I'm assuming you want to run the card on Linux, giving you're posting the question to Slashdot...if that is the case, you need to wait for better ATI drivers.
The NVIDIA Linux drivers come from the same codebase as their Windows drivers. The drivers offer the same features and comparable performance to their Windows counterparts. The lastest driver release also added a few nice GLX extensions. All hardware features are exposed.
The current ATI drivers were written as part of the DRI project, not by ATI. They do not expose any features beyond what you would have found in a Rage128 (no T&L, no programmable pipelines, only 2 texture units, no cube environment maps, no 3D textures, etc.). There have been rumors floating around that T&L will finally be supported in the Radeon driver "soon", but this is only a rumor, and I've been hearing it for well over 6 months.
ATI's website claims that their FireGL 8700 and 8800 cards (Radeon based) will have Linux support, which is promising. But never, ever, ever, ever purchase a product based on promises. If it doesn't have what you want now, don't count on ever having it.
Having Stallman on the board will only hurt GNOME. Being as obstinate and stubborn as he is, he will simply refuse to give ground. Resulting in gridlock. Resulting in GNOME decision making griding to a halt.
If he was so concerned about GNOME being Free only, he should have pushed for its use of the GPL from the beginning instead of spending so much time KDE-bashing.
The guy is a control freak. He should not be put in a position of power.
Personally, I think the guy's got a point. For a license that claims to be "Free", the GPL has a heluva lot of restrictions. I'd say the LGPL is more Free, and the BSD License is much, much closer to Free.
Screen resolution has nothing to do with the nvidia drivers themselves - that's an X issue. X will support whatever resolution you want - I have a TNT2 w/ the NVIDIA drivers running at 1280x768 which is a very non-standard resolution.
See this page for more info on how to set up non-standard screen resolutions:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XFree86-Video-Timi ng s-HOWTO/
There's a web page somewhere that will calculate an appropriate mode line for X based on your monitor's capabilities, but I can't locate it right now.
I'm surprised at the lack of comments about platform support for these new features.
If you own a GeForce3 *today*, you can access all of the hardware's features on Linux, Windows and Mac through OpenGL.
I don't know about ATI's Mac support, but under Linux the Radeon drivers still don't support T&L, cube maps, 3D textures or all three texture units. The card has been available for well over a year, but the driver only enables Rage128-level features. How long do you think it's going to take for the pixel and vertex shader capabilities to make it into the Linux drivers? And what about the Mac?
I've been extremely impressed by the balanced approach NVIDIA has been taking: they do a great deal of work on D3D 8 with Microsoft, but they simultaneously create OpenGL extensions for interesting hardware features, allowing Windows developers to target OpenGL, and also allowing alternate plaforms to access the new features. Their OpenGL support surpasses any other consumer grade hardware manufacturer's, and they offer better cross plaform support than any graphics company.
The safest choice any game developer can make is NVIDIA.
It's only a matter of time until KDE is ported to OSX. Now that Trolltech has made the Windows Qt library available for free, there has been talk of porting KOffice to Windows. Therefore, KIllustrator is very likely to be in direct competition with the Adobe product on both platforms.
Would anyone defend Corel if they came out with a product called "Corel Illustrator"? I doubt it. KIllustrator is no different to Corel Illustrator or Microsoft Illustrator.
"GIMP" sounds nothing like "Photoshop", but everyone knows they're similar products. Isn't it enough to copy functionality - do people really need to copy the name as well? Doesn't anyone in the Open Source world have any originality? Instead of creating clones of existing software, it would be nice to see similar functionality with different, *better* interfaces.
I suspect NVIDIA is more interested in becoming the next Intel, not the next Microsoft. Microsoft is known for its crap products and market dominance due to cut-throat business practices.
Intel is also fairly brutal on the business side of things, but they consistently produce high quality products. NVIDIA got to where they are today by making top-notch hardware, combined with aggressive marketing. I don't see that changing any time soon. When you have a formula that works, stick to it.
Don't accuse me of spreading FUD, and I won't point out that you're a moron. Quite simple.
But you are spreading FUD. A very small number of NVIDIA users experience problems with certain hardware combinations. The same is true of the DRI drivers. The NVIDIA drivers are no less stable than the DRI drivers, and in many cases, more stable. They certainly offer more features and are far easier to install.
No, but simply because 3dfx went belly-up at the time they were working on it.
One argument that is used all the time in support of open source drivers is that if a company goes belly-up, progress on the driver proceeds. This doesn't seem to be happening with the 3DFX drivers.
I was screwed for a very long time with no decent 3D drivers because they promised them and then took over a year to deliver.
Poppycock. The promise that NVIDIA made was to deliver direct rendering drivers when XFree86 4 was released. XFree86 4.0.0 was released in March, 2000, and the NVIDIA XF4 GLX drivers were released in April, 2000.
I am still screwed because their drivers don't like my system.
And I'm screwed because the DRI Radeon drivers don't like my system. What's your point? If you're using this as your basis for saying the NVIDIA drivers are unstable, then you're also saying that the DRI drivers are unstable.
You seem to be implying that the DRI drivers are perfect and that any bugs that pop up are instantly fixed. This is simply not true. The Radeon was released what, 10 months ago?, The drivers are still incomplete and in a state of flux. In my case, they don't work at all.
The NVIDIA drivers were released in April 2000, with full support for the GeForce2. Yes, the first few releases were a bit shakey, but from the 0.9.5 release on, the drivers were quite solid.
The NVIDIA drivers are not perfect. But neither are the DRI drivers. If the NVIDIA drivers are "unstable" by your measure, then you have to say that the DRI drivers are also unstable. The fact that they are closed source should have no measure in the evaluation of stablity. Just because something can be fixed does not mean it will be fixed.
Maybe for you, moron, but certainly not for everyone.
I stand in awe of your maturity. You're obviously an intelligent person with much experience on the matter.
Out of curiosity, I did a Google search on "ranessin NVIDIA" and came up with a few Slashdot hits. Here is one of your posts:
nVidia's drivers are fine as long as you don't have a problem. If you do, you're screwed.
With the DRI drivers, if you have a problem or uncover a bug, just ask the DRI developers and it's usually fixed in a timely fashion.
So the bug which causes the Radon to totally lock a machine with the Irongate chipset has been known by the DRI developers for 6 months, yet it still exists.
BTW, is your second V5 processor supported yet?
