Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Releases Beta XFree86 4.0 Drivers
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*
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Finally I can upgrade to XFree86 4. I hope these will make Q3 playable under Linux so I can show off Linux at LAN parties. :)
Also, for all fellow Redhat users out there, the nVidia FAQ indicates that there are now RPMs at the Redhat mirror sites.
Contents of email below:
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,
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Too bad they can't release the source code legally due to various NDA's between them and other companies.
------
here
--
A buddhist walks up to a hot dog stand and says ``Make me one with everything.''
I have the installation FAQ 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 up which gives me hope that I'll finally see some speed on my TNT2 card!
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
:wq
Maybe he can't
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)
2.1.2 Limitations. No Reverse Engineering.
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.
Can they beat THIS???
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Since chromatic doesn't seem to be around today, I may as well mention a helpful little page he's put together, for those who haven't seen it yet:
/. by PI's Frank LaMonica.
What is Nvidia doing?
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 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.
iSKUNK!
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.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Other threads (I can't verify, can't make it through) claim that those .src rpms don't actually contain source. Don't be fooled quite so easily...
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Yes, I just looked at the NVIDIA_kernel.tar.gz piece, and the source is to OS/specific wrappers around the binary-only libraries used to build the kernel module. The NVIDIA_GLX.tar.gz piece doesn't have source either. Checking NVIDIA_GLX.src.rpm now. Hal Duston
This nVidia driver release is probably the most amazing thing that has happened to me this week. First I get DSL, now this. Okay, I'm getting to my point. I would first like to congratulate nVidia on a driver release that is fast (though not completly stable, but hey, it's beta.) and very usable. This is a major step in the right direction for the Linux movement, though it does have its faults. First, it is not Open Source. I personally don't care, but I know the OSS community in general does. They think it is a bad thing for binary-only things to be used on Linux. While they may believe it's true, I also think they care about the quality of the Linux environment. Face it. Very few people use Linux because of its apparent freedom. People mainly use Linux because it is a very high quality environment. In that end, most care more about the quality of the environment than the freeness of it all. The nVidia drivers immensly increase the quality of the Linux environment, and in that end, it is a Good Thing. True, it trades freedom for that quality, but in the end, few people hack their video card drivers, but many people need high quality 3D acceleration. It is part of a broader trend of getting Linux accepted into the mainstream market. True, some think that Linux should stay a hacker-only system, but in the end, that too is detrimental to the quality of the system. Without the mainstream acceptance of Linux, 3D acceleration would have been unthinkable. Even three years ago, did anyone even think that someday the top consumer 3D company would write drivers explicitly for Linux? I doubt it. In addition to drivers, Quake, Corel Office, all the apps that are being ported, and partially KDE and GNOME, are due to the increasing acceptance of Linux. Although I doubt nVidia cares about the few of you who will boycott the GeForce based soley on the fact that there are no OSS drivers, I do think that it is important to encourage them and congratulate them on this release. (IE: Lay off the flame mail.) If they want to do more in the future, than that is their decision. Encouragement is good, but "OSS DO OR DIE" is bad.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, the linuxgames article said they had a blank screen using the new drivers with just a normal Riva TNT, the reviewer chalked it up to his configuration error.
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
I am ashamed at all the negativity on this board. There are almost not positive comments and most are flames directed at the closed-sourceness of the drivers. Even ACs who otherwise would have been ignored are being moderated up because they are against nVidia. People are posting "no source is bad" without even backing up their reasons. I for one would like to put in a positive comment.
:)
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!??
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Sure, it's good that NVidia is paying attention to the Linux market - course at 12,000,000 and growing exponentially they don't really have much choice - but they'd pay a whole lot more attention if you sat this round of NVidia products out and went with Matrox, which reportedly has the best rendering quality in the field, is far from shabby in performance, and has made the fullest release of technical specs so far, which can only result in the best possible drivers. Matrox needs to be rewarded for this, and NVidia needs to learn why secret specs as bad.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
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.
------
...you must own an nvidia card to even /use/ the software...
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 think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Unless I downgrade from the 2.3 kernel I'm using at the moment, I can't use these drivers, because they don't support 2.3. That stinks. That's why people are pissed off. That's why I plan on buying _anything_ but nvidia in the future.
:-(
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 . . .
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.