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)
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.
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!
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
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...
...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.