Slashdot Mirror


Open nVidia Linux Driver Pledge Nearly Complete

Ciarán Mooney writes to let us know that the Pledgebank drive to raise $10,000 for Project Nouvaeu is almost complete — at this moment it needs only 196 more people to sign up. Project Nouveau aims to provide open source 3D acceleration for nVidia cards. The drive was started by David Nielsen, whose blog explains what he hopes will happen.

18 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. This is a worthy cause by MountainMan101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    With new technology like AIGLX, XGL and XEGL emerging, having open source drivers for 3d cards is very important. Along with the recent R300 work for the ATI cards, this will bring much improved graphics to the Linux Desktop regardless of architecture. I only hope that the ATI X200M card gets open source support soon too (obviously not from nouveau).

    Also Fedora 7 (dure April) intends to include the nouveau drivers - which is great as out-of-the-box Fedora can't include the binary nVidia driver necessary to have AIGLX working.

    And to anyone who thinks this is unnecessary as there is the binary driver - just wait until you card is dropped from the official support and the old driver stops working with some future kernel.

    1. Re:This is a worthy cause by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      With new technology like AIGLX, XGL and XEGL emerging, having open source drivers for 3d cards is very important.

      While I agree with this statement, I think this project is the wrong way to go about it, simply because we do finally have a vendor who has committed to open source driver support: Intel. Now, I will grant you that their cards are slow and crappy but they should be up to the task of accelerating the linux desktop. Also, the current release supports only an integrated video chipset and some older cards... but voting with your dollars is an absolute necessity. For any non-gamer, it should be a sufficiently powerful graphics system, and the G965 Express Chipset supports Core 2 Duo and Pentium D, so you can combine it with very good CPU power. If I were building a system today (aka if I could afford to build a system today) this is the combination I would elect to use.

      But most importantly, we need to monetarily support vendors who give us working hardware with working linux drivers, or even vendors who simply give us enough information to write drivers. This is not ATI or nVidia. This apparently is intel. They're also just about the only vendor providing any useful wifi drivers.

      If we actually spend money to sponsor driver development this will be a clear message to all graphics card manufacturers that we will put up with their bad behavior.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This is a worthy cause by chromatic · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Besides, isn't patent licensing part of the reason nVidia and Ati won't release fully OSS drivers?

      I can't see how, unless someone's somehow managed to obtain patents that don't disclose information publicly and, as such, would suffer material harm in disclosing the patented ideas publicly by releasing source code.

      In other words, any vendor that tells you that is lying.

    3. Re:This is a worthy cause by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why? How does your spending money to write open source drivers affect nVidia one bit? Why should it even be on their radar?

      This shouldn't be that hard to figure out - apparently even the moderators got it this time. See, corporations only feel hits to the wallet. Most of their feedback comes from sales figures, and if they get less love than their competitor (or simply less love than they expect) they hurt, they know something is wrong. Unfortunately, they don't necessarily know why.

      However, if ATI or nVidia should lose some market share, they will certainly know that it is not because of their lack of linux support, simply because the OSS community is willing to do the work itself. The proof of this principle is that people are willing to spend money to have someone else do their job for them. Simply buying their products is bad enough, but spending MORE money to support them (they benefit from a driver because it can increase sales) is a clear statement that they don't need to develop open source graphics drivers.

      If you really think that this is not on their radar, you are incredibly naive. Linux is the fastest-growing segment in computing, Linux is the only operating system gaining market share in the server space, and Linux is probably the only platform gaining any significant ground in education. Linux will only become more important with time, and Windows less. The change shows every sign of being extremely slow, but that doesn't mean that it's not occurring.

      Finally, if it were so unimportant as to not even be on their radar, they wouldn't even have developed their own Linux drivers, closed and crappy as they may be. (Well, nVidia's work pretty well... too bad about ATI.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:This is a worthy cause by zcat_NZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "isn't patent licensing part of the reason nVidia and Ati won't release fully OSS drivers?"

      One of the possible issues is _lack_ of patent licensing. Nobody really knows what trivial and obvious techniques have been patented by some patent-troll, but as long as the patent troll can't prove nvidia are doing something the troll's patent potentially covers, they have no reason to sue or shake nvidia down for license fees. Open source drivers would feed the trolls.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    5. Re:This is a worthy cause by cortana · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to NVIDIA, there is no demand at all for free software drivers for NVIDIA hardware.

  2. What is wrong with the proprietary driver? by mgemmons · · Score: 4, Insightful
    According to the pledgebank website,
    [...]leaving the many users of their videocards on popular UN*X systems such as Linux with only the option of using a 2d only driver or using nvidia' notorious proprietary driver.
    What is wrong with using nVidia's drivers for nVidia's cards? Is there some issue with the nVidia 3D driver implementation that would encourage an open-source reverse-engineering effort? What does "notorious proprietary" mean? I'm all for open-source, but this just seems to be OSFOSS (open-source for open-sources sake).
    1. Re:What is wrong with the proprietary driver? by lolocaust · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If we show that we will accept closed drivers/spec on an open system, we've already lost. Especially with the desktop effects becoming more and more important in modern distros. Also, AFAIK, there are no Nvidia drivers for PPC, and then there are people who could learn about the GPU specifics for the sake of it.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    2. Re:What is wrong with the proprietary driver? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the problems is that the drivers are x86 only (although there are old and outdated Itanium drivers). Another issue is obsolete video cards. nVidia could one day stop supporting the TNT or GeForce. What do we do then? If there are no open source drivers, we're SOL on updates. If there are open source drivers, then we can make continued improvements when needed.

