Slashdot Mirror
nVidia Unified Drivers Including Linux/FreeBSD
Screaming Lunatic writes "nVidia has decided to include Linux and FreeBSD in their Unified Driver Architecture and offer more tech support. Sounds like great news for Linux developers and users if Linux drivers are released at the same time as Windows drivers. (The NV30 emulation driver for Linux was made available about 3 months later than for Windows) The big push is probably from big studios that use Linux tools such as Film Gimp. More info here ." Added by Heunique: You might want to look here if you are using the latest development kernel.
That still means you get shafted if you use something different than i386/i64/amd64whatever. There's still no PPC support, and that sucks. Badly.
Id software can practically drive the industry sometimes, and without decent driver support for the platform Id would have a hard time putting out games like doom III or Quake III for the linux platform.
- tristan
Please point me to WORKING nvidea drivers for a non intel/amd architecture.......
At best you could say they support i386-linux not linux... and you are still limited to a subset of all the available kernels...
They have linux drivers, they don't support linux.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It would be fun if someone would have a look at the drivers and port them to BeOS.
It would be fun if nVidia open sourced the drivers so that you could look at them and port them to BeOS.
Dinivin
The big push is probably from big studios that use Linux tools such as Film Gimp.
Right, because workstations that use a 2D, time based, painting program need programmable pixel shaders, programmable vertex shaders, hardware transform and lighting, massive fill rate, AGP 8X transfer speeds, and astronomical triangle throughput.
that the economy is Linux's best friend. While the recession continues(and grows deeper), companies will have to work harder to make their profits and grow their company. Like hollywood, these companies will lower their IT spending; this means Linux. This also will means that some smart companies will offer better service which will lead to improved sales which their competitors will notice. 4)Profit!!!
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... that supporting the companies who support open source software ... is also a way of supporting open source software :)
If I understood the article, the drivers aren't going to be Open Source / Free Software. So I don't see why I would support them...
Yeah, there are so many other companies with superior products who will give us every single bit of code in their drivers. Besides, who needs 3D acceleration on Linux anyway? I suppose I can just take my 3D apps and run them on Windows.
Moron.
A disproportionate number of Linux users have nVidia cards primarily because they have decent drivers which work for all kernels, and tend to install without too much hassle. I downgraded my Linux box to a TNT2 because of this.
This has resulted in a large chunk of the market share going to nVidia, encouraging them to invest a little more in Linux. A sort of feedback loop.
It may only be a niche, but it's another chunk of income for them. nVidia will sell chips to anyone if they can get more money back than they spend.
I doubt filmgimp has as much of an impact. This is a smaller market than 3d enthusiasts with dual boot Linux systems.
I know most people answer "I am not interested with changing or even reading driver source", but they forget why Open Source is good. I will write just two reasons:
Of course it would be BETTER if they were open source. But the reason to support them is that you need a graphics card in your computer, and you'll choose the one that has good linux drivers.
Anyway, any major company that takes Linux seriously is worth supporting. I fully support them. Like I fully support Id software even if they don't make open source games (which would be totally stupid IMHO anyway). Also, maybe some other graphic cards vendors (or other hardware or even software) will look at the highly successful nVidia, and say "hey, they make linux drivers and are successful, so maybe we should do so too."
bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
just because the drivers themselves aren't Open Source doesn't mean nVidia isn't supporting the open source community by release drivers for Open Source OS's. What's with the All-or-Nothing mentality of the open source community. Can't we just be glad nVidia now sees the linux market big enough to spend resources to develop drivers for can pat them on the back for it?
I have great faith in fools; My friends call it self-confidence. Edgar Allan Poe 1809-1845
They are not open source. They have a small kernel modules that comes as a source tarball, which you have to compile against your kernel. The driver itself is binary only and communicates to the kernel using that module.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Look, I agree in most cases it makes sense for stuff to be open source and have nice open drivers so that if there are bugs they can be addressed in a more timely fashion.
.....drivers... one ATI's drivers suck, they don't update them across all cards at the same time, and they surely don't update them across all supported platforms at the same time. Guess what NVIDIA now can.
NVIDIA's track record is already to make high quality drivers, now whenever they make a Windows driver the Linux driver will be right there with it because 95 percent of the code base is now shared.
This is a brilliant move to hurt ATI were there problem is
Now if NVIDIA were to release their code ATI wouldn't have to decompile it and scratch their heads trying to figure out exaclty how to compete they would have the freaking code.
