Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the can-you-hear-what-I'm-saying dept.
CaNeS
was the first of many to write in and tell us that
Creative Labs now has a beta driver for the Sound Blaster Live!
available on their ftp site.
Alas, they are only binaries, but its a start.
To all those considering getting an SBLive, I'd strongly recommend going for a card based on the Trident 4dWave-NX chipset (www.hoontech.com makes and sells one). It's a really sweet chipset, and Trident released GPL kernel drivers for it (which will ship with the next version of the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture). It has 4-speaker support, good 3d positional audio, all operations are done internally in 24 bit/48khz, S/PDIF digital output, etc. The Hoontech card has a 20bit/48khz codec, and even optical and coax plugs for digital output for plugging it into high-end recording equipment. Right now, since it was just released, Hoontech has eval pricing, so the card costs $19-$24 (depending on digital plugs) plus $14-$16 s/h from Korea. I'd say it's a much better card regardless of drivers, and having GPL ALSA drivers sure kicks ass.
The problem with binary only (see http://pmitros.mit.edu/binary-only.html during daylight hours) is that Creative is unlikely to still support those drivers 5 or 10 years from now. On the other hand, even source drivers break between releases. Binary drivers are almost guarenteed not to work from release to release (Linus has said so). Your hardware is likely not to work at all with modern software a few years from now, and force you to wait for Creative to update their drivers each time a new kernel comes out today.
- pmitros@SPAM.mit.edu
I agree, but no source is better than no drivers
by
palpatine
·
· Score: 2
I would definitely rather have an Open Source hardware driver than a binary-only one. But I already own a Dxr2 decoder card (silly me), and if a binary-only driver comes from Creative Labs, I'll be damned if I don't use it. Of course, I'll never buy a product for which the potential for OSS drivers nearly impossible, which makes the G200 a great card to consider.
I have the Matrox MGA-G200 specifications on me, in PDF format. I downloaded them to make a point, and if Matrox changes their mind about the G200, it's too late for them.
Matrox has been making some great moves with opening up specifications and providing the facilities for which Open Source drivers develop and proliferate. Logitech is very much the same, where everything from wheel mice to sophisticated joysticks are well supported by pure Open Source drivers. These companies need to be constantly reminded that they're doing a great job, and they're slowly helping the entire industry do the same.
The point is, Open Source is great, and it's the preferred option. It's not the only option (sometimes it's not even an option, which is the case for the SBLive drivers), but it's by far the recommended option.
Re:Source release isn't strictly up to Creative
by
Patrik+Nordebo
·
· Score: 2
Hint: Creative own E-MU. If they want specs, they can get them without an NDA.
A response to Creative Labs
by
knghtbrd
·
· Score: 5
If all of you were expecting a big, long letter to Creative talking to them about the advantages of Free Software and Open Source, you won't find it today. Oh I could spend the time to write all of that, but only their techs would likely understand it fully and their suits would just not get it. So I'll skip the details on why and just focus on the what:
Creative Labs,
I am pleased to see that you are taking an interest in the Linux platform. I am also pleased that you are now releasing driver support for one of your most interesting products, the SB Live. However, I regret to say that I have not purchased and do not plan to purchase your product at any point in the near future because of what I believe is a lack of sufficcient support for your products. I have seen and was impressed by the SB Live, and would happily reconsider my decision not to purchase your product should the issues I see with support be resolved.
The number one issue I see with support is source code. Without it, I could never right mindedly purchase your product. The only way to use the SB Live is with a software driver. On the Linux platform, these drivers are in the form of kernel modules. Without source, I must wait for you to release a new module every time I wish to upgrade my kernel. This delay is unacceptable to me, and I will not limit myself to the kernel versions you have decided to support.
Additionally, binary only kernel modules pose a significant security and system stability risk. I am not saying necessarily that bugs would not happen--they will. And I'm not saying the coders in the community can fix a problem once discovered any quicker than your in-house coders could--likely they can't. What I am saying is that with published code there are more eyes watching. Bugs are found quicker simply because more people can work to track them down.