      I switched to a FireGL 8700 (R200-based) for this reason (and it was an upgrade from a GeForce FX 5200). With regards to ATI cards, there are usable and stable open source drivers for all R300-based and lower video cards. Additionally, ATI no longer supports R100-based or lower video cards on Linux. Fortunately, the open source drivers are available to pick up the slack.

    3. Re:What is wrong with the proprietary driver? by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well when I used nVidia's binary driver on Debian Etch I went through two kernel upgrades and each time I rebooted to begin using the new kernel I was greeted by a console prompt instead of an xdm login screen.

      Now for me that wasn't much of a problem. I sighed, logged in as root, found the original installer I downloaded from NVidia, ran it, agreed to the license, pressed continue and was greeted with a message about missing kernel headers. Sighed again, downloaded linux-headers-`uname -r`, reran NVidia installer, etc, etc, ad nauseum every time I update the kernel.

      As I said, I know why and how I do this but not everyone does and the whole point of bringing true open source 3d graphics to the desktop for Linux users is so they don't have to learn how or why they need to do this.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  3. They don't need money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/NouveauCompani on_11

    [...] The pledge mentioned is however not supported by our project. We currently don't need any money and the person who set it up is not connected to our project.

    Congratulations to everyone who pledged to throw money at something that doesn't need any.
  4. Re:Huh? by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His blog entry says it's basically a $10,000 "thank you" for taking on the project. Seriously, what? I'm giving someone a big pile of cash to thank them for taking on a project, even when they haven't made any meaningful progress toward completion of that project?

    I hereby announce I will take on the project of solving world hunger. Please give me a giant no-strings-attached donation as a "thank you" for my initiative. I will then make very little progress toward my goal before finally abandoning it as too difficult.

  5. Re:Huh? by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Informative

    The project's official website is even more interesting. It explicitly says they have no affiliation with the pledge drive, and don't need money.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  6. Re:Huh? by Otter · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fairness, the Nouveau guys (Heh, I hadn't grasped the name before but that's fairly clever...) aren't asking for money, say they don't need the $10K and make it clear that they're not expecting to have a reliable driver for the Fedora 7 release. The hype isn't their fault and I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

  7. Re:Excuse me. by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They may not be able to release the code to the drivers as they are - they probably do contain patented/licensed trade secret code. However, they certainly can provide basic - non optimized code to allow interfacing with the chipsets. With that as a basis, the OSS community could certainly work out how to optimize the system - alleviating the trade secret issues, though patents might still be a problem. IANAL, but IIRC, the API's can't be patented, just the code behind them. The rational being that the API's just dictate the interface & there is only 1 way to impliment using the interface - as dictated by the API.

  8. Not so much by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Often technologies will have in the license agreement "You can't release this code." You aren't required to like it, but if you sign the contract (and this stuff involves real, paper, signed contracts) you are required to respect it. nVidia and ATi both license a good deal of things for their drivers (S3TC would be an example). They can't just give the finger to these people and do what they want, they'll get sued and they'll lose because there's a contract in place.

  9. I'll bet you DRM is behind the driver secrecy. by meldroc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It isn't that NVidia or ATI won't release code. They won't even release hardware specs. There are plenty of kernel and X.org hackers out there who would jump at the chance to write open-source drivers for NVidia and ATI cards. But to do that, you need hardware programming information. You need to know which registers in the cards do what, you need to know what opcodes do what. You need to know what data goes in what registers, or to which addresses, and what data the card sends back, in raw binary. The driver developers don't have this information, and without it, they can't write drivers. NVidia and ATI aren't providing this and won't provide this, citing the need to protect trade secrets. Just to provide the 2-D open-source drivers that X.org does have for NVidia cards, the X.org developers had to run the driver source files through a code mangler that makes those particular .c files look like an entry to the Obfuscated C Contest, or NVidia wouldn't provide enough information to do even 2-D acceleration. The whole point of Nouveau is the laborious process of reverse-engineering NVidia's cards to figure out this information.

    Sure, there may be some secret sauce in there that makes for shinier 3-D graphics at a higher frame rate. But I suspect that shiny graphics aren't on the top of the list of things they're protecting. It's DRM. Macrovision's built into every video card that has a TV output port (so you can't use a VCR and tape a DVD movie.) Soon, HDCP will be built into every new graphics card so you can watch HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies without being able to exercise Fair Use legally. And very likely, all you have to do to turn off Macrovision and completely piss off the MPAA is flip a single bit in a particular register. And it's likely that if hardware programming information was known about newer cards, cracking HDCP would be trivial.

    That's why we're stuck with proprietary drivers.

    --

    Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
  10. Exactly by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A similar thing has happened with Java. A few programmers, some employed by RedHat, got together to produce clean-room implementation of the class libraries under the classpath umbrella.

    Outsiders scoffed at the insurmountable task they were undertaking, saying it was a waste of time given Sun's implementation.

    Now, with nothing to lose, Sun is on the verge of releasing Java under the same license that classpath uses!