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.

Comments

more than just desktops,

[Aeron65432]

Or maybe we complain just because we like our Tuxracer, UT, Doom3, and desktops to be ready to go when started.

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.

Re:more than just desktops,

[MMC Monster]

Actually, I thought the above post should be marked funny. Yes, it's relatively simple and I've done similar for my nvidia drivers in the past. The problem is, you really can't expect end users to use a CLI to install anything.

End users should be told to go to one place. For now, that's synaptic. Maybe in the future it will be some click'n'run thing. Don't instruct them to

1. download a driver from a particular website.

2. open up a shell.

3. enter a cryptic line.

4. pray.

Plus, is the CLI way going to survive when a kernel upgrade is released? Presumably when the proprietary drivers are in synaptic they will be updated to work with the kernel updates.

Re:more than just desktops,

[605dave]

"What's so difficult about: % sh ./ati-driver-installer-8.33.6-x86.x86_64.run --buildpkg Ubuntu/6.10 % dpkg -i *deb" Wow, and you people wonder why Linux hasn't taken hold for the average consumer. Sure it isn't difficult to type that line, but it looks confusing and intimidating to the average person. And that answer is always slightly condescending too, implying someone is an idiot for not knowing the obvious solution. Linux will not succeed anytime soon on the desktop market, because the geeks who make it don't respect the non-geeks who would use it.

Re:more than just desktops,

[bberens]

Yep, I'm one of those linux users that can probably get it working if I really want to but for the most part if yum install [whatever] doesn't pick it up with my extended repository list it's just not getting installed on my Fedora box. While it's not exactly pertinent to Ubuntu it's basically the same idea. Even people who are capable of doing the work are less likely to do it because it's a pain.

Re:more than just desktops,

[Stormwatch]

Honestly, what do people expect? It's a fucking *nix.

How was that again... "Mac OS X. Because making UNIX user-friendly was easier than fixing Windows."

Re:more than just desktops,

[samkass]

>> The problem is, you really can't expect end users to use a CLI to install anything.
>
>Why? Why is it so unreasonable to expect people to know how to use their computer?

"Using a CLI" != "Using a computer". "Using" a computer should be about identifying what you want to create, edit, contribute, read, etc., then being able to do so in the easiest way possible. Maybe that's a CLI for you, but for most people double-clicking on an icon, or even having something already done so you don't have to worry about it at all, is a lot easier.

I thought you people lost these arguments in the late 80's. 20 years later and you STILL think CLI's should be necessary to perform basic functions on your computer?

Between putting dogma over usability and insisting everyone else should use a computer like a developer prefers to, combined with the big split in the licensing models coming up with GPLv3, I foresee some dark days ahead for open source on the desktop.

Re:more than just desktops,

[Blakey Rat]

Typing in the stuff isn't difficult.

Figuring out what to type in is. Rebooting, then coming up with a text screen because "startx" failed and there's nothing but an instruction telling you to restore your backed-up config (with, of course, no instructions on HOW to do that or, even better, an option to automatically do it)... that's very difficult.

Of course typing in those commands *is* difficult for somebody who's visually (or otherwise) impaired. You can install a driver on Windows or OS X using a screen-reader... try typing in 6-x86.x86_64.run with a screen-reader.

Re:more than just desktops,

[ltbarcly]

Using a CLI requires two things: the ability to read, and the ability to type (even if it's just hunt-and-peck typing). Actually it requires 3 things. Reading, typing, and a working knowledge of the syntax of the command line, precedence of commands, memorization of the 2 dozen or so commands you might use regularly, understanding of the help system to find commands you might need but rarely use, and so on.

Most people aren't smart enough to master this with out hours of formal training. So don't complain that most people don't use a CLI, most people don't use calculus either.

Re:more than just desktops,

[MayonakaHa]

Hot wiring a car only requires the ability to recognize colors and connect some wires together. But people don't expect me to know how to do that in order for me to operate my vehicle. Neither do they expect me to know how to fix it by crawling under the hood and figuring out what's wrong with the engine.

I know how to fix my own car just like I know how to operate Linux using a CLI, but do I expect others to? Nope. While it may be fairly simple, at least to us, it's very intimidating to the average user who would rather stick the keys in the ignition and "make it go" so they can get their work or play going.

Re:more than just desktops,

[rantingkitten]

Guys, I hate to break this to you, but "most users" can't install the drivers on Windows either. You ever walk someone through that process?

