Slashdot Mirror
Creative GPLs X-Fi Sound Card Driver Code
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that's a win for the free software community, Creative Labs has decided to release their binary Linux driver for the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi and X-Fi Titanium sound cards under the GPL license. This is coming after several failed attempts at delivering a working binary driver and years after these sound cards first hit the market."
I eagerly await any driver that is smaller and faster and takes up less resources than Creative's.
Nuclear engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
Seriously, what possible financial/business gain is there to have creative hide these things? Are they really worried about other companies stealing their driver ideas for their hardware? I know graphics drivers can potentially (or used to anyways) have a large amount of optimized code that could _maybe_ be beneficial to competitors, but sound cards?
Binary only? I'd say that's a draw, not a win.
I think you misunderstand. How in the hell would you open source a binary only driver?
Perhaps this is a sign that Creative are fearing for their existence. I mean, with high quality onboard audio (7.1, dolby etc) now pretty much standard on even budget motherboards, aren't the days of buying a separate soundcard history now?
Other than musicians perhaps, I can't think that anyone, even gamers/power users would still consider a separate soundcard as a 'required' upgrade, or even necessary at all.
Creative is probably one of those companies that chargers a grip for access to their API. Open sourcing the drivers means nobody will pay for any API access anymore. On linux.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe they had 3rd party stuff in the drivers and they couldnt legally GPL it...Dolby Digital, etc...and then they removed it now so they can? Just a guess.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
GPL. So BSD coders will have to rewrite it from scratch.
This is better than nothing, but worse than good documentation and worse than a BSD driver (that could be merged to BSD and GPL licensed operating systems).
{{.sig}}
The same kind that would require using REGEDIT on windows. Screw that troll, linux is as ready as any other consumer OS on the market. The consumer mass just been too much hammered into that win32 thinking shape.
Releasing driver source code reveals most of the same information that is included in detailed technical specifications. It almost always includes enough info to make a compatible, competing product, and often has enough info to greatly simplify the process of reverse-engineering the device.
A hardware company like Creative should be wary of doing this - it could really hurt their monopoly on gaming-oriented sound cards.
iirc, there was still a bit of configuration in X that I had to do manually. Which I know has improved drastically in the last 6 months. Configuration of display settings, the muddle between open source and restricted drivers. Wireless packages, etc. It was about 8 months ago to a year to get it setup, and there was quite a bit of googling, which turned up most of my answers in the forums. One kernel revision broke my ATI Mobility card, and I had to use an old kernel until the latest revision, which has now rectified the problem. While it wasn't a huge issue for me, getting someone who isn't literate to walk through it would have been a nightmare.
I prefer having a working command line, as walking my mother through how to do something on windows is absolutely hideous (click here, click there, no not that one, close that window, click that tab), while on linux it's usually a simple one-line command that I can send to her via email, text message, or IM.
In my books, it's Windows that's deficient in the user case you suggested.
i bought an asus xonar because my onboard chip had too much static, which made listening to music on headphones a nightmare. ie, moving the mouse increased the static. now with my sennheiser headphones, listening to my numerous flacs is a blast. my computer is my only source of music, and a dedicated sound card really made a huge difference, both in quality, depth, and non-staticness.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
Bingo.
The year of the linux desktop will never come until "making everything work" for 80% of the population requires precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files. And that most google searches for help end with instructions telling the user how to fix their problem or get their whatever working must also use precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files.
This includes hardware, common to obscure applications, common customizations etc.
If you have to edit a text file, your software is not ready for (l)users.
Question everything
This would've allowed for easier inclusion of the driver in BSD systems, without any threat to Creative — whatever extra freedoms are granted by the BSD-license compared to GPL, they are useless in the case of a vendor releasing a driver for their own hardware.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Unfortunately, that's a very narrow argument. For power users -- yes. Having a command line is awesome. As I've said in other posts, I quite enjoy tinkering with linux and doing the research, it's fun for me. But for 98% of the population, they don't *want* to touch that. They want their OS to work. They want it to install smoothly, have the drivers, have easy to install programs (which even ubuntu struggles with), and work. They don't want to have to get into the guts of the OS. Since the discussion is about taking linux 'mainstream' -- that is what I'm talking about. Most people are monkeys who like pre-fab machines.
Key thing right now: Unified installers. There is a serious problem with installers in linux. While .deb has taken it a long way, there are still numerous packages out there that need to be compiled. While I enjoy the research that goes into that, all of the dependent packages, etc. creates quite a mess quickly, and most people give up. Having a single, unified installer package would help tremendously to a user finding OSS they want, downloading it, clicking on it, and then running it.
