Slashdot Mirror


3DLabs Releases Linux Drivers

wilfie writes "3DLabs have released linux drivers for their for Wildcat III and Wildcat 4 Graphics accelerators. Being closed source they'll taint your kernel, but what the heck. Press release with penguin-friendly quotes available too." DataSquid has a note about ATI's Linux support: "While on the job hunt, I came across this posting at ATI seeking a project team lead. Last on the list of key responsibilities is "Act as a leader to improve the overall quality of Linux support at ATI." Good news? Certainly better news than what was suggested before."

48 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. This taints our image by sabshire · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Being closed source they'll taint your kernel,

    This is the kind of statement that taints the integrity of the ope source community, and is a prime example of why few commercial companies support Linux.

    --
    You will never "find" time for anything. You must "make" it.
    1. Re:This taints our image by Dicky · · Score: 5, Informative
      Taint, in this case, is a technical term. The kernel keeps a flag showing if all the code in it or loaded into it (i.e. modules) is open source, and if a module containing closed source code is loaded, the taint flag is set.

      The point, of course, is that when you post on the lkml saying "Wah wah my kernel's dead", they can come back and say "Sorry - we can't fix that because you're running code in your kernel which we don't have access to". Or possibly something less polite :-) But anyway, that's why the taint flag exists.

      --
      Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
    2. Re:This taints our image by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom is what makes Linux special, and "tainting" the kernel by linking in closed-source software directly compromises that freedom, together with security, maintanability, and upgradeability.

      Linux works just fine without "commercial companies" (by which I'm sure you mean developers of proprietary closed-source software that denies its users the freedom to use, study, modify, and share it) and will continue to do so.

      On the other hand, many successful companies (including IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, Oracle, Sun, and even M$) do manage to make money selling software that is free as in freedom, proving that freedom and commercial success are far from mutually exclusive.

      More commercial support would be nice, but only insofar as it is consistent with freedom.

      Closed source is the past. Open source is the present, and it is my hope and prayer that FREEDOM will be the future.

    3. Re:This taints our image by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      This is the kind of statement that taints the integrity of the ope source community

      Bang on the money.
      I'd like to know how many free OS users have the source code to their BIOS or the microcoding to their CPUs and other low level hardware yet don't squawk about it.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:This taints our image by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another point of the taint flag is that you cannot make a binary distribution of a tainted kernel. Under the GPL, if you distribute any modifications of the original kernel, you must include the source, which you can't do if you have closed-source drivers.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    5. Re:This taints our image by mirko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but if you "need" the driver which doesn't exist in a Free Version, just taint your kernel and accept whatever technical issues with this.

      I guess this is becoming ridiculous to read such statements, it's like those Jehova Witnesses who can't take any medication if they're ill because their faith is against such necessity.

      The first Freedom that Free Software should bring would be the Freedom to choose.
      If you don't have a choice, whether commercial or not, then consider the risk and do with what you have.

      In the current situation, the main hazard would be to make a compromise, but if it's the only way to make it work, then...

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    6. Re:This taints our image by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that I don't agree in some ways, but do any faster chipsets (with "free" drivers) exist?

      I've not found a single, modern, 3D graphics chipset with adequate 3D accelleration available to Linux without using some closed-source binary drivers. I don't really have a problem with closed-source drivers, but an open option (that's fast) would be nice.

  2. Re:Remainder of Linux Team by kinnell · · Score: 3, Funny
    What happened to it, were they fired, or move to some other department?

    Someone took a rocket launcher to a nerf gun shootout

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  3. An attractive proposal... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looking at the plethora of video cards with differing amounts of VRAM, performance specs, drivers for Linux, stability problems with Windows (especially newer OS versions and Service Packs which often make video drivers unstable), I've got a suggestion.

    Why not make a commodity video card with about 8MB video RAM (a Mattrox 8MB card out-performed a 32MB S3 hands down), and a stable open-source Linux driver? Will this lead to commoditisation of the video card and drive all other mfrs to imitate?

    Just wondering...