In my personal experience, I've never been screwed with the NVIDIA drivers. I am, however, screwed in a major way by the DRI Radeon drivers.
If you can call unstable drivers that may or may not work for you a "proven track record"...
The NVIDIA drivers have been stable for quite some time. Stop spreading FUD just because they're not open source.
I just purchased a Radeon All-In-Wonder a couple of weeks ago, and put it into a Athlon/SD11 box. Unfortunately for me, the Radeon driver does not work with the Irongate chipset at all. The only way to get X to run is with the "NoAccel" option, meaning I get no 2D acceleration, and no 3D acceleration. This is a known bug (#121904), and has been known since at least November 2000. Excuse me for saying so, but the open source magic just isn't working for 3D drivers. The G400 drivers were stable at one point (although not even close to compliant). The lastest drivers consistently lock up my system within 15 minutes of use.
I've been running stable on many machines (most of them SMP) with the NVIDIA drivers for well over 9 months. The NVIDIA drivers are fast, compliant, and stable. I am deeply regretting my decision to purchase a Radeon which is completely useless to me under Linux.
Every review I have seen on the Kyro II has been in a GHz+ Athlon machine. If you were to compare the Kyro II to the GeForce MX in a 500MHz Intel machine, the numbers would look very, very different. The GeForce cards perform extremely well in "older" machines, whereas the Kyro II will not.
The Kyro II has about the same feature set as a juiced-up Voodoo2. It's got a higher fill rate and supports more texture units, but that's about it. The GeForce3, on the other hand, supports some extremely cool NEW features for developers to take advantage of. I do agree that the GeForce3 is not something users would be interested in at this point in time because of the price, but for 3D developers, it's a wet dream.
And one thing that should not be glossed over is that NVIDIA has superb Linux drivers for their cards *TODAY*. If GeForce3's were currently available, you could pop one in your machine and be up and running within minutes (the current drivers have GeForce3 support).
On the other hand, Kyro drivers do not yet exist. They have promised Linux support, but it remains to be seen if/when support will be available and what quality the drivers will be. NEVER purchase hardware based on a promise from a vendor, because these promises are often not kept.
If you're running Windows and have a very fast processor, the Kyro II will give you respectable performance at a nice price point. If you want to run under Linux with a card with a proven track record, buy NVIDIA.
When I talk about 'exploiting the hardware', I'm referring to features, not speed. Many of the G400 features are only available if you compile with the binary-only HALlib from Matrox, and AFAIK, environmental bump mapping (supported by the hardware) isn't implemented.
The only halfway interesting feature of the V5 is FSAA w/ SLI, but that still isn't supported.
The only truly interesting piece of modern hardware with DRI drivers in progress is the Radeon, but support for this chip is still severely lacking.
Don't be so sensitive. People are extremely vocal picking out flaws with the NVIDIA drivers. But critisize the DRI and people get all huffy, even if there are valid complaints about the level of support/timeliness of release/difficulty of installation, etc. "Yeah, but they're open source" doesn't cut it when you need to get real work done. Yes, the NVIDIA drivers have some problems, but so do the DRI drivers.
The NVIDIA drivers are the only drivers which support T&L under Linux, and this will likely remain the case for some time.
This is not true. T&L support for the radeon is on the way.
I said likely remain the case for some time, not "it will never happen." If work has just begun on the T&L driver, chances are it will take a while. In all likelihood, there will be a new generation of chips out by the time it's stable. If there is a target date, I would be interested in hearing it - "on the way" can mean anything.
The DRI Radeon drivers do not support T&L, and ATI is not releasing the necessary info for the developers to integrate it.
This is also not true. The specs are under NDA but the DRI developers have them.
Then this is a very recent development. Less than a month ago, VA was "in negotiations" to do a T&L driver, and the "details" could not be discussed. It couldn't even be mentioned whether the driver would support 3D textures.
Obviously you don't have an SMP machine. Nvidia's drivers have serious stability problems in that case, but they'll fix them in the next release, for some value of "next".
This is totally false. I have two SMP machines at home, and we've got 3 SMP machines at work that are all using the NVIDIA drivers. They are very fast, and very stable. The NVIDIA drivers are the only drivers which support T&L under Linux, and this will likely remain the case for some time. The DRI Radeon drivers do not support T&L, and ATI is not releasing the necessary info for the developers to integrate it. So, buy a Radeon and you're only going to get the features of a Rage128. The NVIDIA drivers fully exploit their hardware - the same cannot be said about any of the open source drivers at the present time.
People complain about how 'difficult' it is to install the NVIDIA drivers. If people actually read the install instructions, installing them is trivial. Before you complain about the difficulty of installing the NVIDIA drivers, why don't you try installing the DRI drivers from scratch.
Of course there is still a lot of great software for Linux, and there is great software on Freshmeat. I'm just pointing out that the ratio of crap:quality is much, much higher than it was three or four years ago. Not much creativity, either. What percentage of apps on Freshmeat are "a clone of..." or "inspired by...", etc.? A *lot* of Linux software these days are poor, incomplete copies of Windows apps. For the most part, the license has become more important than the quality of the software, which is very, very unfortunate.
It has been my hope for many years to have a robust, high quality OS that would serve all of my purposes. I thought that it would happen with Linux, but the community has become so skewed to Free software that they are *actively* discouraging commercial software on Linux, no matter how high quality that software is. In my opinion, that's a big problem because it forces comapanies that actually have to make money to survive to ignore Linux.
It remains to be seen whether OSX will have the power and flexibility of Linux, but if it does, I think it will be a very attractive platform. The user will have more choices than on Linux - they can choose to use proprietary, commercial software (like movie players that support the Sorensen codec, etc.) when convinient, or choose to use Free alternatives.
I'm thinking mostly about multimedia hardware (DVD-R, professional video capture, multihead 3D, etc). For years, I had hoped Linux would be a viable replacement for IRIX machines, but it never quite happened. I'm positive that OSX will become the platform of choice for multimedia content creation. For companies like discreet, NewTek, etc., the support costs for Linux just aren't worth it. Artists already love Macs, it just remains to be seen whether the techies will love it, too.
As long as Mac OS X isn't too dumbed-down, then yes, it will take a lot of users away from Linux. Why would companies deploy on Linux with all of its support hassles, configuration nightmares and overly-vocal zealots when there is another commercial OS with the power of UNIX?
