Slashdot Mirror
NVidia Releases Linux Drivers Supporting 4K Stacks
Supermathie writes "NVidia has finally released drivers for their chipsets and the 2.6 kernel that support 4K stacks. That means compatability with Fedora Core 2 kernels, people! View the README, visit their driver page, or download the package."
The real story is when they open the source to the drivers.
thisnukes4u.net
Watch as I now get flamed and modded down...
I agree with you! Closed source software has its places, just as open source software does.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The OP is right...there is probably no big magic in their drivers.
It's a control issue...and their contining demand to control distribution of the drivers harms linux every day.
It's stupid and there is no "economic ramification"...the drivers are free, after all. They make their money selling cards!
Everything is a control issue. Companies want to control their product. Zealots want to control the companies. As a user (who happens to be running FC1 waiting on nvidia to do this...), I find the latter position far less defensible.
Economics is extremely complicated, and I assure you that it is more complicated than just the purchase price for a card at the store.
If you don't think losing trade secrets can change a business model for hardware, ask IBM about the early PCs and clones. They might have a slightly different perspective.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
I don't know about you guys, but I think having the source code to recompile it manually would help out immensely.
It's funny when you think about why hardware companies is they like to keep the source code secret (i.e. you only get the drivers). If they claim that someone may use it for some unfit purpose then the question is, if someone has the source code without the hardware isn't it inherently useless to them anyway? Seems to me you actually buy the source code when you get the hardware (especially for the newer $$$ components) -- they just don't want to fork it over because somehow you may "magically" make the component up yourself out of basement and not have to buy it."now that the linux driver is realeased, im giving the company my 500 bucks...see...support linux...make money....)"
be sure to send a letter to the company explaining why you are giving them your business.
Otherwise the purchases made becasue of Linux will go unnoticed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The "zealots" just want to control their own computers. That's what Open Source is about. If you have an nVidia video card in your linux system, and you want full functionality, you have to let nVidia control your computer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Companies want to control their product in order to control markets. 'Zealots' want to limit any one company's control of markets to keep them open, and it works. Are you really implying the world and the state of computer technology would both be better had IBM retained monopoly control of hardware? I'll wager most historians of technology will disagree.
I did install the beta 64 bit version of XP fist, but it sucks. Looks like I can make a duel boot system now with FC2 & Gentoo. So, If you'll excuse me, I have some compiling to do on my Gentoo primary partition!
True.
No, companies want to control their revenue sources.
No, zealots want to control freedom of their code and the code that is based on or extends it.
Okay, I'll take a stab at it. The bedrock of capitalism is simply a market system based on private ownership. Now, most people want to extend that into monopolistic control to maximize their own profit in self-serving interest, but at the same time consumers generally tend to want a lot of competitors that can offer substitutes that give them greater value.
But, the fact is that if IBM hadn't "goofed" and created a mostly open system, it's likely that either another more open system would have succeeded even though it had a lot of obvious fault or no system would have succeeded and the information age wouldn't be near the point it is. Why? Because a more open system allows for programmers, both hobbyist and capitalist, to more easily develop software for the system. This barrier to entry would mean less software overall which would directly decrease the demand for computers. At the same time, monopolistic control would keep prices high, fixing the quality sold at a smaller rate than it is today thanks to the vast number of clones.
So, it's unlikely IBM would have a better market share or sell more products. They might, still, be making more profit due to monopolistic pricing. It does seem unlikely for this to be the case, however, when various other architectures would have likely succeeded in IBM's place and relegated IBM computers into dinosaurs like the Amiga (no offense to the Amiga intended).
As for NVidia, there's at least two principle reasons why they might wish their drivers closed. The first is by closing the drivers they have stronger control over rebranding cards at different price points without modifying hardware which might increase sales without hurting sales on the higher priced cards. The second is NVidia has cross-licensed a variety of patents which probably puts them in the position of not having the authority to license said patentable idea under the GPL.
Without number two, number one could be fixed with creative hardware locking mechanisms. The total cost of such hardware locking would be minimal in comparison to the boosted sales of all the likely free porting and driver work done by volunteers on the NVidia driver. The fact is, NVidia is a hardware company so it is in their best interest to commoditize all software for their hardware to be run on. Open sourcing their driver, if possible, would very likely have this effect (it's hard to argue that it could have the reverse effect, at least).
