Slashdot Mirror
No Closed Video Drivers For Next Ubuntu Release
lisah writes "Ubuntu's next release, Feisty Fawn, is due out in April and, according to company CTO Matt Zimmerman, proprietary video drivers failed to make the cut for the default install. Zimmerman told Linux.com that although the software required for Composite support is not ready for prime-time and therefore will not be included in Feisty, Ubuntu hasn't given up entirely on including video drivers in future releases. '[T]he winds aren't right yet. We will continue to track development and will revisit the decision if things change significantly.' Ambiguous or not, the decision to exclude proprietary drivers for now should satisfy at least some members of the Ubuntu Community. In other Feisty Fawn news, the Board also decided to downgrade support for Power PC due to a lack of funding." Linux.com and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.
Or, it could be because installing ATI drivers (for those of you out there who've done it know this) is an absolute pain in the ass on Ubuntu. When I installed NVidia drivers on my friends laptop, I groaned because it was so convenient.
People would complain if OpenOffice, Firefox, and some kind of movie/music didn't come packaged with Feisty Fawn, and for good reason! They are essentials to the system! I think it's really too bad they probably won't be included.
Apparently what is probably the premier desktop-oriented Linux distro doesn't think it's stable enough to include, but it's just as good - nay, better - than Aqua and Aero ?
Sounds like just another day in Linux-land to me :).
(Aside: I've used Beryl, etc on Ubuntu and it definitely does some cool stuff. To try and suggest it's anything close to the equivalent of OS X's and Vista's offerings, however, ignores some pretty hefty usability issues with regards to getting - and keeping - it working.)
Well, that sux.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What is so bad about including the proprietary drivers. For many users, they are the only way to make proper use of their hardware and e.g. run 3D design programs or something like X-Plane under Linux.
Why make it harder for these users?
What is so bad about giving me the proprietary but working NVidia driver for my NVidia hardware right from the start instead of forcing me to read countless HOWTOs and jump through holes first?
Or maybe we complain just because we like our Tuxracer, UT, Doom3, and desktops to be ready to go when started.
My Tuxracer, bzflag, + AIGLX/compiz bling-bling work out of the box because I only purchase hardware that is supported out of the box: ATI 9200 or less, or Intel graphics.
If you don't support the companies releasing open source drivers, those companies will disappear. And please don't give me the boo-hoo about Intel graphics not being as fast as the latest-latest-latest ATI/NVIDIA card. They really are fast enough for 99% of gamers.
Additionally, for some devices with binary-only drivers, there are other matters that prevent the manufacturers opening up the drivers fully. The one that everyone always brings up first is that of the hardware manufacturers not always owning all the IP that goes into the drivers, and thus not being able to release all the specs. That's perhaps a very real and legitimate concern, and ought to be respected by people who get all pissy when some piece of free code gets misappropriated. The one I'd like to focus on though, even if it's slightly off-topic given that the discussion is video drivers, is that of open-source drivers not necessarily being compliant with regulations conceringing the operation of a particular piece of hardware. I've have EXTREMELY good results from an LT Winmodem (from the junkbox) I've dropped into a smoothwall box (also from the junkbox) that I built to save a relative from pr0ndiallers, but I would not like to see completely open-source drivers for such devices. "Why not?" you ask, quite legitimately. Well, who is most qualified to write drivers that affect things like how strong a signal and what encoding to pump down the phone line - some random hacker, or someone who knows PSTN technology? And who is liable if a home-built driver causes the modem to do nasty things to the phone line? At least with a vendor-supplied driver you can point the finger back to them, but here in Oz with a homebrew driver you could be facing a $12K fine if your softmodem does something funky to the exchange. With some wireless chipsets where a lot of stuff is done in software the same arguments could apply - it would theoretically be possible for people to write their own drivers that push the gear out-of-spec, which may be fine if you're out in the middle of the desert but which is definitely not desirable if you have to share the spectrum with your neighbours.
Given my 'druthers, I'druther have hardware that just does what it's asked to do with minimal CPU effort required - "Here are these bits, you know what to do". But then, I do recognise that software-based control of those devices means that they can be easier to update - for example, installing new drivers rather than flashing and hoping that you don't brick the device. I also recognise that CPUs are fast enough these days for the additional load from these kinds of devices to be neglible compared to that from the eye-candy most people have on their desktops these days, so the old system performance arguments usually don't hold water any more. Finally, from a freedom perspective, what's the difference between a black-box that you plug into your computer and a black box that you run on your computer? You don't hear people complaining that they're somehow oppressed because they can't get the source code for their external throw-bits-at-it-down-the-serial-line modem, yet somehow a software modem or wireless nic with binary-only drivers is the spawn of satan?
