Slashdot Mirror
Kernel Builders Appeal For Open Source Drivers
snydeq writes "The Linux kernel development community has released a statement emphasizing the need for open source drivers. The statement, signed by 135 developers, is aimed at preventing future vendors from following the closed source path. One holdout cited is Nvidia. The Linux Foundation has also released a statement in support: 'The Linux Foundation recommends that hardware manufacturers provide open source kernel modules. The open source nature of Linux is intrinsic to its success. We encourage manufacturers to work with the kernel community to provide open source kernel modules in order to enable their users and themselves to take advantage of the considerable benefits that Linux makes possible.'"
Lexmark not only doesn't provide the details needed to write OS drivers for its newer printers, it won't even provide proprietary drivers like ATI and nVidia do. I know, because when my sister moved from Windows to Ubuntu about a month or so ago, she had to buy a new printer because there wasn't any support for her fairly new Lexmark.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
There is only one thing holding back Linux from being used more wide-spread.
Gamers, the Linux community just doesn't care for them. But that is wrong, just wrong. Gamers are the reason why computers are the way they are nowadays, without good games to play on our electronic devices I guarantee that computers wouldn't be a big as they are today, and that's something that Linux has always failed to do bring us top-shelf gaming
having open source graphic drivers would be nice but i don't think that is the true problem for games on Linux
there true enemy that needs to be defeated before Linux even has a chance at becoming mainstream:
Games for Windows
The fug-tards at Microsoft pay off every last PC game maker to put their dirty label on everything even the damn game reviews have that garbage label on it for god sakes.
They do it because they know no one else stands a chance in the PC gaming market. Stop them please stop Microsoft and there proprietary-ness. Defeat games for windows and Linux will be main stream, because freedom and openness shouldn't be a standard just for big iron. Theirs little guys like me that would love nothing other than to give windows the old heave-ho but can't because where all locked down in a homeostasis environment.
Also running in an emulated environment just doesn't cut it - it could be possible but WINE just can't do it for some games. Normally the games that don't run are the most proprietary ones sadly but there's still room for them in the sphere that is Linux. Help make a home for gamers where there not locked and bogged down by corporate greed. crack Games for Windows and please dear god make "Games for Linux" a reality
Scenario: Mom asks you to install Ubuntu on her Dell computer setup.
Problems:
1) Open Source libata driver for the SATA optical drive causes frequent timeouts and hangs. Looks like a problem with the Ubuntu kernel. Tell Mom it's just like Windows XP, there are problems which will be updated and fixed "eventually".
2) Dell printer not supported by CUPS and open source drivers. There is no support from Dell, but a 20 minute Google search effort turns up the model is a re-branded Lexmark. The Ubuntu community forums detail a process to install proprietary Lexmark drivers for Debian GNU/Linux. Tell mom it's just like Windows XP, some printers need a certain version of driver for the device.
3) Displayed video is incorrect on Dell LCD display. Search Google for about a solid hour to find an answer. Looks like an Ubuntu problem with an open source driver. Tell Mom that there's nothing wrong with her computer, even though the screen is completely black for the whole boot process.
My own conclusion:
Ubuntu is a hit-or-miss installation for Dell hardware owners. Mostly miss. The open source or closed source nature of a driver does not factor into user acceptance. The user is uncomfortable when their hardware is "broken" due to a missing or incompatible driver.
Mom's conclusion:
The Ubuntu Hardy "bird" logo is "pretty".
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
Shipping drivers for only windows is bad, but shipping drivers for only windows and linux is (magically!!) good???
Fight for open specifications. That will enable any competent driver-writer to write drivers and all OSs can compete on fair grounds. By technical documentation, I don't mean "the guide to programming the Emc2x86" kind of stuff. There should be "The exhaustive reference to programming the Emc2x86" kind of stuff. There should the following guarantees associated with the documentation, only then the hardware can be called as "openly documented hardware":
1. For a sufficiently competent programmer, the documentation supplied is enough to achieve 100% feature parity with the proprietary drivers.
2. The documentation supplied must contain as a subset, all interfacial knowledge known to the writers of the proprietary drivers.
In other news Linus Torvalds has announced that he's working on a cutting-edge AI project. It was under wraps, but a really interesting post on a well-known tech community site, persuaded him of the need to release details earlier than planned.
Torvalds described the AI as being part of an 'Free Software enforcement bot', code named 'The Stallmanator'. Features include:
'I need your patents, your code and your motorcycle.'
'Free your hardware specifications and drivers, if you want to live.'
'I'll be busy (eating Cheetos)'
'The GNUNet funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from Debian package management. GNUNet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.'
'Hurd up, homies.'
With DARPA backing this project, I don't think the likes of nVidia or Lexmark will hold out for long. They're likely to get 'Stallmanated'.