Doesn't console have GUI? GUI doesn't equal WIMP, a ncurses menu that let you install nvidia driver is also GUI.
First of all, you're making a false comparison: How usable Linux is is an entirely separate issue from how usable Windows is. In an ideal world, Linux would be EASIER than Windows. With your approach, you're basically saying "once you're as good as Windows, you can give up and stop improving."
Secondly:
1) You don't need to use the CLI to install antivirus software.
2) You don't need to use the CLI to install Office.
3) Registry repair hasn't been part of the Windows experience since Windows 2000 came out; do try and keep up.
Hell, an obscure text file is easier to walk someone through editing than the registry is, and a LOT lower chance of completely hosing the entire system while you're at it.
A large part of usability is discoverability. Discoverability basically means giving the users a way to figure out how to solve their own problem in a rational, logical manner. Keeping settings in an obscurely-named, often invisible to the GUI, text file is pretty much exactly the opposite of that.
That said, you may be right: it's potentially easier to walk people through changing the contents of a file than adjusting options in a dialog. But there's no way the person can fix their OWN problem that way.
Comment of the year
I think you're missing the point there, sir.
Linux is not Windows.
Why do we have to be like Windows?
A better question would be:
Why do people argue over stupid stuff like this?
If you like Windows, use it. If you like Linux, use it. Please try to refrain from complaining because it's not the way _you_ like it.
I personally use Linux because I like it. I grew up with the ol' classic Mac. Then Windows. And moved on to Linux about 8 years ago.
I _like_ editing obscure config files. I _like_ using the command line. I also _like_ using a GUI for things like Web browsing, image viewing and video watching.
No disrespect to you, sir. I just feel that yelling and complaining at each other on Slashdot isn't exactly going to make your life better.
I agree with you. What bothers me is that I've seen this conversation about 50,000,000 times on this site:
A: Linux isn't very good at Foobar.
B: Windows is just as bad at Foobar!1!!!
Notice how person B totally and completely changed the subject while simultaneously missing the point. The point isn't how good Windows is at it; in fact, the original poster didn't even *mention* Windows 90% of the time this conversation happens. The point is that Linux isn't very good at Foobar and should be better at Foobar.
Mac OS X users don't constantly compare themselves to Windows; I could go on "macosxhints.com" and post, "wow, the interface for Spotlight in Finder sucks ass" and I won't get 47 replies that all read, "yeah, well, Windows search is worse!!11!." For some reason, the Linux community does that constantly. It's annoying, it should stop.
It's logically impossible to build an OS better than Windows if you only work on problems until you're "as good as Windows" at them. If the Linux cared about making a usable, supported, real alternative OS, they wouldn't do this constant penis-measuring about Windows and they'd start working on it.
End rant, sorry.
Comment of the year
If /. had stickies, this would be a sticky.
Exactly. Linux is no worse off than Windows for the general public.
We could almost employ a car analogy here. I could talk damn near anyone with a reasonable grasp of reality through changing a tyre on a car. This is about the same as teaching someone how to put a CD in.
I could talk my Mum through changing the oil filter on her VW, but it would be easier to just do it.
There isn't a hope in hell of me talking her through changing the timing belt. Fortunately when that needs done, I can just do it myself and give it back to her all sorted out. It's best all round, that way.
How would someone afraid of the command line fix this kind of problem in Windows? If the user is the kind to be afraid of a command line, they are probably one of those users that need help when anything substantial goes wrong.
I bet said user would end up asking for help from someone else.
So, in light of that, how is it any different between Linux and Windows? Both have problems, and both can be a pain in the ass to fix.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Fine; then nobody should post it because it's a cliche. Either way, I'm completely and utterly sick of reading it.
Comment of the year
to be fair, the registry hierarchical and the etc directory shares the same problems, there is too much garbage so the only effective way to work in both system is to know where to look or to search and hope.
the 'year of the linux desktop' will come when 'linux' manages to strong-arm every oem into installing 'linux' exclusively on every home computer they ship.
"Folks get a Linux machine and it is just them,Google,and a big scary CLI."
hm.. I thought I somehow inadvertently retrieved a cached page from 1998, but that doesn't make sense 'cause you mention "Google" ...
For the people I think you might be talking about, right-clicking on anything is approximately as scary as the cli.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love