The claim that trade secrets would somehow be revealed by open sourcing their driver is possible, but I would guess is unlikely as the majority of NVidia's actual trade secrets would be in *hardware*. All a driver is supposed to be is a standard interface for the OS, and if there are tasks beyond this in the driver NVidia would almost certainly advantage by sticking it in hardware as well. It's for this reason I assume NVidia's driver license policy is the main fault for them not open sourcing their driver.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
It's not like nobody can do it...
Thank you.
This is...
O
U
T
R
A
G
E
O
U
S
!
Maybe you wrote it in an unappropriate manner. Maybe CmdrTaco was feeling evil.
I'd understand, if you complained about an important story being not published at all - but in every case the story still gets accepted from someone else, so all is fine. Someone else got the credit for submission?
Who fucking CARES?? I'm fed up with whining about having your stories rejected. These comments are now in almost every story, visible even with the "trolls off" setting.
Where was the insentive without the clones?
Because there was also Apple. Also planned obselescence, etc.
Why do you think MS software sucks?
Interesting choice of company; it goes a fair distance to demonstrating my point. Would Windows be more secure today if competition had forced it to be throughout it's life? Sure. Would OSes be better in general? Almost certainly. Would MS have the market share it does today? No way.
Unfettered, unrestricted capitalism is a fantasy that's neither democratic or American. It's only in the last couple of decades following Reagan that this particularly virulent form of ideology has become popular, the founding of America and most of its history had little to do with it. It's more corporatist than capitalist. The typical pejorative labeling of anyone who disagrees as 'socialist' or 'communist', by far the majority of the world incidentally, I can only hope is a sign of the end days of this world view.
Yeah, this is why I use the term zealot. I like Linux (anyone bringing up GNU/Linux can bite me. I know the history and respect GNU. It's unweildy), in fact I prefer it. But I call BS on the altruism of the philosophy behind much of the movement.
If you wanna say "here's our stand, and we stick by it", I respect that. If you say "any stand but ours is unholy and wrong", then you are attempting to control and I have no use fer ya.
I wouldn't violate the GPL, as a programmer I respect other coder's work and time. But I also don't buy into the demand that EVERYTHING be GPL's, or whatever license you prefer.
The world ain't black and white kiddies, time to realize the intelligent people have differing opinions most of the time...
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
I agree with you main point that there are times when holing on to the source code in encouraged. On-line games are one instance where I hope that the company does keep a lid on the code. I don't even certian Monopoly Operation systems for wanting to keep a close reign on there source, it is after all how they make money.
NVidia on the otherhand is making money purly on hardware and drivers are a sunk cost. They have to be availible or thier cards won't sell, and they have to be good or their cards will not be able to compete, but the hardware is what you hand your credit card over to aquire. There seems to be economic reason to with hold dirver source code other then habit and industry practice. The only explaination I can come up with is that the code reviels some intimate details about the inner workings of the hardware that should not be made public. On the other hand NVidia has been very open avout the capibilitits and functioning of their hardware and it is widly integrated into third party boards as in my IBM T41 laptop. (ok, I'll stop bragging)
In the end, I believe that the most important aspect of the free software movement has to do with hardware drivers. Remember RMS's story about wanting to modify the print queue to alert the right person when the printer jammed? With software, including operating systems, Open source is a philosophy about the plave and value of intelectual controls. Hardware drivers on the other hand allow one to use a piece of equipment that one physically owns. Open source drivers allow people to use the hardware they own in the manor that is most appropriate to their need and without the loss of commercial opprotunities. Therefore, I too would encourage NVidia to make their driver source code public.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Methinks the only real reason you'd want to keep your drivers closed off is because you're artificially handicapping your hardware
Um, no.
0) nVidia might not own all the code they compile into their drivers. The license they have the code under might permit binary distribution, but not source.
1) nVidia's drivers contain large amounts of software that is better than any of their competition. They spent money developing this, and they want to milk the competitive edge it gives them. And that is okay.
2) nVidia has more control this way. The Firefox guys are holding control over their cool icons, because they don't want the cool icons slapped onto broken code; only Mozilla-official builds of Firefox get the cool icons. nVidia might want to be sure that no one runs with broken drivers, then thinks nVidia cards are all junk, when in reality some guy made a few "improvements" that broke things, and distributed the changed version anyway.
3) Other reasons are possible. "the only real reason" my left foot.