I posted this over at RWT a month or so ago..
>Here is really the main point, which you're brushing
>aside -- this makes the hardware worth more, because
>you're making it potentially more usable for end users.
>Maybe not all end-users, but certainly some. I don't
>understand why you say it's a "very different kettle of
>fish" ? Different than releasing the specs? If anything
>it means fixes will happen faster.
I am not brushing anything aside, I am saying that a lot of people for a long time have ranted about opensource drivers for advanced video cards - and as yet I have seen no-one discuss it at a level that actually addresses what would be involved.
My 'very different kettle of fish' above is the vendors actually releasing full-stack sourcecode, versus just hardware specs.
My position on the hardware specs (and I am not claiming proof for this, it is only my position) is that it is next to useless for high-performance users. We may well see competent 2d opensource drivers, and 3d ones that can limp along - however graphics hardware has moved a LONG way from there.
I would *love* to see a fully opensource stack with high performance for opengl, however is it practical?
In your reply (sorry, I clipped it back a bit for brevity) you mentioned harddrive makers doing sector remapping - that is probably a whole few pages of code in their controllers. For a full modern opengl stack we are probably talking in the millions of lines region - we are talking of something with a scope not unlike the linux kernel itself, or at least a good proportion of it.
This is NOT similar to any other type of driver that I can think of - it is an almost unique case.
Just looking at opengl, the cards driver needs to be able to handle multiple simultaneous execution of overlapped and scheduled code, all in realtime, on in the region of 100-300 semi-linked vector cpus, all without cross-interference, while also maintain multiple streams of data at GB rates in and out of the card, and all while following a VERY explicit and highly complex set of rules governing the results.
Put another way, these devices are bleeding edge modern realtime computers, on a card - and their 'drivers' are really realtime OSs, although highly specialised.
Intel, in its infinite wisdom, as about to try and take that to the next level - making such cards x86ish, with an eye I suspect to reducing the complexity of software entry, after having failed miserably to write working drivers for their existing (965, g35, g45 so far) hardware.
All I say is lets cut these guys some slack - the capability of the hardware/software combination of a 9600gt, for around $150, is simply astounding. Should they expect 'help' from kernel developers, etc? of course not. Should they be punished? I say no.
Anyhow, I know that is bordering on preaching, and of course very opinionated - however I do like to see things treated with an even hand, and I have not always seen that happen with the issue of opensource 3d graphics drivers.
No the driver doesn't make the difference between high and low end cards. There is always a BIOS change at a minimum (videocards have their own BIOS). There are three reasons why nVidia claims they can't open source their drivers:
1) They incorporate third party proprietary code. This is almost certainly the case. I'm betting that some or maybe even all of it isn't secret, but it is still licensed none the less. That means they'd have to either change the driver to leave those features out and/or rewrite the code themselves which could involve some expensive clean room/dirty room techniques. Remember that they can't play the Xvid game of "Well we don't distribute it compiled so don't need to pay a license." Ya that won't won't work for a company who is providing the code for the clear purpose of making their cards work. They'd get sued (and they'd lose).
2) Their drivers are one of the things that make their cards more attractive than their competition. nVidia and ATi are locked in a major battle for computer marketshare. This is fought in terms of performance, whether raw performance at the high end or performance per dollar in the midrange. They are interested in every advantage they can get over one another. Well those advantages can come in software as well as hardware. For example nVidia has historically had very good OpenGL performance on Windows. All things being equal, an app would run equally well in either. ATi has not, DirectX has always performed better. Well if ATi got at nVidia's source, maybe they'd use those tricks to make their drivers perform better.
3) Special things like PhysX support. Coming out very soon (you can already find betas floating about) for Windows are drivers that will support hardware acceleration of the PhysX physics middleware engine on GeForce 8 and up cards. nVidia bought Ageia and has been working on this. They intend to use it to help move graphics cards. So game devs buy PhysX to handle their physics. Unreal Engine 3 uses it, for example, it is a major competitor to Havok. Well then those games will be able to have special hardwrae accelerated feature if they want... on nVidia cards. You have an ATi card you are out of luck. Of course if they GPL'd all that, ATi could take it and use it. They'd have to release any modifications, but they could still nab all the code and make their cards also do PhysX.
Now I'm not saying any of these are reasons you should agree with, please don't argue with me about them I don't work for nVidia I'm not making the rules. I'm just trying to help you understand why they aren't interested in open sourcing their drivers. With something like a network card or RAID controller, the drivers are generally pretty simple and are just a tool to make the hardware work. Thus there isn't really anything in them to protect and most companies probably wouldn't mind them being open if they really stopped to think about it. Their competitors would gain nothing from selling them anyhow.