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:An attractive proposal... by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2, Informative

      We have that already. Older ATI chipsets (like Rage 128) have decent support from the DRI project (http://dri.sourceforge.net) and give quite acceptable 2D and hardware-accelerated 3D performance for most uses, at a quite reasonable cost. DRI supports some newer ATI cards as well. However, it can't support chipsets whose makers won't release specs, such as those made by NVidia.

    2. Re:An attractive proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The older Matrox cards are already very well understood, documented and supported by Matrox. Open Source drivers for loads of systems abound. Same for the older ATI chipsets.

    3. Re:An attractive proposal... by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why not make a commodity video card with about 8MB video RAM (a Mattrox 8MB card out-performed a 32MB S3 hands down), and a stable open-source Linux driver? Will this lead to commoditisation of the video card and drive all other mfrs to imitate?

      Well, the same reason as to why we don't have room-temp (or only requiring passive cooling) 500mhz processors for $25, silent single platter 10gb HDs for $25, 256mb 266mhz DDR RAM for $25. Flashy new stuff sells, innovation of older products doesn't. Hence why Intel and AMD are pushing up specs instead of improving and lowering the cost of older processors. The HD manufacturers thrive on selling larger and larger HDs instead of coole, more silent and cheaper ones. Hence why we have expensive 250Gb IDE blast furnaces instead of silent 5 to 10 Gb drives whic only cost about 25 bucks. Same thing for memory; pushing up the ammount of memory and speed sells while improving older technologies to be cooler, cheaper and more efficient... Doesn't sell.

      Which is kind of stupid really; I'd imagine computers with lower specs but increased stability, efficiency (wasting less power on warming the office) and lower costs would be popular in the corporate scene. Then again, I bet those people are rather thick and convinced by marketing that Office '97 and Windows 98 really do require 200gb of disk space (well, almost) and a P4 3ghz with HT. Not to mention that 512mb of DDR400 and that Ati 9800 that makes Excel run smooth. Woo!

    4. Re:An attractive proposal... by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? What's the point? It doesn't have 3D capabilities (at least none worth even mentioning at only 8 MB), and 2D video is old hat nowadays. You can get any number of cards with fully accelerated 2D drivers under Linux. The issue is 3D drivers... and then it's only an issue if you want open source drivers that actually perform to the cards capabilities.

      I think you have a complete and total lack of understanding about video cards based on your 8MB vs 32MB comment. You realize that 1600x1200 32-bit 2D video uses only 5.7 MB of memory? There are higher resolutions, but they're rarely used. The only need for more memory is texture buffering and z buffering, which are both purely in the realm of 3D graphics. More memory does not have any impact whatsoever on 2D graphics. In fact, most 3D cards are relatively unconcerned about their 2D speeds because it's all "fast enough" nowadays (and yes, I'm old enough to remember when 2D speed was a key measurement -- and remember getting my first card (a Number9 Imagine128, won at Comdex) that could actually scroll text in a window faster than it could full screen).

    5. Re:An attractive proposal... by dabadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there's the venerable VESA2.0 standard which is implemented in all video cards produced since mid-late '90's, and you can take advantage of this by the vesa XFree86 driver.

      The problem is that the VESA standard interface gives you just a framebuffer: there's no 2D or 3D acceleration and that is a real performance hit. (BTW, memory size has nothing to do with speed).

      So, what you ask for is already done: you can use any videocard to display a (somewhat slow) X session.

      But 2D is a solved problem: if you want that, you don't need an ATI 9700Pro or a GeForceFx, an old Matrox card will do it (the G100, G200 and G400 have very decent drivers, they are fast and the picture quality is superb). People want screaming fast 3D with all the latest features, and while there is a cutthroat race for this among the videocard manufacturers I don't expect really open source drivers.