Please consider it. The Linux community tends to best support those who best support us.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Binary-only is not good enough.
I've got a plan for the next computer I build. It will have a Matrox G200, because a) it's probably the best 2D card out there, and b) Matrox released all the specs for the G200. I will be sending a snail mail letter to Matrox & ATI, and possibly Nvidia (depending on their TNT 3D path - source or no source) telling them exactly why I bought what I did. The same thing goes for the sound card. I'll be buying one based on the Trident 4D wave chip - because Trident themselves developed an ALSA driver for it. Creative and Trident wil be getting letters on that.
Why am I planning to go to such lengths? Because I want people to know I support companies who support us. I might never modify my GLX module (or whatever) for the Matrox G200. But I want the ability to do that. I want to know that if I buy myself an Alpha, that it will probably work on that too - and if it doesn't, I can probably make it work there.
Creative: If you want Linux people to buy your cards, give the source of this to Alan Cox for inclusion in his -ac series. It will rapidly get tested, bugfixed, and then I will consider taking you off my 'blacklist' - where you currently enjoy the company of corporations such as ATI. I influence the purchasing habits of a large group of people, and I consistently tell them not to buy ATI cards - because better cards abound. I reccomend against Creative, too.
You can have your intellectual property - but you can't have my money.
Re:Source release isn't strictly up to Creative
by
demon
·
· Score: 2
Err? E-Mu Systems was bought, some time ago, by Creative. They did that some time after the AWE32 was released. If Creative wanted to release programming info, they can do it if they want.
--
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
They're finally moving in the right direction. This is good, to see a leader in the industry hit the Linux community like this. It may kickstart a domino effect to force other companies to do the same. Let's hope so.
WAY TO GO CREATIVE!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.:P)
Re:Source release isn't strictly up to Creative
by
splaytree
·
· Score: 3
Emu Systems (Emu-Ensoniq as it is called now) is a wholly owned subsidary of Creative Labs. If they want to release the source code to the SBLive! drivers, they can. It's all up to Creative, not Emu.
Re:It's just more "Shut up" software
by
Scott_F
·
· Score: 2
sorry, but this point isn't taken at all. how can you determine whether they are sincere or not? first off, at least they released it under "beta", which implies more work will be done. if they released it under "final" and there are the problems that i've read here, then you can talk all you want.
it is this kind of negative "rebellious" attitude that can bring down the support for the linux community. notice the keyword there though: community. they support us because we want it, and for them to take up the reins and write even just a beta driver is commendable.
sure the source code would be great, but the "suits" are having a hard time with being rational.:)
i say way to go creative. it's not taking a risk; it's taking a step towards the future.
They also spat out beta drivers for AWE64 on OS/2 and then sat on them forever without releasing anything. In my experience, they just waffle around and do whatever appears to be popular at the moment. If there's a bug, they never seem to keen on fixing it. Seem to always blame something else. If I recall correctly, there was also a minor little war going back and forth when they were trying to blame IBM for lack of SB drivers somehow... They have no concept of loyalty to customers, unlike other companies I know, which are much more deserving of my support!
Only in the best case, if Linux does take over the world, then Creative will have _no choice_ but to support it. But otherwise, watch out!
Has anyone had any luck with running the module on other kernel versions? I currently am using it under the 2.2.6-ac2 kernel.
To install, i just ran "insmod soundcore" then "insmod -f sblive" to force the install. Bad things will probably happen if any sound modules are already loaded, so watch out for that... Esound doesn't work right, but I can use x11amp by sending the data through its OSS Plugin (the default anyway). Esound just garbles everything more than a little boing. Of course, I have seen a couple reports here that it is doing that on a 2.2.5 kernel anyway....
Guess I'll have to take out the SB16 that I have had installed for Linux compatibility... woo hoo.
