Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Releases Updated Drivers for FreeBSD
brsmith4 writes "Nvidia has released their latest drivers for the FreeBSD platform. This release addresses a number of issues and has been anticipated for well over a year. You will need at least 4.9-STABLE or any of the 5.x-CURRENT releases to install them. Some of the new features include added support for the latest NVIDIA GPUs including GeForce 6800 Series and improved interaction with -CURRENT's new threading libraries, not to mention the fact that my Dell laptop no longer shuts off the LCD when the driver gets loaded. The driver also provides tighter integration with the linux execution environment, making it very easy to run your favorite linux game titles. You can pick up the driver here. Pay no attention to the date, August 13th, 2003. It was a type-o."
This kind of support for open source users is what keeps me coming back to certain hardware manufacturers. The more companies realize this, the better it is for everyone.
Huh? What is wrong with it?
This same troll has been posted every time a *BSD story has been run on Slashdot in recent memory. It's always posted anonymously, never identifies the mysterious "500 person company" that has decided to "convert fully to Open Source software and OSes." There is no indication of what their line of business is, what their servers are used for, what the desktop machines are used for, who the users are, etc. The "conclusion" speaks volumes about the intent: "Having considered the above factors, all of which are vitally important when implementing a new system in a company, we decided to go with Linux (primarily Debian for the reasons mentioned)." Yeah. Right. Another Debian Linux fanboy.
Think about it:
1. There are damned few companies converting everything from desktops to multi-cpu servers to open source all at once. That's inviting trouble.
2. What most companies do is identify applications that support their business and then select an OS based on that. You'll note that nowhere here are any specific apps mentioned. There are comments about "Debian's package repository", but how many businesses are concerned about huge numbers of often obscure *nix apps? Yeah, the secretary will be thrilled with the Debian-supplied copies of awk, yacc, grep, etc.
3. The "unbiased" review went into gobs of detail about speed, but, frankly, most desktop machines are so fast now that the average office worker wouldn't know if you removed half of the RAM and cut the CPU clock speed in half.
4. There was no mention about remote administration capabilities. How many corporate IT guys have no concerns about remote administration?
5. There was no mention of ramp-up time for the (presumably) Windows users or courses available for non-technical staff to learn the UI and apps. Like that's not going to be an issue!
6. Any mention of laptop compatability? Gee, that's suspicious, isn't it? How many businesses have no laptops?
7. There was no discussion of moving data, converting data from the existing format to the new format, etc. What a joke!
The whole piece was written by some Linux fanboy trying to pretend that he's in a corporate IT role. Don't fall for it.
> One can only hope those "certain hardware manufacturers" aren't the ones that treat you like nVidia does. This is not "support", this is an opportunity to acquire a set of chains. Fans of the open source methodology ought to see how accepting proprietary code isn't going to make your system better--you're choosing to toss out the developmental advantages that open source advocates focus on (or instead not recognizing the limitations in ignoring software freedom for users). The free software community wasn't built by catering to software proprietors and it won't be sustained by giving into them.
That is all noice, and will appeal to people in the Linux/GPL world. FreeBSD does have a free and open source license, but has a different idea about development model, and don't try to express and pursue a political and social goal with their license.
This is not about the validity of your argument, but about the assumptions it is based on, which do not apply to everyone.
The open source drivers would be just as good if they had the specifications. Doesn't it bother you to buy a piece of hardware and they won't even tell you how it works, which effectively means the company gets to tell you what you can and can't do with it? Is that how a good company should treat its customers?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
" The open source drivers would be just as good if they had the specifications." This is untrue. Granted if the specs were available the open source drivers would be a HELL of a lot better and more importantly could be continued to be updated in the future (whereas with these proprietary drivers you can't put any bets on that) but to say they would be "just as good if they had the specifications" shows a blatant lack of awareness for what goes on in the drivers for modern 3d hardware. Having the cards not have full specifications does not mean that if they did have specs it would be as simple as "pump it these triangles in this format and these textures in that format." When you see new drivers released by nvidia in the past that give 20 - 30% performance boosts on some games, well lets just say the drivers are not as simple as you seem to think.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
This is not about what you can currently do. This is about putting yourself in a position where independence is possible. If you choose to remain dependant when given enough information to behave otherwise, that's a choice that chiefly affects you (a freedom). But not having the information in the first place adversely affects everyone, even those with the skill and will to help themselves and others (a power). Some of us do read ingredient labels on food and cook from recipes because we care about what we eat. Some of us care about industrial processes that affect our air and water (such as plastic production) and, therefore, fight for an increased say in how we get plastic goods.
Digital Citizen
Its just that no one cares, since it really isn't important.
Personally I fall into that category.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> I think this was the most revealing part of your post
I think you cannot read.
> -- don't dare express yourself politically because we can't handle any of that kind of discussion in here.
Heh, no, just don't assume that everyone who is involved with writing open source software shares the same ideas that are very popular among GPL proponents.
Specifically, when looking at BSD licensed software, as is the case with FreeBSD (just in case you didn't notice yet, we were discussing FreeBSD, not Linux here), you may actually notice that the people designign and writing it don't care that much about 'the open source methodology' but about making something that is usable to everyone. You make closed source software? fine. Makign a card with closed source drivers? perfect, we don't care.
You make somethign wuith a closed source FreeBSD driver? great, if you want it will get listed as a FreeBSD supporting device.
If you think that pointing out the difference between that way of thinking, and the way of thinkign that is very popular among GPL 'fans' is stiffening the discussion, then well, too bad.
I do think tho that you are a bit oversensitive to statements that might be read as being negative with regards to the GPL, and thereby are doign the exact thing that you accuse me of, stiffenign discussion.