to run these drivers. They still work with your old 2.4 kernel as well!