I don't care - mod me down if you feel compelled to do so. Honestly, though, I can't find a reason to get my knickers in a twist about binary-only drivers and their supposed deleterious effects on free software. If a manufacturer is prepared to put together good, stable and functional binary drivers, then good for them - they'll at least be considered next time I need a piece of hardware. If it gives me the freedom to choose from a wider range of products at a wider range of prices, I'm all for it. If you're concerned with the gear getting orphaned, think about the last time you used a piece of older gear - and what you used it in. Sure, I can p
So Mandriva can do it, but Ubuntu can't, and now all the arguments are 'why Linux can't do it'?
Since when did Ubuntu become the only Linux? Does everyone fall for marketing that easily?
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
Of course there is. They are not free software. I am unable to alter them to fix bugs or add new features.
You know.. its fucking hard enough to get ANY vendor to support the linux platform with drivers and the video card vendors have been the best about this.. and now you all bitch about not letting any non-free drivers into Ubuntu and the likes? If I were Nvidia or ATI, I'd just say "Fine, we'll just cut that out of our development budget and let the liberal weenies hack it themselves..". THIS IS NOT COOL..
What will other hardware vendors say in the future? I sure as hell wouldn't bother if I was one.. its a thankless position to be in..
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
I don't doubt the complexity of graphics drivers. But I'd guess that many people thing their job is just soooo complex, and no doubt many of them say that with considerable merit.
One interpretation of what you've just said is that graphics chips have a goodly share of bugs, the workarounds are in the drivers, and they're sufficiently embarrassed about it that they keep it all secret.
Imagine if CPU makers worked the same way.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
My first experience with ubuntu was 5.10. It installed fine, apt-get install nvidia got my video sorted, and it played MP3s, etc out of the box. Excellent.
6.06, didn't play MP3s out of the box, and i spent some time (half-assed) rooting around to get my favourite MP3 playing app in KDE to work to no avail. 6.10 shipped with a broken installer that required script hacking to even get it to install on my machine.
Yes, I could have fixed it, but that's not the point. The point is, I couldn't be bothered, and I'm a fairly experienced linux admin - the distribution is, after all supposed to be the "so easy, your grandma could do it" distro. If i have to fuck with it to get it to work i may as well go back to something like slackware/freebsd (which is surprisingly easy to set up these days really).
Now they're removing support for closed drivers? Way to go....
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
And what should the users do when the want to use other platforms ?
- If the constructor only release drivers for 1 platform and not other, like back when ATI released drivers for Intel-compatible processors, and Mac PowerBooks came with PowerPC CPUs and R300-based GPU ? You couldn't get 3D acceleration for them until R300 project reverse engeneered them.
- Same for new sub-architectures : when 64bits started to appear, most constructors only provided 32bits drivers. You were either stuck to 2D or not using the full potential of your CPU.
- If I want to use some less frequent OS, like what should I do to use latest ATI/nVidia GFX cards on OpenSolaris ?
etc...
No constructor will ever consider doing any work for these unusual platforms. They only concentrate their effort on the most widespread platforms : i.e. Windows for 32bit x86, and sometimes Linux x86 because it's starting to get popular enough to be considered.
If you rely on proprietary BLOBs, you're limited to what the constructor has decided to consider economically viable.
If you rely on libre-software, even if it isn't as good as the BLOBs, you give people the freedom to do whatever they want with the hardware they bought. Be it fixing bugs on old no-more-supported-by-constructor hardware, securing exploitable-flaws, porting the code to new unusual platforms, etc...
As a indicator, have a look on Windows XP 64 bits. As it has a rather installed-base, very few vendor bothered to port their code to it EVEN if it's a microsoft OS. On the other hand, lots of libre-software got ported, be it applications (like 7z) or drivers (like drivers for 3DFX voodoo cards).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And when it fails? How is your cargo cult approach to CLI usage going to help the user figure out what went wrong and how to fix it?
Now that I've admitted to not being an experienced Linux user, do I lose my Slashdot privileges? I hope not, I like it here.
No. Look at my 'newbie' handle, from back when I was first learning about Linux back in the late 90's. It was Red Hat 4 or 5 using AfterStep as a window manager, I think. Everybody starts somewhere. Folks here are pretty forbearing as long as you're not an asshole about a distro or pretend something that is not the case.
Reason I recommended MEPIS is it's based on Ubuntu and tries to keep it simple - one app for each function. It also includes all of the codecs you'll likely want without having to use Automatix. UbuntuStudio looks groovy, though, so thanks for the heads up.
The opposite of progress is congress