      (Oh, and there's the good old Macrovision stuff for TV outs, which is often cited as a reason why is it, that there are no open source support from the vendors for the TV out)

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    6. Re:An attractive proposal... by Llurien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There actually are such products as 25$ 500 MHz processors and all the other stufff you just described. However, they are not used in the typical PC you buy at Walmart or some such store. Rather, they are used by OEMs, usually in speciality devices, such as controllers for automated processes or robotized assembly lines.
      The main reason is that up till recently there was a real need to get faster processors, and graphic cards and so on. However, we are reaching a point where the latest and greatest in CPU and graphic cards will only be of interest to a very limited number of users.
      I foresee a not-so-distant future where the PC market as it exists now will mostly dissapear, except for the aforementioned group of high end users. The remainder of the market will probably be filled up with XBox or DVR-like devices, which allow its users to do the most common things, like websurfing, playing games, listening to music. The internals of such a device will probably be largely based on the PC-architecture, but the look and interface of such devices will be different.
      It will probably be much more like a VCR than like a PC. The manufacturers of such devices will obviously not use the latest and greatest technology if the device doesn't need it. Think XBox: it's a PC with a high end graphics card, but only a 10GB hard drive, because it needs to have fast graphics, but doesn't need to store that much data.

    7. Re:An attractive proposal... by zsazsa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the same reason as to why we don't have room-temp (or only requiring passive cooling) 500mhz processors for $25, silent single platter 10gb HDs for $25, 256mb 266mhz DDR RAM for $25.

      600MHz passive-cooled processor for $15
      Silent single-platter 20gb HD for $39 (can't hit the magic $25 price point, but it is 20gb)
      256mb 266MHz DDR RAM for $22

      It CAN be done for the prices you quote; but your point still is valid. The flashy stuff sells and gets the PR.

  4. Why not open source graphics card drivers by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are the card companies afraid more of revealing technology to their competitors, or of revealing their benchmarking cheats...er optimizations?

    1. Re:Why not open source graphics card drivers by onion2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably because these drivers are just a little pet side project of one small team, they'd be riddled with bad code, hacks, kludges, and possibly even bugs. Once some OSS zealot gets hold of the code it'd not be 'Cool, they've released the source for us to work on and improve!' but 'Jesus, these people have no idea about writing open source software, wah wah wah.'

      Linux drivers are a priviledge, not a right.

    2. Re:Why not open source graphics card drivers by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 5, Informative

      In nVidia's case they licensed code from SGI or some company like that. If they GPL'd the code their would be a lawsuit which I don't think they want. Now you could atleast release the spec for the cards , so the community could create its own drivers. That is proabably why many companies don't get involved in Linux for drivers, because the community already made them.

    3. Re:Why not open source graphics card drivers by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO because it takes *work* to open the source. One nice/bad point of closed-source Windows drivers is that it lets you skimp on documentation and ship just-working code.

      "Nice" because every word of that documentation had to be typed and verified, and that calls for a paid employee. "Nice" because the code just has to "work", not be presentably clean.

      "Bad" because it means that drivers are coded based on sketchy documentation, informal notes, hallway conversations, and developer memory. Losing a developer may mean having to rediscover proper programming technique for some key feature. "Bad" because "just working" code may not work for all cases, and may be difficult to fix and upgrade for the next chipset.

      So in the long run, "Nice" may be cheaper than "Bad" or at the very least not much more expensive. But in the short run, "Nice" is always quite a bit more expensive. Few in the computing industry manage to have a long-range view.

      As for the IP arguments, IMHO the only valid ones are contractual. Drivers can be disassembled, and I've been on both ends of silicon delayering and analysis. It's not like you're trying to rebuild a clean-room clone - there are targeted features you go after, not a schematic of the whole design or source of the whole driver.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  5. Closed source as usual by boer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I has to be closed source, so application specific cheats^H^H^H^H^H features wouldn't be so blatant. I wouldn't expect any graphics card driver from a manufactorer to be Open Source.

    --
    (This sig intentionally left blank)
  6. Re:Thanks for nothing by cenobita · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly...and just as you have the freedom *not* to use a closed-source driver, you also have the freedom to take advantage of it.

    Too often, I see people confusing freedom with politics. Though they sometimes collide, they are *not* the same thing.

    Personally, I don't give a crap whether or not the drivers are closed-source. If I ever put the cash down on a 3DLabs card, i'd be a lot more interested in being able to use it on my OS of choice. The freedom to do high-end 3D or video work on Linux as opposed to Windows is a lot more interesting to me than the ability to modify the source code of the drivers.

