Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Linux Use Proprietary Drivers?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the bring-the-shiny-to-the-penguin dept.

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?"

2 of 704 comments (clear)

  1. Not in my kernel by ettlz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to think having a Linux kernel driver ABI would be a good thing. But then I started to change once I read about the OpenBSD ilk and their trials with wireless, RAID, etc. (and their recent "blob" song). My attitude these days is "not in my kernel".

    Binary blobs prevent peer review for security. They are in themselves a security risk as any vendor could use them to inject God-only-knows what hooks into the kernel (Sony rootkit native on Linux, anyone?). And I'd be more inclined trust the quality of code from the Linux community above and beyond anything proprietary.

    I'd rather go without. If we must have binary drivers, they should either be run in user-space through a strict Free-software gateway or provided as a safe byte-code for a driver virtual machine.

  2. Re:Come on by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the point NVidia is making is that the driver is a big part of the package they're selling. A buggy driver will make the entire package, including the hardware, look bad.

    You obviously never used the early versions of NVidia's Linux (and later FreeBSD and Solaris) drivers. No one expects any software to be 100% bug free (yes, I know there are exceptions to that but on the whole this is true). And if you counter this; I offer up ATI's drivers, including their Windows drivers, as repost. I have yet to have an ATI product that did not suffer miserably from driver problems under any OS.

    If writing a graphics driver is indeed very complex, the chance of FOSS developers including bugs is quite realistic. The simple fact that FOSS developers have not been able to produce good GPU drivers despite reverse-engineering demonstrates the level of complexity involved.

    Do you know anything about reverse engineering? It is a hack no matter how you look at it. You are trying to guess what something does by observing it. How can this be compared to knowing what something does because you have the documentation right in front of you. Nice troll. Or not.

    Such version would come at the expense of NVidia's reputation; if ATI keeps their drivers closed, ATI will have the more stable package in the typical consumers' eye.

    How did you come to that conclusion?