That's funny that you post to a forum that is a YEAR OLD...
You also have to think about this. Why the hell are you trying to run in framebuffer. Do you know what framebuffer is? It isn't accelerated. You are ditching the whole reason you bought a card with a hardware accelerator. The argument is inanae. I've seen it work under FC4, but again it is pointless. Call me a shill if you will - I do 3D graphics rendering for simulations, so this is my job and my life, not just a hobby to flame people on slashdot.
The platform issue... the word is used in my line of work for operating system. I've used nVidia card on 64 bit chips (intel, amd) and 32 bit chips (intel, amd) no problems. Again I don't know what your problem is. Probably just that you are, as you say, a "whiny mac fanboy" who can't produce anything other than some whine and some year-old resolved forum posts (check my second post for how to get video out and framebuffer working).
I have a difficult time believing that someone without the hardware schematics, who has never worked on the card, who didn't design the card could build a better driver, even given the present driver. Running "valgrind" and "gprof" on a driver doesn't make you a driver hacker...
Had you continued to read the article you would have read that the chipsets were STILL SUPPORTED, just not under the unified driver. The Riva TNT is what, 7 years old? I would hope that code would have worked its way out of the unified driver.
1) no it does not. Unless you downloaded it from an unofficial site. (Official site: here
2) use the control panel. I used it for 1 day at work to install Microsoft SDK and it removed cleanly
3) Limited by the operating system (IIRC). I know I've had at least 4 going at once
4) None whatsoever
What other platform? Apple? Yes they support Macs. But I can't personally attest to anything on mac because, quite frankly, OSX is inferior to both Linux and Windows on a technical level.
And yes you can run AGP + fb and switch between X and console just fine with the current driver... and you could a few years back (2002)... I'm sorry if you can't configure an xorg.conf/XFree86.conf file.
I hope we get a fully capable FOSS driver for nVidia cards, because that's the only thing keeping me from buying one.
And if we did, I'd still use the closed source one. As a developer, the code base they use for the linux driver is the same as the Windows driver. When I write an application, I know that the program will look the same (3d graphics wise) under Windows as it will under Linux, since the low level graphics and GL implementation are the same. I can't guarantee the same thing with an open source driver. I don't know that they won't fudge the GL implementation.
That's a big problem with devleopment because the 2 big players are ATI and nVidia. And things can look very different between the two because ATI linux drivers are a seperate codebase from their Windows drivers. So you have to write code that checks card and OS, and change stuff. Very annoying if you are supporting multiple users/mulitple cards. Fortunately I'm just supporting a few users on nVidia cards...
That's funny because I've installed it on 10+ differently configured systems flawlessly... try checking the forums. What is the output of your Xorg.0.log? Most likely its a xorg.conf issue.
I do 3d development under Linux using OpenSceneGraph. I can personally attest to the fact that 3d acceleration works under Linux.
framebuffer
Why the hell you want to use framebuffer with a spiffed up card is beyond me but yes, nVidia has a framebuffer driver, and here's a walkthruough: here
2d & video out
Haven't used it personally but I have friends who do. Again, same driver code is shared between Windows and Linux.
Also of interest:
NVIDIA also provides an open source OpenGL and XFree86 3.3.5 driver implementation on their website. The implementation supports the NV1, RIVA 128, RIVA 128ZX, RIVA TNT, RIVA TNT2, and GeForce 256 chipsets. This driver has lower performance than NVIDIA's proprietary driver but it does include source code.
Yes, I fed a troll, but only so that he might not mislead others. May god have mercy on my soul.
nVidia's linux drivers are very solid. They aren't open - get over it - but a given nVidia card in a Linux box has the capability to do everything that a nVidia card in a windows box can do. The linux drivers and windows drivers share the same codebase, sans kernel hooks, etc. using their unified driver architecture.
Unfortunately the same cannot be same for ATI. ATI drivers are flaky and as a developer features are missing under Linux that exist in Windows.
So nVidia has a / a few kernel monkeys that keep tabs on the kernel and update the codebase. Big deal. If they want to keep their code close to their chest it is their perogative. One of the nice things (from a developer standpoint, I do 3D graphics work) is that their Linux drivers are the same as their Windows drivers, minus the kernel hooks. The same can't be said for ATI. That's probably one reason why they don't want to release drivers.
Have you ever run the nVidia installer? It is very handy. It will go out to the internet, download the appropriate kernel module and install it. If it doesn't exist it will compile one there, on your computer, against your current kernel. So unless they are breaking the kernel every night you really don't have to worry about breaking your drivers...
... except you picked the perfect example of linux drivers that always WORK FLAWLESSLY. You run the file, and if it can't pull a binary from nVidia it compiles a driver right there and then for you. I've installed it on many, many machines with more than 10 differnt nVidia cards and have never had an issue. nVidia has a vested interest in keeping those drivers working well because, quite frankly, ATI's been sucking (Only supports radeon 8500 and later, DIFFERENT CODEBASE THAN THE WINDOWS DRIVERS, mising features, etc.)
nVidia is the PERFECT example of closed source drivers done right.