  7. Re:Make the darn drivers Open Source! by CaptnMArk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 2 words: I agree.

    It may not be acceptable for gfx card manufacturer to release full specs for their hardware immediately after hardware.

    But there is no reason to hide specs for hardware older than 6mo or a year.

    (Currently running radeon 9000, because of it's open source dri drivers. I'm buying r9500 or higher as soon as there are open drivers for it).

    I've nvidia too, but if they don't start releasing some of their hardware specs, I'm not buying their stuff again. I won't even mention the closed drivers for their motherboard here.

  8. Re:Thanks for nothing by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only problem is that 3DLabs isn't supporting Linux... They are supporting "linux-somespecificprocessor-somespecificversion"
    Might be better than nothing, but not much...

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  9. The heck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    3DLabs have released linux drivers for their for Wildcat III and Wildcat 4 Graphics accelerators. Being closed source they'll taint your kernel, but what the heck.

    The heck is that we can't port them to other systems and platforms

  10. Re:Make the darn drivers Open Source! by dinivin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am just taken aback that these drivers are not Open Source. The Open Source developer community would have a lot to contribute to these drivers; they could enhance the performance, add new functionality, and make them more robust.

    One word: Bullshit. All R100 and R200 Radeon cards have open source drivers. There are, at most, about a dozen people who work on those drivers and the majority of them are paid to do so. Being open source isn't going to make a flock of people go running to improve the drivers.

    Dinivin

  11. From the my-linux-is-9.1-what-about-yours dept. by Kickasso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These are not Linux drivers. These are Red Hat 7.3 drivers. I'll stick with NVidia for now, thankyouverymuch.

  12. Re:great news! by cide1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but the drivers they release suck. I bought a Radeon 9000 from them, after the website said supported in Linux. The driver has the option for dual screen, however, there is no way in hell I can get it to work. I have found hundreds of Usenet posts where other people can't get it to work. I haven't found a single post of it working. I emailed ATI on two seperate occasions. The first time I received no response. The second time I asked for a known working XF86Config, and I got a canned response saying they would get back to me. They never did. Right know, I have a $130 piece of silicon that doesn't work. The drivers they do provide only work under XFree86 4.1.0 and 4.2.0. To me, ATI has no Linux support.

    --
    -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
  13. The question I couldn't find the answer to... by Sevn · · Score: 2, Informative

    is will their best card with their driver burn
    smoking rings around my nvidia card with nvidia's
    drivers the way that nvidia cards with nvidia
    drivers burn smoking rings around ATI cards with
    ati drivers under linux? I tell you this... If
    ID does a 180 and doesn't release a Linux version
    of Doom3 at the same time, or a reasonably short
    time after the windows version, I'm getting
    whatever card is fastest under XP and giving up
    on Linux gaming altogether. It's really nice
    having a quake3 link in my blackbox menu, but
    I'm already sick of having to reboot to play
    counterstrike, NOLF2, and other games.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  14. Re:question about these cards by Merlin42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Workstation cards are optimized for SPEC Viewperf, 'consumer' cards are optimized for Quake3. Case and point.

    In particular compare the Radeon 8500 (a reasonable but not really spectactular 'consumer' card) to the Wildcat3:

    e.g.

    R8500 is ~ 17% faster in q3 but the WCIII is ~39% faster for ProCDRS

  15. hmf. kinda poor effort if you ask me. by ashridah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, since they've only released rpms for specific kernels that are shipped with redhat 7.3, I don't know that you can say they're supporting linux, so much as supporting a very small subset of linux.

    Too bad if you need to step outside the box, but then, if you're using high-end workstation graphics software, that's probably something you don't want to do, since the software's probably targeted at the same place. You tend to lose support from vendors quickly, even tho 99% of the time, the differences mean jack, unless the vendor's got crappy software to begin with. (you hearing me oracle?! your installer is a PITA)

    Still, redhat 7.3 is miles out of date, and that you're SOL if you need to say... use your own kernel for some reason, or hell, NOT use redhat at all.