Personally, I would much much rather have FOSS drivers. But even more than that, I want drivers that work. I switched from a GeForce 4600 to a Radeon 9600 XT, and even though the Radeon is a much better card, it runs slower under Linux than the older GeForce. It's the drivers. ATI's Linux drivers for the 9600 XT are lame. I actually boot into Windows to play Unreal Tournament 2004, because the performance is so much better under Windows. When I had an nVidia card, my Linux 3D gaming performance was just fine.
If nVidia would make a programmable-shaders card that doesn't double as a space heater, I would probably buy it and replace the Radeon. I know that the Unreal Tournament guys check the server stats, and I want to be "voting" for Linux gaming, so I want them to see me running Linux when the check stats on the servers I have been visiting.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Also, releasing the source would allow the drivers to be compiled on the systems with your gcc optimizations instead of being forced to use binaries, which has nothing to do with whether you're going to modify the source or not. One of the biggest things about my Gentoo box was that you build everything optimized for your hardware, whereas these binaries have to be much more general. Sure, there may not really be a terribly significant difference, but it's just one more reason why it should be open source.
Finally, to get back to your first point (am I going in reverse?) You really can't revise the nv drivers because they're compiled binaries. Nothing is stopping you from modifying them except the little thing that it's not accessible code to modify, since if it was this thread wouldn't have started. As for getting another company's video card, the options are ATi, and Matrox, neither of which are any better in this regard, and in fact ATi is much worse, so while you are right that nothing is preventing me from buying someone else's video card, it's not the point since no one is playing nice with OSS (AFAIK, Matrox might actually be nicer about it all, but they're not really accessible to the public the way the other two companies are,) leaving penguin worshipers with no options. nVidia is the lesser of two evils to be sure, so they get my money (that and the awful ATi driver issues with Windows XP, but that's a different story) for now, but really only because no one is better. Saying nothing is preventing us from going elsewhere really seems to sidestep the actual issue by blaming the users for something we really can't avoid because the best solution is a partial one. Well, anyway, that's just my $0.02
I'm always right and I can prove it, because to the best of my knowledge, I've never been wrong.
I really don't mean to be rude but you should make an effort to understand the concept better before you start bashing someone like RMS. And no, I am not against closed software, I just happen to prefer it open due to it's educational value. You know, it's people like you who make me think that there actually are Microsoft employees infiltrating Slashdot.
There are software Quadro hacks for Windows. Go look for RivaTuner. Thing is, it's not the magic that many forum dwellers seem to assume:
It actually slows game performance in many cases. Games are written for consumer cards, not pro ones, and what is good for pro apps isn't always good for consumer apps. Hacking your card to look like a Quadro (or getting a real one) won't make your shit run faster, if your shit is games.
More importantly, GeForces aren't certified by pro companies. This is important if you are doing REAL work where fuckups caused hacked drivers aren't acceptable. You want tech support, you use hardware they support. That is part of the money you pay in a Quadro, is the pro software saying "we'll support this".
It's kinda like Orcale on Linux. They support very specific, enterprise, Linux versions like RHEL and SUSE Enterprise. They WILL NOT support you if you use the consumer versions (also I've never been able to get to install on the consumer version properly). They aren't willing to play games, they'll only support the big-daddy distros they like. Don't like it? Don't as for support, or go install it on Windows.
There's a difference between the univeristy warez d00d that download Maya, hacks his GeForce and piddles around and the professional working to make a movie. When there's money involved and time costs you, you are willing to pay for certified solutions to minimise the problems.
And I suppose you cold explain why, except making it easier to access
nvidia specific features ?
Both the OpenGL API and ABI(on linux) are standardized, so it doesn't matter whose headers you use, as long as they are for the OpenGL version you want to use.
"Unfettered, unrestricted capitalism is a fantasy" - only because any time it shows up, regulation follows along behind. (Similar dilution happens with other "pure" implementations of economic theories.)
"only in the last couple of decades"? what about the great big monopolistic empires of the late 19th Century? Standard Oil? United Steel? J P Morgan and Carnegie? The railroads? These are the reasons the original anti-trust laws were passed. (And before that, go back to the East India Company and the other government-licensed charter companies.)
Corporatism is a political system which is not at all at odds with "pure" or even regulated capitalism (an economic system).
People are always going to label people or arguments they dislike with names for other things they dislike, whether it's "you poopoo-head!" on the playground, "communist" or "Nazi" (or "capitalist") for adults. Are you hoping that's a "sign of the end days of this world view"? Keep hoping, 'cause people have been dismissing (or attacking) other people as "socialist" or "communist" pretty much since those terms were coined.