Personally, I'm getting really tired of all the Gnazis whining about Free software all the time. When I started using Linux, it was because it was solid, flexible and technically superior to windows (mainly because of it's UNIX roots). The 'moral' superiority of Linux was never an issue for me. These days, moral superiority has taken precedence over technical superiority, and Linux is suffering because of it. Freshmeat is now flooded with crappy software, but hey, it's Free man! Shovelware for the GNU generation.
If Apple can deliver an OS that has the power of UNIX, the ease of use of a well-thought-out UI, consistent, *fully supported* hardware, and lots of professional apps, then I will probably buy a Mac. (But they seriously have to do something about the one-mouse button issue).
Yes. I really recommend you to go hear RMS speak some time, and ask him questions. That might make things clearer.
I've been a Linux user for 5 years, and I've heard RMS speak several times. That's why I think he's a nut. He's not rational. I believe that the GPL will end up hurting widespread adoption of Linux. That's just my opinion, and time will tell.
Sadly, "in the spirit of" is often not enough when it comes to licenses. Licenses are not designed to be misinterpreted and sadly you can break a license even when you have noble goals.
The entire KDE thing boils down the Stallman's interpretation of 'system library' - it's OK to have Motif GPL code, but not Qt GPL code? That's convinient, creative interpretation. I was downloading statically linked versions of DDD for Linux from the GNU site years ago - I guess that was a flagrant abuse of the GPL?
Use the stable libraries then... Your argument does not make much sense, previously you claimed that you disliked not being able to reuse code, and here you suddenly claim that you don't like using libraries.
I didn't say I didn't like using libraries. I don't like having to dynamically link unstable libraries - I would rather include the code and statically link them until those libraries are stable and commonplace. It makes things easier for the end user. Are you a developer? Have you ever released an open source project? Users always have library version skews, and this is a burden on the developer, having to answer all the support questions. People talk about 'DLL hell' on Windows - the LGPL will force an even greater hell upon Linux by requiring dynamic linking (it also makes it impossible to use LGPL libraries in embedded systems). Havn't you had the experience that, in order to install app A, you have to upgrade libraries B, C and D, and by doing so, you will break apps E and F? That sucks.
And stating that "everybody screamed that NVIDIA should LGPL their entire code base" is a pure lie.
Maybe you didn't read the Slashdot comments when the GPL infringement was announced. Do a search for 'GPL Violation - NVIDIA' and read the comments.
No, it's not force. You're free not to use the GPL code. The terms for the use of the code are clearly stated in the license before you even think about using it.
I am not free to use GPL code in any non-GPL projects. Therefore, if I want that functionality, I need to duplicate the functionality of that code. It does not allow me to re-use existing, functional code. In my opinion, that is not freedom, it's assimilation.
People have the right to license their software any way that they want. I think the GPL will end up hurting Linux. You think the NVIDIA binary only license will hurt Linux. Nuff said.
They never promised open specs or open drivers.
That is simply not true.
Show me any evidence that NVIDIA promised open specs or drivers. They never made that promise.
But more important is that even many Linux/x86 platforms are unsupported - for example SMP systems. SMP systems are not uncommon today, on the contrary. NVIDIA is simple not an option on these platforms.
WTF? At home, I have a dual 800 with a GeForce2 and a dual 333 with a PCI TNT. At work, we have machines with TNT2s and GeForce2s, and *all* of them are SMP systems. They are all rock solid. Where did this fiction come from? SGI is selling SMP Linux boxes with NVIDIA cards. How could they do that if they didn't work?
The features you linked to have nothing to do with OpenGL, and most of those features aren't supported by the open drivers either. That's your source of information? A Slashdot post? Dude, you need to educate yourself before you form an opinion.
Wow, I can't believe I'm having an intelligent conversation about this subject. It's rare in Slashdot land;)
My problem with the GPL is that it uses force to ensure that everything is as Stallman sees fit. Notably: the whole Qt thing - the wording of the GPL was massaged to condemn a project (KDE) which was created in the spirit of Free Software. The GNU-approved GNOME thing uses a license (the LGPL) does not encourage Free Software. That makes no sense to me. I don't trust Stallman - I think he's a nutcase with his own private adjenda. I use the Artistic license because it doesn't have the nasty undertones of the GPL, or the hassles of the LGPL. The LGPL is just lame - it doesn't ensure or encourage Free software, it just forces you to use dynamic libraries, which is a problem when there are so many unstable libraries out there. I wish we had face-to-face bandwidth to discuss this - it's just too difficult to explain the problems with the GPL and LGPL in little snippets.
Take the NVIDIA driver GPL infringement, for example. About 10 lines of GPL'ed code was used, and for that, everyone was screaming that NVIDIA had to GPL their entire codebase. Yeah, right. That is force, just like Microsoft uses. The idea of Open Source is code-reuse. The GPL prohibits code reuse for any non-GPL project (proprietary or not). If you use, or link to, any GPL code, you have to use the GPL. That's force, baby, not freedom.
I still have use for my old Voodoo2, for example. That card was a good investment.
So, you bought a card with binary-only drivers?;) 3dfx didn't open their drivers until well after the V3 came out.
But insofar there have been nothing but empty promises from NVIDIA.
I hear this a lot. What empty promises? They promised high performance 3D drivers when XFree4 came out. Less than 3 weeks after XFree4.0.0 was released, they had drivers available. They never promised open specs or open drivers. What promises are you referring to?
If NVIDIA were to fully open their drivers (read: no obfuscated crippleware) one day, no one would be happier than me to recommend NVIDIA to everyone.
There is no obfuscated code anymore. XFree would not allow the obfuscated 2D code into the distribution. That's ancient history.
Something that a lot of people forget is that a majority of the groundwork for the Utah GLX project was done by two current NVIDIA employees to enable 3D on NVIDIA hardware (as well as G400). This code is still available. If someone were motivated, there is enough information to get a slow, but workable, 3D driver for XFree4 going.
Free drivers makes more people able to use the hardware, hence more hardware sales. Very simple.
Umm, the drivers are free (as in beer). Just like the DRI drivers, there is some lag in getting the kernel modules working when the latest devel kernel comes out (admitedly it's a bit longer than with DRI), but you can still use the NVIDIA drivers on 2.4pre kernels. Where are the extra sales going to coming from?