    I really hate companies that do that. Redhat's always been far more annoying to configure and use than I'm even remotely interested in dealing with, and they keep making it more useless every time they make a release. Hell. I'd happily tell people to use windows than deal with the annoyances that come with trying to use redhat to get stuff done.
    [end generic rant]

    If course, since I just ragged on the HOLY REDHAT, I'm probably going to be on the receiving end of a massive moderation smackdown. oh well.

    ashridah

    1. Re:hmf. kinda poor effort if you ask me. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>If course, since I just ragged on the HOLY REDHAT, I'm probably going to be on the receiving end of a massive moderation smackdown. oh well.

      I wouldnt come to that conclusion. If anybody has ever installed RedHat's new'ish version and then NMAP'ed it, you'll find some interesting things started.

      I always find: Telnet, Finger, Chargen, Mail, and other services started on DEFAULT install.

      If anything, I think we learned from Windows that default daemons/services automatically started at install/startup is a BAD idea. Systems like Windows, BSD, and Linux for servers should be set for the most secure (eg: no servers) settings.

      In that case, Windows AND RedHat both fall in the same category.

      --
    2. Re:hmf. kinda poor effort if you ask me. by caseih · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldnt come to that conclusion. If anybody has ever installed RedHat's new'ish version and then NMAP'ed it, you'll find some interesting things started.

      I always find: Telnet, Finger, Chargen, Mail, and other services started on DEFAULT install.

      Guess you haven't tried RedHat out in quite a while. The telnet server hasn't ever even been installed by default, let alone turned on since the RedHat 6.2 days. Sendmail is installed and turned on by default, but it is only bound to 127.0.0.1, so you can't even connect to it remotely unless you explicitly turn it on.

      In that case, Windows AND RedHat both fall in the same category.

      Hardly. RedHat out of the box in workstation install has no services running by default (except ntp), and the default firewall config only allows in ssh anyway. Even in custom or developer install, only ssh is on.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Re:Make the darn drivers Open Source! by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Only when we unleash the power of Open Source can we convince Matrox to decrease the retail price of the Parphelia

    Unleash the power of your wallet then, by NOT buying their product. They'll either clue in and open their source and start selling product, or they won't and nobody will buy it and their company may suffer.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  18. Pretty pitiful, really by HisMother · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a sad offering. They only support specific, official RedHat 7.3 kernel patchlevels -- i.e., there's no compilable kernel module like NVIDIA uses. This somewhat limits the audience for these drivers -- certainly makes them useless for me. I'll stick with my Quadro.

    --
    Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
  19. Why use "tainted"? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taint may well be a technical term but the common usage of the word evokes very negative images, and its usage here is clumsy at best.

    Tell someone who doesn't know this technical term that their system is tainted and they'll probably panic, imagining that their PC has been hit by a virus, trojan horse or other undesirable event, where the reality couldn't be further from the truth. (We'll leave the debate about the pros and cons of closed source drivers to another discussion.)

    There's got to be a better way of describing a kernel that contains closed source software that isn't so dramatic or apocalyptic. How about "ajar"? At least "ajar" is a better, less ambiguous, description - to me it says "not 100 percent open, and not 100 pecent closed", which is what we're talking about.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Why use "tainted"? by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
      There's got to be a better way of describing a kernel that contains closed source software that isn't so dramatic or apocalyptic.

      How about "hainted"? Damn Richers, putting their closed code in our kernels.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Why use "tainted"? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "imagining that their PC has been hit by a virus, trojan horse or other undesirable event,"

      A tainted kernel is. undesirable. And it very well may be trojaned, You can't check.

      I'm not saying these big name companies would backdoor their own drivers, but someone could easily[*] hack their server and modify them

      [*]Easy as in this has happened with IRCII, BitchX, OpenSSH, and who knows how many others.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  20. Re:question about these cards by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They suck at Quake 3, but are great for 3D professional work.

    Sorry but if I am working with live 3d rendering the damn card had better give me fast-ass quake speeds.