Re:It's just more "Shut up" software
by
razorwire
·
· Score: 2
Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just that I'm new to the Open Source community, but I don't understand this kind of reaction. It seems to me that the Linux community should welcome the efforts of a major hardware manufacturer like Creative, instead of saying "Screw you, it's not free enough".
Creative seems to be testing the waters here, rather than jumping into the deep end; just because we know Linux will achieve World Domination[tm] doesn't mean the suits buy it (yet), so they're perhaps not so eager to pour huge amounts of money into a software product that, in their eyes, isn't a huge potential moneymaker, and will be given away, source code and all, to boot!
Believe it or not, not everyone is convinced yet that Open Source is a Good Thing, and you're certainly not going to change anyone's mind by telling them to go to hell...
Slashdot Mirror
To all those considering getting an SBLive, I'd strongly recommend going for a card based on the Trident 4dWave-NX chipset (www.hoontech.com makes and sells one). It's a really sweet chipset, and Trident released GPL kernel drivers for it (which will ship with the next version of the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture). It has 4-speaker support, good 3d positional audio, all operations are done internally in 24 bit/48khz, S/PDIF digital output, etc. The Hoontech card has a 20bit/48khz codec, and even optical and coax plugs for digital output for plugging it into high-end recording equipment. Right now, since it was just released, Hoontech has eval pricing, so the card costs $19-$24 (depending on digital plugs) plus $14-$16 s/h from Korea. I'd say it's a much better card regardless of drivers, and having GPL ALSA drivers sure kicks ass.
The problem with binary only (see http://pmitros.mit.edu/binary-only.html during daylight hours) is that Creative is unlikely to still support those drivers 5 or 10 years from now. On the other hand, even source drivers break between releases. Binary drivers are almost guarenteed not to work from release to release (Linus has said so). Your hardware is likely not to work at all with modern software a few years from now, and force you to wait for Creative to update their drivers each time a new kernel comes out today.
- pmitros@SPAM.mit.edu
I would definitely rather have an Open Source hardware driver than a binary-only one. But I already own a Dxr2 decoder card (silly me), and if a binary-only driver comes from Creative Labs, I'll be damned if I don't use it. Of course, I'll never buy a product for which the potential for OSS drivers nearly impossible, which makes the G200 a great card to consider.
I have the Matrox MGA-G200 specifications on me, in PDF format. I downloaded them to make a point, and if Matrox changes their mind about the G200, it's too late for them.
Matrox has been making some great moves with opening up specifications and providing the facilities for which Open Source drivers develop and proliferate. Logitech is very much the same, where everything from wheel mice to sophisticated joysticks are well supported by pure Open Source drivers. These companies need to be constantly reminded that they're doing a great job, and they're slowly helping the entire industry do the same.
The point is, Open Source is great, and it's the preferred option. It's not the only option (sometimes it's not even an option, which is the case for the SBLive drivers), but it's by far the recommended option.
Hint: Creative own E-MU. If they want specs, they can get them without an NDA.
Creative Labs,
I am pleased to see that you are taking an interest in the Linux platform. I am also pleased that you are now releasing driver support for one of your most interesting products, the SB Live. However, I regret to say that I have not purchased and do not plan to purchase your product at any point in the near future because of what I believe is a lack of sufficcient support for your products. I have seen and was impressed by the SB Live, and would happily reconsider my decision not to purchase your product should the issues I see with support be resolved.
The number one issue I see with support is source code. Without it, I could never right mindedly purchase your product. The only way to use the SB Live is with a software driver. On the Linux platform, these drivers are in the form of kernel modules. Without source, I must wait for you to release a new module every time I wish to upgrade my kernel. This delay is unacceptable to me, and I will not limit myself to the kernel versions you have decided to support.
Additionally, binary only kernel modules pose a significant security and system stability risk. I am not saying necessarily that bugs would not happen--they will. And I'm not saying the coders in the community can fix a problem once discovered any quicker than your in-house coders could--likely they can't. What I am saying is that with published code there are more eyes watching. Bugs are found quicker simply because more people can work to track them down.