The only strong argument against the closed drivers is diverse platform support. BSD, Alpha Linux, PPC Linux, etc. get left out in the cold, which is unfortunate. But, from a business perspective, there's no money there. I ask again, how is it to NVIDIA's advantage to open their drivers?
Oh geez, it's not like they don't have any in-house documentation already that they have to proof read and maintain. Providing documentation to outside developers is not fundamentally different than providing docs for in-house developers. That's just a very silly argument.
No, it's not a silly argument. The difference between what you can release in-house and what goes to the outside world is huge. You need a legal team to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, you need to have professional tech writers to make everything clear - everything has to be perfect - the docs are a *product* and have to be treated as such. If they're in-house, the engineers just walk down the hall and ask someone a question. There are legal liabilities when you release specs.
Excuse me? If you have the source, you can improve the driver.
Not if you can't understand it. How can you fix function A if you don't know what function A is supposed to do? Without the specs, it's pretty darned hard to write a good driver. Case and point: there are unobfuscated open source 3D drivers for NVIDIA cards in the Utah GLX source tree. They have limited functionality, but the code is there. Without specs, they aren't going to get any better, though.
My argument boils down to this: if drivers are stable, full featured, and freely available, I don't need source code. The NVIDIA drivers are stable, full featured, and freely available. Simple as that.
Why frustration over GNU? It was GNU that made everything with Linux at all possible. And what this has to do with profit I simply don't understand; we are talking hardware and drivers here, and the drivers shouldn't be the money-making thing. The hardware should. Free drivers makes more people able to use the hardware, hence more hardware sales.
I won't get into the GNU thing too deeply because that really requires face-to-face bandwidth. But in a nutshell the thing that bothers me about the GPL is that none of that code can be used in a commercial setting. Most programmers need to work for a commercial company of some type in order to feed themselves. If I can't use GNU code in commercial code (even Open Source commercial code), I need to duplicate it, which goes directly against the Open Source concept. It's the licence and the leader that I have a problem with, not the concept. But I digress...
To me the matter of it being a good investment is more important.
If you think a 3D card is a good investment, I have some nice ocean front property in Wyoming for you;) I can't think of any other piece of hardware that depreciates in value, or becomes obsolete, faster than a 3D card.
but I can't rely on a single company telling me after a year that driver support will be discontinued, making my hardware crap.
This is speculation. The current drivers support everthing as early as the TNT, and because they have a unified driver codebase, this isn't likely to change until they have a major architecture change. Also, remember that 3dfx supplied binary only drivers for years before they opened up. I'd like to believe that a similar thing might happen with NVIDIA some day. Perhaps if you could make a point where it would be to NVIDIA's advantage to open their drivers? What's in it for them?
Well, it's not so much about binary drivers as it is about lack of open specs that allows a competitive free driver. If NVIDIA only provided binary drivers but also released open specs, it would be as easy as you say "not to use [the binary drivers]".
Publishing open specs means they have to dedicate resources to creating the documentation, proof reading it, maintaining it, etc. This is actually a *lot* more work than it sounds like.
Why should they go to the trouble? They're already supplying the best drivers available for 3D hardware under Linux. They maintain a single codebase between Windows and Linux, which means both platforms benefit equally when new features go in.
What I was saying is that you should support vendors who have open drivers, if it's a big deal for you. Be a positive force, not a negative one. Don't bash NVIDIA, praise the companies that do have an open policy.
Actually, I think people should be putting pressure on ATI to release specs for the Radeon. There is an Open driver in the works, but the specs aren't public, they're only available under NDA. This means that you'll have the source code to the drivers, but you won't be able to fix them. ATI gets the good press of having open source drivers, but the users don't get the info they need to fix the drivers if they have problems.
You don't need all of those skills yourself to develop a driver, as long as someone has them. And believe me, the world is huge.
Have you looked at the DRI code? It is huge, complex, and hairy in the extreme. I have heard many critics of the DRI claim that it is way too complex, and I'd have to agree with them. There really aren't that many people who have the kind of knowlege required to contribute - as a result, the list of DRI developers is very short.
After realizing that and this simple chain I was convinced of the mighty powers of free software (and GNU), and fell in love with it. A strange experience if one comes from the Windows world. I believe you will be convinced too someday.:-)
I've been using Linux almost exclusively for the last 5 years. With each day, I become increasingly frustrated with the GNU mentality. I belive strongly in Open Source, but I also strongly believe that the GPL will be the downfall of Linux. You can't have an industry without profit, and Linux will never be mainstream without industry support. But that's a different discussion completely. (and not entirely relevant because the DRI drivers aren't GNU/GPL)
When you realize that, you'll understand that 20 fps more today with one particular driver and card is not worth sacrificing all of this, and why people are fighting to keep the freedom and want free drivers.
I'm not as interested in and extra 20fps as I am in stable, predictable drivers and interesting features. The current crop of DRI drivers are riddled with bugs and rendering anomalies. The supported cards can only be described as mediocre at best. If/when the open source drivers catch up, I may change my opinion.
One argument I keep hearing is support for old hardware. I would argue that in the case of 3D gfx cards, this is not nearly as important as having drivers available when the card is released. How long ago was the Radeon released? Where are the open drivers that PI was contracted to deliver? I am not interested in drivers for obsolete hardware. I had drivers for the GeForce2 the same day they hit retail stores.
NVIDIA is giving me the support that *I* need as a graphics developer. That's not to say that their support will satify everyone - for those people who don't want binary only drivers - don't use them. The NVIDIA drivers are enabling Linux to penetrate new markets and allow people who *don't* have a problem with binary only software as long as it is high quality and stable to have great OpenGL support. A lot of people bash Microsoft for forcing vendors to do things their way. So why is the Linux community trying to force NVIDIA to do things their way?
Until the open source drivers are at least as good or better than the NVIDIA drivers, I really don't think there is a very convincing argument against NVIDIA. I will always choose the best technical solution. If the open and closed solutions are equivalent technically, I would be inclined to choose the open solution. But moral superiority does not outweigh technical superiority in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming you want to run the card on Linux, giving you're posting the question to Slashdot...if that is the case, you need to wait for better ATI drivers.
The NVIDIA Linux drivers come from the same codebase as their Windows drivers. The drivers offer the same features and comparable performance to their Windows counterparts. The lastest driver release also added a few nice GLX extensions. All hardware features are exposed.