NVIDIA has a unified driver for all of their cards, for all of the platforms now so that you know that all of their cards will always work with the latst drivers, the operating systems they support and so on. Good luck finding that for ATI, and I for one don't think that NVIDIA should hand them the code on a platter just because people want everything in Linux to be open source. Sometimes vendor support is just as important.
I have an nVidia card and it is nice, but I think my next will be an ATI card because they have at least tried to be more cooperative with open source developers.
Check this quote from an October 20, 1999 ATI press release:Hello, nVidia? This is Open Source calling. We want your specs.
Do you even know what "open source" means? It does not mean having a HUGE closed binary driver (larger than most people's linux kernel) that links to the kernel using a tiny wrapper whose source code is available. Nor does it mean having a OpenGL library and GLX extension whose source is completely unavailable.
Dinivin
Thanks. My god, no wonder they took so long. They have to provide separate RPMs for every single different optimisation for every CPU type???? I hope the kernel gets some semblance of binary compatability soon, that's nuts.
Companies that are bottom line driven (accept it, you won't change capitalism over night) can't usually afford to jump in head first. This goes double for Nvidia, ATI, etc. Their driver source is like a blueprint of the important parts of their hardware.
I prefer open source, but to say there is no place in the world for closed source modules, applications, whatever, is too extreme IMHO.
For me the dividing line has always been commodity vs non commodity. Example: Of COURSE the OS, office software, web browsers, MUA's, MTA's, etc should be open, they are commodities. Specialized programs like AutoCAD, Drivers for up-to-the-minute video cards, and various other areas do NOT lend themselves to the open source model, and I don't believe they have to.
So right now the devil's choice is,
a) fast nvidia drivers for linux/bsd that get released with the windows drivers, which is 2 steps ahead of where we were in July, or
b) only a community supported driver, created by reverse engineering the chipset or windows drivers, released months (and years) after the windows versions.
It's not a perfect world, we have to change it in small steps. Your idealism is duly noted. Give nvidia credit for moving in the right direction, maybe at some point it *will* make sense to go GPL for them..
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
I was a huge BeOS fan. I bought the commercial releases and really liked it, but its day has passed. The company that produced it is not out of business and the one that acquired them has no interest in developing or marketing it further. I wish that this were not the case, but it is.
BeOS is no longer cutting-edge technology and the multiple, disorganized, unfunded attempts to create a BeOS clone are unlikely to result in viable products. BeOS lacks the user base necessary to stimulate development, the software base to attract users, and the tech support that is needed by users and developers alike.
I decided long ago that I did not want to become like those sad people that cling to long-dead platforms, constantly predicting their return and vocally defending their virtues. Let BeOS rest in peace.
Look, I know that many people think ideally everything should be open source, but it doesn't work that way. There are good reasons to want to keep the source closed on many thigns. In nVidia's case, one of teh main reasons is because they liscence certian thigns (like OpenGL technology for example) they they are contractually not allowed to release.
Really, I think people ought to quit bitching. Their drivers are fast, stable, and support all the features of their hardware. This is what one would expect from a driver. If they keep it closed for contractual reasons or otherwise, that seems like a poor reason not to use the hardware.
We aren't talking about something like Windows, that is attempting to keep something proprietary, the drivers act purely as an interface between the hardware and the higher level software.
In the end, like any business decision, it's a marginal cost/marginal benefit based decision. What does NVidia get from Open Sourcing their drivers? Matrox has had the best support for Open Source over the years, open specs and the works. How far has that gotten them? Ummm... I am as much a proponent of Open Source as the next rabid slashbot, but the fact is for a hardware company concerned about giving out too many details of their hardware and intellectual property, that spends more time and money developing good drivers than other hardware companies do, their stance makes some sense. In a perfect world, we would recognize that a hardware company's business is selling hardware, and the driver software ain't part of their business, thus they should Open Source it. But the fact is they MIGHT give away proprietary information they don't want competitors to have if they did that. And that's more important to them than the small market represented by the most rabid Open Source zealots.