NVidia's is behind in the speed war, but far ahead in drivers. The Linux drivers from NVidia have been historically been just as fast as their MS counter parts, where ATI haven't been. This means that NVidia is the faster cards under Linux. NVidia drivers also work for all cards. If you have a bad graphics card, you simple replace it with an older NVidia graphics card, no configuration changes required. This is a big SysAdm win.
The larger deal for me is the "Enginnering Desktop". Linux is a great fit because the interface was built by Geeks for Geeks. However, fast stable graphics are a requirement.
These drivers have been overdue for a long time as well, this always makes them valuable. For me it means my applications run on x86_64 in 32bit mode, and when the process is using > 2GB of memory. (Bugs fixed sense the last driver release.)
Many of us are not interesed as much in Open Source as we are is using the best tool for the job. In my opinion that tool is Linux. (If you don't believe me, why are we woried about Linux users leaving and using OS X?) We do not see using good propritary drivers as "throwing out all our precious principles", we see it as using the best tool.
I also am not so sure that we need to fear propritary drivers. The reason Windows is so well support is "market share". Linux is gaining market share, enough market share in fact that the Graphics Card companies must respect us. The more market share we have, the more respect we will get. One day we may get the first drivers and Microsoft users will have to wait on theirs...(A boy can dream.)
I hope the moderators mod this up as interesting, because it certainly is. Very, very naive, but interesting none the less. Such a question implies that you are either a teenager or an ivory tower researcher ;-) I hope you manage to keep your idealism.
The system you describe is a distributed operating system. Your hypothetical system has been contemplated by many researchers, perhaps most famously with AT&T's Plan 9. The problem with this, as with all other distributed operating systems, is that is still *very* theoretical and likely will be for some time.
For such a system, you will need a network connecting the two computers. I am assuming you want to go with commodity hardware for price reasons. To get adequate performance for modern graphics cards, as well as to leave room for new cards debuting in the next couple of years, you will need an extremely high speed physical layer. A 1Gbps ethernet bus would be the bare minimum now, and you would likely need to go up to 10Gbps to get good perfromance for today's high end cards or the cards of the next few years. A 1Gbps network is just becoming affordable for high end consumers, while a 10Gbps network is still far too expensive for consumers and likely will be for several years to come.
Next comes building the "graphics card emulating computer". While graphics cards are miniature PCs in an abstract sense, in actual implementation they are very different. I won't claim to fully understand the design of a modern graphics card, but the GPU processor and data bus are highly optimized for graphics handling tasks. You would therefore likely need a top of the line general purpose motherboard and CPU to emulate a modern card's performance. Once again, not an inexpensive thing.
Next come software issues. Assuming you actually hope for more than research lab adoption, you cannot force vendors to rewrite all of their low-level graphics routines. Concordantly, you will need to provide an emulation layer that makes X11 (or whatever graphics system(s) you target) think your graphics computer is just another onboard video card. This will likely require at least a kernel hack, if nothing else. You will probably also want to hack on the drivers of the network cards you use, to improve their performance (mostly reduce latency). This is probably the easiest of your software challenges.
For network transport, TCP will certainly be overkill. If you want to make this friendly to existing network protocols, you will have to design a UDP-based protocol, but even UDP might cause a performance hit. For best performance, you will likely end up ditching compatibility with TCP/IP type networks and programming directly to the data link layer. In any case, designing a quality protocol of this type is an extremely difficult task! Don't expect to get it right on the first few tries.
Last of the software challenges, the software on the graphics computer will have to be customized heavily to emulate the high performance operations provided by a graphics card. Unless you can manage to find an expert in 3D accelerated graphics hardware who is *not* under an NDA from one of the graphics card companies, this will require a lot of research.
Finally come non-technical hurdles. First, you have to worry about competing implementations. If your project builds steam, your team will likely start to face competition. This will inevitably lead to incompatibilities, which will have to be straightened out by some standards process. Add a couple of years to the total time for that.
Even if we assume that after years of research such a system is built and everyone actually standardizes on it, it will likely cost *much* more per unit than an equivalent graphics card. I just don't think that "freedom from lock-in" will be enough to successfully market this to John Q Public, and without that support, even geeks may find it hard to afford such a setup.
In conclusion, what you suggest is
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.