The current ATI drivers were written as part of the DRI project, not by ATI. They do not expose any features beyond what you would have found in a Rage128 (no T&L, no programmable pipelines, only 2 texture units, no cube environment maps, no 3D textures, etc.). There have been rumors floating around that T&L will finally be supported in the Radeon driver "soon", but this is only a rumor, and I've been hearing it for well over 6 months.
ATI's website claims that their FireGL 8700 and 8800 cards (Radeon based) will have Linux support, which is promising. But never, ever, ever, ever purchase a product based on promises. If it doesn't have what you want now, don't count on ever having it.
The Maya renderer has been available for a couple of years now.
SGI no longer sells 32-bit Linux workstations - they discontinued the entire line (except for the graphics cluster) earlier this year.
Simply being aware of one's faults does not mitigate the effects of those faults.
A serial rapist who knows what he is a serial rapist is still a serial rapist.
You do NOT want someone who is uncompromising and non-diplomatic on a Board of Directors, no matter how "honest" he is.
Having Stallman on the board will only hurt GNOME. Being as obstinate and stubborn as he is, he will simply refuse to give ground. Resulting in gridlock. Resulting in GNOME decision making griding to a halt.
If he was so concerned about GNOME being Free only, he should have pushed for its use of the GPL from the beginning instead of spending so much time KDE-bashing.
The guy is a control freak. He should not be put in a position of power.
Personally, I think the guy's got a point. For a license that claims to be "Free", the GPL has a heluva lot of restrictions. I'd say the LGPL is more Free, and the BSD License is much, much closer to Free.
Screen resolution has nothing to do with the nvidia drivers themselves - that's an X issue. X will support whatever resolution you want - I have a TNT2 w/ the NVIDIA drivers running at 1280x768 which is a very non-standard resolution.
i ng s-HOWTO/
See this page for more info on how to set up non-standard screen resolutions:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/XFree86-Video-Tim
There's a web page somewhere that will calculate an appropriate mode line for X based on your monitor's capabilities, but I can't locate it right now.
-Mark
I'm surprised at the lack of comments about platform support for these new features.
If you own a GeForce3 *today*, you can access all of the hardware's features on Linux, Windows and Mac through OpenGL.
I don't know about ATI's Mac support, but under Linux the Radeon drivers still don't support T&L, cube maps, 3D textures or all three texture units. The card has been available for well over a year, but the driver only enables Rage128-level features. How long do you think it's going to take for the pixel and vertex shader capabilities to make it into the Linux drivers? And what about the Mac?
I've been extremely impressed by the balanced approach NVIDIA has been taking: they do a great deal of work on D3D 8 with Microsoft, but they simultaneously create OpenGL extensions for interesting hardware features, allowing Windows developers to target OpenGL, and also allowing alternate plaforms to access the new features. Their OpenGL support surpasses any other consumer grade hardware manufacturer's, and they offer better cross plaform support than any graphics company.
The safest choice any game developer can make is NVIDIA.
-Mark
It's only a matter of time until KDE is ported to OSX. Now that Trolltech has made the Windows Qt library available for free, there has been talk of porting KOffice to Windows. Therefore, KIllustrator is very likely to be in direct competition with the Adobe product on both platforms.
Would anyone defend Corel if they came out with a product called "Corel Illustrator"? I doubt it. KIllustrator is no different to Corel Illustrator or Microsoft Illustrator.
"GIMP" sounds nothing like "Photoshop", but everyone knows they're similar products. Isn't it enough to copy functionality - do people really need to copy the name as well? Doesn't anyone in the Open Source world have any originality? Instead of creating clones of existing software, it would be nice to see similar functionality with different, *better* interfaces.
I suspect NVIDIA is more interested in becoming the next Intel, not the next Microsoft. Microsoft is known for its crap products and market dominance due to cut-throat business practices.
Intel is also fairly brutal on the business side of things, but they consistently produce high quality products. NVIDIA got to where they are today by making top-notch hardware, combined with aggressive marketing. I don't see that changing any time soon. When you have a formula that works, stick to it.
-Mark
Yes, we all know that the Linux community is entirely made up of "average" users. Sheesh.
Databases on Linux? Nah.
Multi-monitor Linux boxes? Nah.
64 bit Linux platforms? Nah.
Non-english speaking Linux users? Nah.
Looks like we don't need Qt3, then.
Don't accuse me of spreading FUD, and I won't point out that you're a moron. Quite simple.
But you are spreading FUD. A very small number of NVIDIA users experience problems with certain hardware combinations. The same is true of the DRI drivers. The NVIDIA drivers are no less stable than the DRI drivers, and in many cases, more stable. They certainly offer more features and are far easier to install.
No, but simply because 3dfx went belly-up at the time they were working on it.
One argument that is used all the time in support of open source drivers is that if a company goes belly-up, progress on the driver proceeds. This doesn't seem to be happening with the 3DFX drivers.
I was screwed for a very long time with no decent 3D drivers because they promised them and then took over a year to deliver.
Poppycock. The promise that NVIDIA made was to deliver direct rendering drivers when XFree86 4 was released. XFree86 4.0.0 was released in March, 2000, and the NVIDIA XF4 GLX drivers were released in April, 2000.
I am still screwed because their drivers don't like my system.
And I'm screwed because the DRI Radeon drivers don't like my system. What's your point? If you're using this as your basis for saying the NVIDIA drivers are unstable, then you're also saying that the DRI drivers are unstable.
You seem to be implying that the DRI drivers are perfect and that any bugs that pop up are instantly fixed. This is simply not true. The Radeon was released what, 10 months ago?, The drivers are still incomplete and in a state of flux. In my case, they don't work at all.
The NVIDIA drivers were released in April 2000, with full support for the GeForce2. Yes, the first few releases were a bit shakey, but from the 0.9.5 release on, the drivers were quite solid.
The NVIDIA drivers are not perfect. But neither are the DRI drivers. If the NVIDIA drivers are "unstable" by your measure, then you have to say that the DRI drivers are also unstable. The fact that they are closed source should have no measure in the evaluation of stablity. Just because something can be fixed does not mean it will be fixed.
Maybe for you, moron, but certainly not for everyone.
I stand in awe of your maturity. You're obviously an intelligent person with much experience on the matter.