"Okay, so go to nvidia.com and find the driver for your card."
"How do I do that?"
"Click Downloads, select your operating system..."
"Is that Windows?"
"Yes. So select that and--"
"It says.. Windows XP slash 2000... Windows 98 slash 95..."
"You're on Windows XP. So select that."
"Okay."
"Now which video card do you have?"
"I don't know."
"Right click on the desktop. Go to properties. Go to Advanced. Do you see it?"
"No."
"Right above the colorful thing."
"Oh. Okay.. uh.."
"..it'll say Nvidia something, or maybe GeForce something."
"Ohhhh. GeForce 5200?"
"Okay, select that then."
"Where?"
"On the WEBSITE."
"Exit out of this?"
"YES, EXIT OUT OF THE PROPERTIES THING AND GO BACK TO THE WEBSITE."
"Okay."
"..."
"..."
"..."
"Did you select the 5200 yet?"
"No, am I supposed to?"
"YES. Click that. Click next."
"Do-I-want-to-download-the-following-file: installer dot exe."
"Yes. Download that."
"Where should I save it?"
"ANYWHERE. The desktop, okay?"
"Okay... it's downloading."
"..."
"Do-I-want-to-run-the-following-application: installer dot exe."
"Yesssss."
"It says.. warning-some-software-can-damage-your-computer-are -you-sure-you--"
"Yes."
"Accept terms and conditions?"
"...yes..."
"This-will-install-nvidia-drivers-blah-blah-blah, continue?"
"...yes..."
"Setup is preparing the... uh, install..shield.. wizard?"
"That's fine, just let it go."
"Do I click Next?"
"YES. YES. JUST KEEP HAMMERING NEXT UNTIL IT SAYS FINISHED."
"Okay. ...it says finished, do I click Ok?"
"YES FOR GOD'S SAKE ALREADY!"
"Okay, now it says I must reboot. Should I do that?"
"@#%"

Yeah. That's much, much easier for most people. The CLI looks intimidating but, to most people, both Windows and Linux CLI are incomprehensible gibberish anyway, so what's the difference?

Re:more than just desktops,

[Blakey Rat]

Really? You thought that the GUI won in the 80's? Which GUI was available then?

Mac OS.

And you think THAT was more powerful than CLI? You're an idiot.

Ask someone interested in desktop publishing. Hell, Apple's Macintosh along with the LaserWriter printer *invented* desktop publishing. Decades of the CLI didn't create it, but only a couple of years with a GUI did.

And for what it's worth, yeah, Mac OS was pretty damned powerful. It wouldn't still be around if it didn't meet people's needs.

3 seconds, no starting a program or using the mouse.

Plus the months of learning curve so that you know what the hell that "cut -f2,3 -d',' file1 | sort > newfile" gibberish even means, not to mention the time taken learning how to create your own gibberish that does what you want. Given a choice between doing an extremely rarely-needed task in 3 seconds with years of learning curve, or doing it in one minute in Excel, I'll pick Excel every time.

These are trivial examples, yes, but you would be shocked to learn how much processing is trivial once you start doing it in an environment that doesn't hold your and and change your diaper for you.

If you're the type of person whose job consists mainly of combining and/or sorting strange random data files over and over again, you might have an argument. Maybe. (Except still not, since it's trivial to run CLI commands in a GUI-- try running GUI tasks like photo editing or desktop publishing in a CLI!)

But that type of person is a very small minority. Face the facts, bud, you're only deluding yourself. I may be an idiot for agreeing with the grandparent poster, but at least I'm not a delusional idiot.

This is the Aqua and Aero "equivalent" ?

[drsmithy]

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.)

Re:This is the Aqua and Aero "equivalent" ?

[kripkenstein]

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 :).

You are comparing them on one aspect, in which admittably the Linux offerings fall short - stability. But the people who say that Compiz/Beryl are better aren't talking about that, they are referring to other aspects - say, that they require less in the way of hardware (especially vs. Vista), or that they allow a lot more user customization.

So, you are all right.

Re:This is the Aqua and Aero "equivalent" ?

[arevos]

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 ? From a stability perspective, Beryl and Compiz have quite a way to go. However, the base systems seem more flexible than their proprietary counterparts from what I've seen. Do you know if Aqua or Aero have a plugin system that enables one to add third party effects to the graphics system? For instance, could I write a plugin for either desktop that would make my windows "wobble" when moving them around? Or explode in a shower of sparks when closed? Or would adding such features be built into the operating system and unable to be altered or extended by third party developers?

I don't think it's accurate to say that 3D acceleration on Linux is necessarily better than Aqua and Aero, as it's currently more immature. However, the X based systems seem to me to be more flexible, with a more clearly defined architecture. When this reaches stability, it seems that Linux will enjoy a not insignificant advantage over its competitors. Until then, I'd have to consider it as not better, but perhaps "more promising".

No more PPC support?

[nurb432]

Well, that sux.

Why?

[jopet]

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?

Re:Why?

[peragrin]

And what happens when the drivers don't work quite right but instead hang the entire kernel on you while your doing some menial task.

Who's fault is it? Who do you go to get help? I have had the NVidia driver die on me but it killed off the system. when you have a closed blob you can't figure out which part is broken. is it the kernel, or is it a driver?

That is what is wrong with them. Even on windows. how do you know which part really breaks? is it the crappy third party drivers, or is it MSFT's interface? Both sides blame each other if you ask them. All you can do is throw out the card or wait for an update. At least with linux if you have the mind to you can do the work yourself.

Buy hardware

[Kludge]

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.

Mandriva?

[Linegod]

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?