Furthermore, many of the problems folks have had over the years with breaking NVidia drivers are directly attributable to the fucktard kernel devs who don't seem to have a concept of a stable ABI/API for kernel drivers. This is one area that Windows technically seems to shine over Linux. Kernel modules should work seemlessly across minor kernel versions. Not to encourage binary only modules, but to encourage ease of use and upgrading of Linux systems. If I upgrade Windows 2000 to Service Pack 18 or whatever, I don't have to go download new drivers. This is just silly. The contract between driverland and kernel land should be well-specified and stable, not "the driver can muck around with any kernel structures it fucking pleases".
Okay. I love linux. I love having the source available to many different partsof my OS and of many of my applications. BUT I AM ALSO A REALIST. We will never get to a point where everything is Open Source. People do need to protect the their IP some times. People have a perfect right to close source their poject if that is what they decided to do. I am very happy that Nvidia is supporting Linux. I love their drivers. Quake 3 Arena and UT2K3 run really fast. All my little opengl apps I using to learn runs flawlessly. Continue the great work Nvidia...close source your drive if you want or if you are required to by other agreements. Please stop whinning everyone, be glad we are getting good solid support!
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
Vicious circle: IE doesn't support [x], web developers don't use [x] because 90% of users won't see it. Hence IE doesn't need to support [x]. Way to hold up the development of the web by barely supporting 6 year old standards.
Funnily enough they do the same with Outlook and their MIME support.
In my experience, Gecko is significantly faster than Trident. Phoenix even goes a good way to making the rest of the UI similarly speedy.
Erm. Y' know, if we didn't spend so much of our time working around IE bugs, half the sites out there using CSS would probably be unusable with stylesheets enabled in IE. Of *course* it renders websites in pretty much the way we intend -- we spend ages working around the broken box model of IE5 and the broken positioning model of IE6 and the stupid clipping bugs it's covered with and the poor selector support and... you get the idea.
That's not to say the other browsers are pefect, but IE really takes the cake for destructive and annoying to work around bugs.
Like the ones who do insane amounts of hacking to add upgrades and get more speed out of their Amigas. Or Acorns. Or Ataris. I think they do more than most groups to make the computing world interesting, and I applaud their efforts.
When I think of all of the effort that they are expending and how it could benefit a modern, viable platform, it seems a terrible waste.
Actually, your both wrong...
While ATI and Matrox are usually touted off as superior 2D quality, that is just a baseless assumption based on the most popular implementations of video cards you have experience with.
there is nothing inherantly wrong with nVidia's 2D picture quality, or anything inherantly good about ATI's or Matrox's. The difference is that ATI and Matrox produce their own video boards, while nVidia only produces chips.
The difference here is in the digital to analog converters used on the board, which are not part of the GPU supplied by nVidia. nVidia sells just the GPU, and the card manufacturer is responsible for buying the other components from other people. Most companies that manufacture nVidia video cards have strong competition, so skimp out on some parts. It shows when you try to run an nVidia card made by a cheap manufacturer at 1600x resolution.
The same holds true for the "Powered by ATI" video card line, which is not produced by ATI, but 3rd party board manufacturers.
of all 3 GPU companies, there is essentially no difference in the 2D quality in either chipset. It's just that ATI and Matrox have the ability to dictate exactly what is used external to the GPU, and so can guarantee that their cards will have the quality of 2d that they want it to have.
If you buy quality nVidia boards from ASUS, or Visiontek (now defunct) you will be sure to have quality parts in them.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
of all 3 GPU companies, there is essentially no difference in the 2D quality in either chipset.
Bzzzt, wrong.
Both nVidia and ATi are using 8bit color modes for ~16million available colors (plus some alpha, some stencil, etc..). While the new ATi 9500 has a psuedo 10bit mode it is just doing internal calculations in 10bit on an 8bit input source.
Matrox, on the other-hand, offers true 10bit color modes on their cards. This is something that sets their cards apart from the consumer level commodity devices that both nVidia and ATi make.
While DirectX9/OpenGL 2.x call for 10bit color modes (e.g. colors specified as 0...1 instead of 0...256) There isn't an ATi or nVidia card out yet that truly does 10bit (GeForceFX, maybe).
There are differences between 2D output of cards, don't fool yourself. Even beyond the 10bit/8bit issues there are color quantization choices, pixel blending/dithering choices, anti-aliasing implementations....that each manufacturer does differently. These different choices do equal different output of the same source material on different cards.
And yes, both companies (ATi and nVidia)make cards, not just chipsets. 99.9999% of the nVidia cards you buy are identical. They're all based off of a reference engineering design that nVidia makes for each chipset release.