Out of curiosity, I did a Google search on "ranessin NVIDIA" and came up with a few Slashdot hits. Here is one of your posts:
nVidia's drivers are fine as long as you don't have a problem. If you do, you're screwed.
With the DRI drivers, if you have a problem or uncover a bug, just ask the DRI developers and it's usually fixed in a timely fashion.
So the bug which causes the Radon to totally lock a machine with the Irongate chipset has been known by the DRI developers for 6 months, yet it still exists.
BTW, is your second V5 processor supported yet?
In my personal experience, I've never been screwed with the NVIDIA drivers. I am, however, screwed in a major way by the DRI Radeon drivers.
If you can call unstable drivers that may or may not work for you a "proven track record"...
The NVIDIA drivers have been stable for quite some time. Stop spreading FUD just because they're not open source.
I just purchased a Radeon All-In-Wonder a couple of weeks ago, and put it into a Athlon/SD11 box. Unfortunately for me, the Radeon driver does not work with the Irongate chipset at all. The only way to get X to run is with the "NoAccel" option, meaning I get no 2D acceleration, and no 3D acceleration. This is a known bug (#121904), and has been known since at least November 2000. Excuse me for saying so, but the open source magic just isn't working for 3D drivers. The G400 drivers were stable at one point (although not even close to compliant). The lastest drivers consistently lock up my system within 15 minutes of use.
I've been running stable on many machines (most of them SMP) with the NVIDIA drivers for well over 9 months. The NVIDIA drivers are fast, compliant, and stable. I am deeply regretting my decision to purchase a Radeon which is completely useless to me under Linux.
-Mark
Every review I have seen on the Kyro II has been in a GHz+ Athlon machine. If you were to compare the Kyro II to the GeForce MX in a 500MHz Intel machine, the numbers would look very, very different. The GeForce cards perform extremely well in "older" machines, whereas the Kyro II will not.
The Kyro II has about the same feature set as a juiced-up Voodoo2. It's got a higher fill rate and supports more texture units, but that's about it. The GeForce3, on the other hand, supports some extremely cool NEW features for developers to take advantage of. I do agree that the GeForce3 is not something users would be interested in at this point in time because of the price, but for 3D developers, it's a wet dream.
And one thing that should not be glossed over is that NVIDIA has superb Linux drivers for their cards *TODAY*. If GeForce3's were currently available, you could pop one in your machine and be up and running within minutes (the current drivers have GeForce3 support).
On the other hand, Kyro drivers do not yet exist. They have promised Linux support, but it remains to be seen if/when support will be available and what quality the drivers will be. NEVER purchase hardware based on a promise from a vendor, because these promises are often not kept.
If you're running Windows and have a very fast processor, the Kyro II will give you respectable performance at a nice price point. If you want to run under Linux with a card with a proven track record, buy NVIDIA.
-Mark
When I talk about 'exploiting the hardware', I'm referring to features, not speed. Many of the G400 features are only available if you compile with the binary-only HALlib from Matrox, and AFAIK, environmental bump mapping (supported by the hardware) isn't implemented.
The only halfway interesting feature of the V5 is FSAA w/ SLI, but that still isn't supported.
The only truly interesting piece of modern hardware with DRI drivers in progress is the Radeon, but support for this chip is still severely lacking.
Don't be so sensitive. People are extremely vocal picking out flaws with the NVIDIA drivers. But critisize the DRI and people get all huffy, even if there are valid complaints about the level of support/timeliness of release/difficulty of installation, etc. "Yeah, but they're open source" doesn't cut it when you need to get real work done. Yes, the NVIDIA drivers have some problems, but so do the DRI drivers.
-Mark
The NVIDIA drivers are the only drivers which support T&L under Linux, and this will likely remain the case for some time.
This is not true. T&L support for the radeon is on the way.
I said likely remain the case for some time, not "it will never happen." If work has just begun on the T&L driver, chances are it will take a while. In all likelihood, there will be a new generation of chips out by the time it's stable. If there is a target date, I would be interested in hearing it - "on the way" can mean anything.
The DRI Radeon drivers do not support T&L, and ATI is not releasing the necessary info for the developers to integrate it.
This is also not true. The specs are under NDA but the DRI developers have them.
Then this is a very recent development. Less than a month ago, VA was "in negotiations" to do a T&L driver, and the "details" could not be discussed. It couldn't even be mentioned whether the driver would support 3D textures.
-Mark
Obviously you don't have an SMP machine. Nvidia's drivers have serious stability problems in that case, but they'll fix them in the next release, for some value of "next".
This is totally false. I have two SMP machines at home, and we've got 3 SMP machines at work that are all using the NVIDIA drivers. They are very fast, and very stable. The NVIDIA drivers are the only drivers which support T&L under Linux, and this will likely remain the case for some time. The DRI Radeon drivers do not support T&L, and ATI is not releasing the necessary info for the developers to integrate it. So, buy a Radeon and you're only going to get the features of a Rage128. The NVIDIA drivers fully exploit their hardware - the same cannot be said about any of the open source drivers at the present time.
People complain about how 'difficult' it is to install the NVIDIA drivers. If people actually read the install instructions, installing them is trivial. Before you complain about the difficulty of installing the NVIDIA drivers, why don't you try installing the DRI drivers from scratch.
-Mark
Of course there is still a lot of great software for Linux, and there is great software on Freshmeat. I'm just pointing out that the ratio of crap:quality is much, much higher than it was three or four years ago. Not much creativity, either. What percentage of apps on Freshmeat are "a clone of..." or "inspired by...", etc.? A *lot* of Linux software these days are poor, incomplete copies of Windows apps. For the most part, the license has become more important than the quality of the software, which is very, very unfortunate.
It has been my hope for many years to have a robust, high quality OS that would serve all of my purposes. I thought that it would happen with Linux, but the community has become so skewed to Free software that they are *actively* discouraging commercial software on Linux, no matter how high quality that software is. In my opinion, that's a big problem because it forces comapanies that actually have to make money to survive to ignore Linux.
It remains to be seen whether OSX will have the power and flexibility of Linux, but if it does, I think it will be a very attractive platform. The user will have more choices than on Linux - they can choose to use proprietary, commercial software (like movie players that support the Sorensen codec, etc.) when convinient, or choose to use Free alternatives.