    We switched to Geforce 4 ti's here from the crap-quality $2000.00 3d labs cards because the customers when previewing the 3d renderings thought it looked BETTER on the low end geforce card under openGL.

    final rendering has NOTHING to do with the video card anyways, and it's only good for preview.

    if you are lucky to have apps that will use OpenGL for preview rendering... toss the "workstation" crap out. get a el-cheapo gamers card and make your clients thing you upgraded the hardware.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  21. Tainted is negative by nuggz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the point.

    By using closed code in your kernel you are putting an unknown in it.
    This is bad, the kernel developers can't help you, you can't fix it yourself, you're just stuck with broken software.

    I think removing the ability to fix a problem is a dramatic change, particularly when that is a major benefit of free software.

  22. Re:[partiallyOT phrase info] Re:This taints our im by fireman+sam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks for the (OT) correction. it is late here. There are some companies out there that do in fact do this. Sigma Designs drivers for the EM84xx chips have a GPL'd kernel driver and a closed source shared library.

    The only issue with this is that even though the kernel driver is open source, it exists purely as a "RING 0 gateway" for the shared library. So if bugs exist, they cannot be fixed by the open source community.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  23. ATi by SD-VI · · Score: 2, Informative

    They fixed their Windows drivers, so let's hope they can do the same for their Linux drivers. ATi's cards are fairly nice; certainly a little better than the dim-looking GeForce FX line, and I say that as someone who is completely neutral when it comes to corporations. (No reason to make generalizations about anything except their products. Unless they're Rambus, in which case they're evil.)

    Amusingly enough, the only nVidia card I'd recommend buying right now is their Titanium 4200, the very card that taught them a valuable lesson about market segmentation. In case you missed the whole thing, the Ti4200, Ti4400, and Ti4600 were spaced about $50 apart, except they had a performance difference of maybe 2-4% between each of them. The Ti4400 cannabalized the Ti4600's sales, then the Ti4200 cannabalized the Ti4400's sales. (ATi learned this too with their Radeon 9500 Pro, a fast card selling for less than the Radeon 9700 despite the small speed difference. They were quicker to react than nVidia, though, and stopped the 9500 Pro's production run short. Now they make the Radeon 9600 Pro, which is considerably slower than the old 9500 Pro.)

  24. Re:Grammar Police by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the USA, corporations and organizations are treated as singular.
    In Britain and many other parts of the world, they are treated
    as plural.

    For examples of this, try looking at BBC news items.

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  25. Savage driver with DRI, OpenGL, XvMC by Pivot · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a related note, S3 graphics has released open source drivers for the S3 Savage graphics family. See eg. here.

  26. ATI drivers by vivek7006 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been observing that most of the notebooks dont use Nvidia graphic cards. Instead they prefer using mobility Radeon or some cheaper on-board cards. This is problem for me, because I am looking to buy a notebook on which I will install linux. Nvidia has fantastic linux drivers, so I wont have to worry about hardware 3D acceleration, if I buy a notebook with Nvidia graphic card. But I just dont see any notebooks in the market with Nvidia graphic cards.

    How does Radeon behave under linux in notebooks? . How is the 3D acceleration in mobile Radeon 8500+ ? Are the opensource drivers good for full screen DVD playbacks? (I usually test hardware acceleration by playing TuxRacer)

  27. Re:Why not open source by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My impression on at least one of the reasons why they do this, is that there is certain proprietary code licensed from other companies in these drivers, which they simply do not have permission to release with an open license. I suppose the primary manufacturer (ie, nvidia, ati, or 3d labs) could work to get the people who do own the proprietary licenses on that code to open it. However, this seems like a lot of work from a video card chip manufacturer's perspective, for (debateably) little gain. I've also heard grumblings (maybe just rumors though) that companies are afraid to release their drivers open source, because then competitors can see how their architecture is set up.

  28. How about... by Knunov · · Score: 2, Funny

    "How about "ajar"? At least "ajar" is a better, less ambiguous, description - to me it says "not 100 percent open, and not 100 pecent closed", which is what we're talking about."

    Or better yet, how about "ajar-jar"? That way we can hook the Joe Sixpack crowd with the sheer cuteness of the term, along with the 3-6 year old user group.

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?