Please consider it. The Linux community tends to best support those who best support us.
I've got a plan for the next computer I build. It will have a Matrox G200, because a) it's probably the best 2D card out there, and b) Matrox released all the specs for the G200. I will be sending a snail mail letter to Matrox & ATI, and possibly Nvidia (depending on their TNT 3D path - source or no source) telling them exactly why I bought what I did. The same thing goes for the sound card. I'll be buying one based on the Trident 4D wave chip - because Trident themselves developed an ALSA driver for it. Creative and Trident wil be getting letters on that.
Why am I planning to go to such lengths? Because I want people to know I support companies who support us . I might never modify my GLX module (or whatever) for the Matrox G200. But I want the ability to do that. I want to know that if I buy myself an Alpha, that it will probably work on that too - and if it doesn't, I can probably make it work there.
Creative: If you want Linux people to buy your cards, give the source of this to Alan Cox for inclusion in his -ac series. It will rapidly get tested, bugfixed, and then I will consider taking you off my 'blacklist' - where you currently enjoy the company of corporations such as ATI. I influence the purchasing habits of a large group of people, and I consistently tell them not to buy ATI cards - because better cards abound. I reccomend against Creative, too.
You can have your intellectual property - but you can't have my money.
Err? E-Mu Systems was bought, some time ago, by Creative. They did that some time after the AWE32 was released. If Creative wanted to release programming info, they can do it if they want.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
WAY TO GO CREATIVE!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Emu Systems (Emu-Ensoniq as it is called now) is a wholly owned subsidary of Creative Labs. If they want to release the source code to the SBLive! drivers, they can. It's all up to Creative, not Emu.
sorry, but this point isn't taken at all. how can you determine whether they are sincere or not? first off, at least they released it under "beta", which implies more work will be done. if they released it under "final" and there are the problems that i've read here, then you can talk all you want.
:)
it is this kind of negative "rebellious" attitude that can bring down the support for the linux community. notice the keyword there though: community. they support us because we want it, and for them to take up the reins and write even just a beta driver is commendable.
sure the source code would be great, but the "suits" are having a hard time with being rational.
i say way to go creative. it's not taking a risk; it's taking a step towards the future.
-=Scott
They also spat out beta drivers for AWE64 on OS/2 and then sat on them forever without releasing anything.
In my experience, they just waffle around and do whatever appears to be popular at the moment. If there's a bug, they never seem to keen on fixing it. Seem to always blame something else.
If I recall correctly, there was also a minor little war going back and forth when they were trying to blame IBM for lack of SB drivers somehow...
They have no concept of loyalty to customers, unlike other companies I know, which are much more deserving of my support!
Only in the best case, if Linux does take over the world, then Creative will have _no choice_ but to support it. But otherwise, watch out!
Has anyone had any luck with running the module on other kernel versions? I currently am using it under the 2.2.6-ac2 kernel.
To install, i just ran "insmod soundcore" then "insmod -f sblive" to force the install. Bad things will probably happen if any sound modules are already loaded, so watch out for that... Esound doesn't work right, but I can use x11amp by sending the data through its OSS Plugin (the default anyway). Esound just garbles everything more than a little boing. Of course, I have seen a couple reports here that it is doing that on a 2.2.5 kernel anyway....
Guess I'll have to take out the SB16 that I have had installed for Linux compatibility... woo hoo.
Creative seems to be testing the waters here, rather than jumping into the deep end; just because we know Linux will achieve World Domination[tm] doesn't mean the suits buy it (yet), so they're perhaps not so eager to pour huge amounts of money into a software product that, in their eyes, isn't a huge potential moneymaker, and will be given away, source code and all, to boot!
Believe it or not, not everyone is convinced yet that Open Source is a Good Thing, and you're certainly not going to change anyone's mind by telling them to go to hell...