That's not the case for GPU drivers. They are a large part of the picture in terms of performance and user experience. Thus improvements to them can give your cards a competitive edge over the others and thus nVidia isn't so interested in releasing them. Hell it can be real simple things sometimes. I used to have an LCD monitor with no scaler controls. What that meant was any image you fed it that was not at its native resolution, it stretched without regard for aspect ratio to full screen. That sort of thing bugs the shit out of me. I want aspect correct scaling. However, it wasn't a problem. nVidia cards can handle that, and I just told my card to do it.
At the time though, ATi cards couldn't (dunno how it stands now). That means that I more or less had to write off ATi so long as I kept that particular monitor. I wanted a feature that only nVidia could deliver. If nVidia's drivers had been open source, well perhaps ATi could have just grabbed the scaling code (it seemed to be driver based, not hardware based) and used it.
So it is a complex situation. I'm not defending nVidia's handling of it, just trying to help you understand why they do as they do.
"Is it technically impossible to provide for closed-source drivers in Linux?"
No. But it provides an ENORMOUS technical and legal hurdle (nobody's even sure yet if binary kernel modules are legal in most countries, although the *intention* is that they are). Supporting closed-source means, at some point, freezing interfaces, which means supporting every version of every interface created indefinitely. That's an AWFUL lot of work that would have to be done by precisely the people who don't want to do it and have enough to do already. You are doubling their workload by this simple request.
"Many people simply want Linux as an alternative to Windows, and a good alternative it is already."
Correct. Unfortunately, that's up to THEM to do something about, because that's not why Linux existed, exists or continues to exist. Linux is an OS, so in that sense it's an alternative. But it's not Windows. It won't ever BE Windows. It's just an OS. Who here complains to Apple because the Mac doesn't work with their Windows-only printer? Very, very few people.
"But insisting on open-source drivers will make the situation worse, not better in the long run: more and more special-purpose hardware is getting attached to the computer; mobile devices, chipcard readers, entertainment devices, GPS devices ... the list goes on and on."
Yep. And none of it we know how to drive, how to support, how to operate, how to upgrade, how to interface or how to port to other machines (like, I don't know, all those other alternative OS's that don't have compatibility layers). It's all just "black boxes" that sometimes (often, actually) the manufacturer's don't even know how they work. Just throwing in drivers "because they work now" isn't any good in the future, and certainly isn't any better than saying "Well, you'll have to run DOS if you want X to work". What's the difference between that and "You have to use Linux kernel 2.5.12 and our binary-only driver v 1.4.1"? The latter is available now for all current closed-source Linux drivers too... I can run my ATI card on Linux 2.6.1 with an old ATI driver just dandy. I could never upgrade that machine, though. They stopped supporting my card and they made the last compatible release for kernel 2.6.15.
Closed source drivers work now and break (for certain) in the future. Open source drivers have trouble working now (although that's not certain) but work the same or better in the future. With company co-operation, that can turn into "works before the product is out, works until there aren't any products that use the same driver in the general marketplace". Look at some of the 10Gig cards, or NX-capable processsors - there were drivers in Linux for them before anyone had even put their products out on the market.
"It is simply naive to think that we will get open-source drivers for all of these."
But experience shows you wrong - every single network card vendor on the planet had the same idea of not supporting their cards. Now almost every single network card, from token ring to wireless-N, on the planet is supported, and usually supported under Linux first. The only hardware that *doesn't* work is stuff that people don't care enough about to reverse-engineer or to build a compatibility layer for, or where there are legal issues. For those same hardware, even the closed-source drivers are now usually, or will be soon. And to be honest, most of that stuff won't work in Vista, or ME, or 98, or DOS, or Mac or anything else. And in a few years time, it'll break BEYOND REPAIR even in Windows either by a Window Service Pack or the next version of Windows.
Intel have Open-Source chipsets. AMD/ATI are open-sourcing. RaLink release a set of GPL drivers for their wireless cards. *Virtually* every piece of hardware in the world (as a percentage of overall items sold, e.g. the "production-run-of-ten" cheap knock-off PCI cards that don't have OS drivers don't really count against the 10 million sound cards sold which run
Why does hardware need to be so non standard and proprietary requiring its own drivers?
Take for example USB1, all USB controllers from many different manufacturers work with generic UHCI or OHCI drivers.
USB2 is even better, since all controllers support EHCI.
SATA potentially has AHCI, tho not all controllers support it.
Most CPUs have the x86 instruction set.
Video cards have VGA/SVGA/VESA, tho these specs are obviously far too old to be useful today.
Sound cards have soundblaster compatibility, and more recently AC97.
Proper modems have the Hayes command set, not counting some software modems.
Printers have postscript, tho typically only higher end printers support it.
If you have standards in hardware then the issue of drivers goes away... Your OS can provide drivers for the standard hardware, and thus not have third party driver code in the kernel... This would cure the Linux driver problem, and cure a majority of Windows crashes.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!