Slashdot Mirror
Should Linux Use Proprietary Drivers?
Richard Gray writes "Should Linux accept proprietary video/graphics drivers from likes of Nvidia and ATI ? The GPL written by FSF says that the license prohibits proprietary drivers. From the article: 'To write open-source graphics drivers without help from Nvidia or ATI is tough. Efforts to reverse-engineer open-source equivalents often are months behind and produce only 'rudimentary' drivers, said Michael Larabel, founder of a high-end Linux hardware site Phoronix ... Torvalds has argued that some proprietary modules should be permissible because they're not derived from the Linux kernel, but were originally designed to work with other operating systems.' The FSF however, sharply disagrees. 'If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms...you couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it, whether dynamically or statically.' Where do you fall on this issue?"
Just as bad is that few dists for whatever reason even offer to get the drivers afterwards. Okay, so you don't like proprietary drivers in your dist. But that's no reason not to offer to download them as part of the install.
Aside from being annoying, it also means that NVidia / ATI drivers are outside of the control of the package management system. I might update X and break NVidia. Or I might miss out on a critical bugfix altogether.
The lack of proper accelerated graphics drivers out of the box for most dists is a major disincentive. It means the games suck, the multimedia sucks and natty new OpenGL based desktops don't work.
I think it's very unlikely that NVidia or ATI would release source to their cutting edge hardware. Competition is cutthroat between the two. But I think there is little to lose from opening their older hardware up. On the flipside, dists have to make it easier to get proprietary stuff. While the Stallmans of the world might believe in some open source utopia, the reality is that proprietary games need high performance drivers and they're simply not there in most dists. Both sides should give some ground and give the user an experience which makes them turn away from Windows (and OS X).
This is an example of when politics gets in the way of progress.
While it'd be great for hardware manufacturers to opensource/GPL their drivers, the restrictions that fanatics put on Linux are holding it back. The fervent beliefs of a few keep making it difficult for Linux to go more maintstream, with full hardware support, a wider array of software, etc.
Back when the emphasis was on the concept of building an excellent operating system, the strict nature of GPL was an asset - it kept things fair, and forced participants to be more productive for the group. Now, in the days of "OMG we HAVE to beat Microsoft any way we can!", the old rules keep clashing with the new impetus (one which is misplaced, IMO).
People have to make up their minds. Do they want Linux to be a shining example of an ideal, or an aggressive commercial competitor to the dominant operating system?
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
No, he isn't right. He wrote:
It's bullshit because it's a lie designed to make you feel sorry for the poor company that would lose all its business if it opened its specs so that you'll forgive them for not having open specs.
He persists in his asinine assumption that the vendors aren't perfectly entitled to keep their specs as trade secrets if they so choose. There's nothing to forgive.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That is exactly why Linux is the Third World of operating systems. This guy does not know what the user needs nor does he care. This is exactly why Linux can never be an alternative to Windows for a non-technical user. Open source is not always better than closed source. Moreover, it is useless if a user can't get it to function correctly.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"Sorry .. but the truth hurts."
Yes and the truth is that you are ignorant idiot.
evil is as evil does