Cheers,
Mark
> Sun is selling fully supported hardware,
I'm thinking mostly about multimedia hardware (DVD-R, professional video capture, multihead 3D, etc). For years, I had hoped Linux would be a viable replacement for IRIX machines, but it never quite happened. I'm positive that OSX will become the platform of choice for multimedia content creation. For companies like discreet, NewTek, etc., the support costs for Linux just aren't worth it. Artists already love Macs, it just remains to be seen whether the techies will love it, too.
As long as Mac OS X isn't too dumbed-down, then yes, it will take a lot of users away from Linux. Why would companies deploy on Linux with all of its support hassles, configuration nightmares and overly-vocal zealots when there is another commercial OS with the power of UNIX?
Personally, I'm getting really tired of all the Gnazis whining about Free software all the time. When I started using Linux, it was because it was solid, flexible and technically superior to windows (mainly because of it's UNIX roots). The 'moral' superiority of Linux was never an issue for me. These days, moral superiority has taken precedence over technical superiority, and Linux is suffering because of it. Freshmeat is now flooded with crappy software, but hey, it's Free man! Shovelware for the GNU generation.
If Apple can deliver an OS that has the power of UNIX, the ease of use of a well-thought-out UI, consistent, *fully supported* hardware, and lots of professional apps, then I will probably buy a Mac. (But they seriously have to do something about the one-mouse button issue).
This might clear up some of my comments about the GPL. I recommend you read it, then think about it.l
http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/bsd_vs_gpl.shtm
Cheers,
Mark
Yes. I really recommend you to go hear RMS speak some time, and ask him questions. That might make things clearer.
I've been a Linux user for 5 years, and I've heard RMS speak several times. That's why I think he's a nut. He's not rational. I believe that the GPL will end up hurting widespread adoption of Linux. That's just my opinion, and time will tell.
Sadly, "in the spirit of" is often not enough when it comes to licenses. Licenses are not designed to be misinterpreted and sadly you can break a license even when you have noble goals.
The entire KDE thing boils down the Stallman's interpretation of 'system library' - it's OK to have Motif GPL code, but not Qt GPL code? That's convinient, creative interpretation. I was downloading statically linked versions of DDD for Linux from the GNU site years ago - I guess that was a flagrant abuse of the GPL?
Use the stable libraries then... Your argument does not make much sense, previously you claimed that you disliked not being able to reuse code, and here you suddenly claim that you don't like using libraries.
I didn't say I didn't like using libraries. I don't like having to dynamically link unstable libraries - I would rather include the code and statically link them until those libraries are stable and commonplace. It makes things easier for the end user. Are you a developer? Have you ever released an open source project? Users always have library version skews, and this is a burden on the developer, having to answer all the support questions. People talk about 'DLL hell' on Windows - the LGPL will force an even greater hell upon Linux by requiring dynamic linking (it also makes it impossible to use LGPL libraries in embedded systems). Havn't you had the experience that, in order to install app A, you have to upgrade libraries B, C and D, and by doing so, you will break apps E and F? That sucks.
And stating that "everybody screamed that NVIDIA should LGPL their entire code base" is a pure lie.
Maybe you didn't read the Slashdot comments when the GPL infringement was announced. Do a search for 'GPL Violation - NVIDIA' and read the comments.
No, it's not force. You're free not to use the GPL code. The terms for the use of the code are clearly stated in the license before you even think about using it.
I am not free to use GPL code in any non-GPL projects. Therefore, if I want that functionality, I need to duplicate the functionality of that code. It does not allow me to re-use existing, functional code. In my opinion, that is not freedom, it's assimilation.
People have the right to license their software any way that they want. I think the GPL will end up hurting Linux. You think the NVIDIA binary only license will hurt Linux. Nuff said.
They never promised open specs or open drivers.That is simply not true.
Show me any evidence that NVIDIA promised open specs or drivers. They never made that promise.
But more important is that even many Linux/x86 platforms are unsupported - for example SMP systems. SMP systems are not uncommon today, on the contrary. NVIDIA is simple not an option on these platforms.
WTF? At home, I have a dual 800 with a GeForce2 and a dual 333 with a PCI TNT. At work, we have machines with TNT2s and GeForce2s, and *all* of them are SMP systems. They are all rock solid. Where did this fiction come from? SGI is selling SMP Linux boxes with NVIDIA cards. How could they do that if they didn't work?
The features you linked to have nothing to do with OpenGL, and most of those features aren't supported by the open drivers either. That's your source of information? A Slashdot post? Dude, you need to educate yourself before you form an opinion.
Wow, I can't believe I'm having an intelligent conversation about this subject. It's rare in Slashdot land ;)
My problem with the GPL is that it uses force to ensure that everything is as Stallman sees fit. Notably: the whole Qt thing - the wording of the GPL was massaged to condemn a project (KDE) which was created in the spirit of Free Software. The GNU-approved GNOME thing uses a license (the LGPL) does not encourage Free Software. That makes no sense to me. I don't trust Stallman - I think he's a nutcase with his own private adjenda. I use the Artistic license because it doesn't have the nasty undertones of the GPL, or the hassles of the LGPL. The LGPL is just lame - it doesn't ensure or encourage Free software, it just forces you to use dynamic libraries, which is a problem when there are so many unstable libraries out there. I wish we had face-to-face bandwidth to discuss this - it's just too difficult to explain the problems with the GPL and LGPL in little snippets.
Take the NVIDIA driver GPL infringement, for example. About 10 lines of GPL'ed code was used, and for that, everyone was screaming that NVIDIA had to GPL their entire codebase. Yeah, right. That is force, just like Microsoft uses. The idea of Open Source is code-reuse. The GPL prohibits code reuse for any non-GPL project (proprietary or not). If you use, or link to, any GPL code, you have to use the GPL. That's force, baby, not freedom.
I still have use for my old Voodoo2, for example. That card was a good investment.
So, you bought a card with binary-only drivers? ;) 3dfx didn't open their drivers until well after the V3 came out.
But insofar there have been nothing but empty promises from NVIDIA.
I hear this a lot. What empty promises? They promised high performance 3D drivers when XFree4 came out. Less than 3 weeks after XFree4.0.0 was released, they had drivers available. They never promised open specs or open drivers. What promises are you referring to?
If NVIDIA were to fully open their drivers (read: no obfuscated crippleware) one day, no one would be happier than me to recommend NVIDIA to everyone.
There is no obfuscated code anymore. XFree would not allow the obfuscated 2D code into the distribution. That's ancient history.
Something that a lot of people forget is that a majority of the groundwork for the Utah GLX project was done by two current NVIDIA employees to enable 3D on NVIDIA hardware (as well as G400). This code is still available. If someone were motivated, there is enough information to get a slow, but workable, 3D driver for XFree4 going.
Free drivers makes more people able to use the hardware, hence more hardware sales. Very simple.
Umm, the drivers are free (as in beer). Just like the DRI drivers, there is some lag in getting the kernel modules working when the latest devel kernel comes out (admitedly it's a bit longer than with DRI), but you can still use the NVIDIA drivers on 2.4pre kernels. Where are the extra sales going to coming from?
The only strong argument against the closed drivers is diverse platform support. BSD, Alpha Linux, PPC Linux, etc. get left out in the cold, which is unfortunate. But, from a business perspective, there's no money there. I ask again, how is it to NVIDIA's advantage to open their drivers?
Oh geez, it's not like they don't have any in-house documentation already that they have to proof read and maintain. Providing documentation to outside developers is not fundamentally different than providing docs for in-house developers. That's just a very silly argument.
No, it's not a silly argument. The difference between what you can release in-house and what goes to the outside world is huge. You need a legal team to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, you need to have professional tech writers to make everything clear - everything has to be perfect - the docs are a *product* and have to be treated as such. If they're in-house, the engineers just walk down the hall and ask someone a question. There are legal liabilities when you release specs.
Excuse me? If you have the source, you can improve the driver.
Not if you can't understand it. How can you fix function A if you don't know what function A is supposed to do? Without the specs, it's pretty darned hard to write a good driver. Case and point: there are unobfuscated open source 3D drivers for NVIDIA cards in the Utah GLX source tree. They have limited functionality, but the code is there. Without specs, they aren't going to get any better, though.
My argument boils down to this: if drivers are stable, full featured, and freely available, I don't need source code. The NVIDIA drivers are stable, full featured, and freely available. Simple as that.
-MarkI won't get into the GNU thing too deeply because that really requires face-to-face bandwidth. But in a nutshell the thing that bothers me about the GPL is that none of that code can be used in a commercial setting. Most programmers need to work for a commercial company of some type in order to feed themselves. If I can't use GNU code in commercial code (even Open Source commercial code), I need to duplicate it, which goes directly against the Open Source concept. It's the licence and the leader that I have a problem with, not the concept. But I digress...
To me the matter of it being a good investment is more important.If you think a 3D card is a good investment, I have some nice ocean front property in Wyoming for you ;) I can't think of any other piece of hardware that depreciates in value, or becomes obsolete, faster than a 3D card.
but I can't rely on a single company telling me after a year that driver support will be discontinued, making my hardware crap.This is speculation. The current drivers support everthing as early as the TNT, and because they have a unified driver codebase, this isn't likely to change until they have a major architecture change. Also, remember that 3dfx supplied binary only drivers for years before they opened up. I'd like to believe that a similar thing might happen with NVIDIA some day. Perhaps if you could make a point where it would be to NVIDIA's advantage to open their drivers? What's in it for them?
Well, it's not so much about binary drivers as it is about lack of open specs that allows a competitive free driver. If NVIDIA only provided binary drivers but also released open specs, it would be as easy as you say "not to use [the binary drivers]".Publishing open specs means they have to dedicate resources to creating the documentation, proof reading it, maintaining it, etc. This is actually a *lot* more work than it sounds like.
Why should they go to the trouble? They're already supplying the best drivers available for 3D hardware under Linux. They maintain a single codebase between Windows and Linux, which means both platforms benefit equally when new features go in.
What I was saying is that you should support vendors who have open drivers, if it's a big deal for you. Be a positive force, not a negative one. Don't bash NVIDIA, praise the companies that do have an open policy.
Actually, I think people should be putting pressure on ATI to release specs for the Radeon. There is an Open driver in the works, but the specs aren't public, they're only available under NDA. This means that you'll have the source code to the drivers, but you won't be able to fix them. ATI gets the good press of having open source drivers, but the users don't get the info they need to fix the drivers if they have problems.
Cheers, MarkHave you looked at the DRI code? It is huge, complex, and hairy in the extreme. I have heard many critics of the DRI claim that it is way too complex, and I'd have to agree with them. There really aren't that many people who have the kind of knowlege required to contribute - as a result, the list of DRI developers is very short.
After realizing that and this simple chain I was convinced of the mighty powers of free software (and GNU), and fell in love with it. A strange experience if one comes from the Windows world. I believe you will be convinced too someday.I've been using Linux almost exclusively for the last 5 years. With each day, I become increasingly frustrated with the GNU mentality. I belive strongly in Open Source, but I also strongly believe that the GPL will be the downfall of Linux. You can't have an industry without profit, and Linux will never be mainstream without industry support. But that's a different discussion completely. (and not entirely relevant because the DRI drivers aren't GNU/GPL)
When you realize that, you'll understand that 20 fps more today with one particular driver and card is not worth sacrificing all of this, and why people are fighting to keep the freedom and want free drivers.I'm not as interested in and extra 20fps as I am in stable, predictable drivers and interesting features. The current crop of DRI drivers are riddled with bugs and rendering anomalies. The supported cards can only be described as mediocre at best. If/when the open source drivers catch up, I may change my opinion.
One argument I keep hearing is support for old hardware. I would argue that in the case of 3D gfx cards, this is not nearly as important as having drivers available when the card is released. How long ago was the Radeon released? Where are the open drivers that PI was contracted to deliver? I am not interested in drivers for obsolete hardware. I had drivers for the GeForce2 the same day they hit retail stores.
NVIDIA is giving me the support that *I* need as a graphics developer. That's not to say that their support will satify everyone - for those people who don't want binary only drivers - don't use them. The NVIDIA drivers are enabling Linux to penetrate new markets and allow people who *don't* have a problem with binary only software as long as it is high quality and stable to have great OpenGL support. A lot of people bash Microsoft for forcing vendors to do things their way. So why is the Linux community trying to force NVIDIA to do things their way?
Until the open source drivers are at least as good or better than the NVIDIA drivers, I really don't think there is a very convincing argument against NVIDIA. I will always choose the best technical solution. If the open and closed solutions are equivalent technically, I would be inclined to choose the open solution. But moral superiority does not outweigh technical superiority in my opinion.
-Mark