I'm not even sure where I would start in making my applications handicap-friendly
The reason why it is important in this case is because communications with the government, et cetera, must be done in a manner that is accessable to everyone. So if KOffice/Star Office/OpenOffice don't support accessibility, guess what - they missed their shot at the revolution. Public computers will be stuck using Microsoft Office with the ODF plugin, since that will be the only thing that meets *all* government requirements. Their loss.
and it is optional. You purchased a complete, working game. They later release additional, optional content that you can choose to play with. It doesn't degrade your current experiance. You have the same experiance you had when you purchased the game. I don't see the problem. You don't lose value, and the people who see the value in the new content can choose to purchase it...
Some people have that single game or two that they love, and would rather spend more money to improve the experiance of that one game than purchase more games. Similar to MMO's where users pay money each month for continued / interactive content. It is optional, you don't have to buy it, you aren't missing anything if you don't get it... just an option for those who would rather get more of the game instead of buying a different game.
Pick up any good Psychology 101 textbook, they will tell you that depth perception is not dependant on stero viewing. It can be derived from a painting, a monitor, a person with only 1 eye, etc. You do not need motion, time domain, etc.
... of course there are some disabled people who can write code, but does that mean they should quit their day jobs just to write open source solutions that open source developers managed to overlook?
There is a solution. They should keep using Microsoft Office with the ODF plugin until the Open Source community finds it valuable to write the proper accessibility options into Linux.
None of the prominent desktop applications that can create and save documents in OpenDocument currently work well with screen readers, magnifiers and other assistive technologies -- at least at a level comparable to that of products from Microsoft, whose 40-person Accessibility Technology Group is now widely praised by disabilities advocates.
Think about it. Your mouse moves on a desk... forwards and back, left and right. How would you translate up and down? Your mouse is a 2 degree of freedom (2DOF) input device. You still need 3 more degrees of freedom (rotation... you can get 2 of them using arrow keys...)
There are some 6DOF input devices. They tend to be expensive.
It was 3D because you could interact in 3D. You could walk into/around/through the scene. In 1997. That's the point.
You will never have perfect (or good, even) pop-out-of-the-screen 3D with a 2D screen. Polarization is faking it. Red-Blue glasses are faking it. (These two are also noted for not working on some people with depth/color perception issues, and causing migraine headaches in a good portion of the population with extended use) HUD's are good but an expensive piece of hardware.
I guess... Here is a link. WMV files can contain scripting for podcasts and stuff, and can be abused. That's the the easy way. If you were hardcore you'd make a video file that would perform a buffer overflow and infect your target that way...
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny that you post to a forum that is a YEAR OLD...
... the word is used in my line of work for operating system. I've used nVidia card on 64 bit chips (intel, amd) and 32 bit chips (intel, amd) no problems. Again I don't know what your problem is. Probably just that you are, as you say, a "whiny mac fanboy" who can't produce anything other than some whine and some year-old resolved forum posts (check my second post for how to get video out and framebuffer working).
You also have to think about this. Why the hell are you trying to run in framebuffer. Do you know what framebuffer is? It isn't accelerated. You are ditching the whole reason you bought a card with a hardware accelerator. The argument is inanae. I've seen it work under FC4, but again it is pointless. Call me a shill if you will - I do 3D graphics rendering for simulations, so this is my job and my life, not just a hobby to flame people on slashdot.
The platform issue
I have a difficult time believing that someone without the hardware schematics, who has never worked on the card, who didn't design the card could build a better driver, even given the present driver. Running "valgrind" and "gprof" on a driver doesn't make you a driver hacker...
Had you continued to read the article you would have read that the chipsets were STILL SUPPORTED, just not under the unified driver. The Riva TNT is what, 7 years old? I would hope that code would have worked its way out of the unified driver.
1) no it does not. Unless you downloaded it from an unofficial site. (Official site: here
2) use the control panel. I used it for 1 day at work to install Microsoft SDK and it removed cleanly
3) Limited by the operating system (IIRC). I know I've had at least 4 going at once
4) None whatsoever
What other platform? Apple? Yes they support Macs. But I can't personally attest to anything on mac because, quite frankly, OSX is inferior to both Linux and Windows on a technical level.
... and you could a few years back (2002)... I'm sorry if you can't configure an xorg.conf/XFree86.conf file.
And yes you can run AGP + fb and switch between X and console just fine with the current driver
I hope we get a fully capable FOSS driver for nVidia cards, because that's the only thing keeping me from buying one.
And if we did, I'd still use the closed source one. As a developer, the code base they use for the linux driver is the same as the Windows driver. When I write an application, I know that the program will look the same (3d graphics wise) under Windows as it will under Linux, since the low level graphics and GL implementation are the same. I can't guarantee the same thing with an open source driver. I don't know that they won't fudge the GL implementation.
That's a big problem with devleopment because the 2 big players are ATI and nVidia. And things can look very different between the two because ATI linux drivers are a seperate codebase from their Windows drivers. So you have to write code that checks card and OS, and change stuff. Very annoying if you are supporting multiple users/mulitple cards. Fortunately I'm just supporting a few users on nVidia cards...
That's funny because I've installed it on 10+ differently configured systems flawlessly... try checking the forums. What is the output of your Xorg.0.log? Most likely its a xorg.conf issue.
here
Blow by blow:
accelerated 3d
I do 3d development under Linux using OpenSceneGraph. I can personally attest to the fact that 3d acceleration works under Linux. framebuffer
Why the hell you want to use framebuffer with a spiffed up card is beyond me but yes, nVidia has a framebuffer driver, and here's a walkthruough: here
2d & video out
Haven't used it personally but I have friends who do. Again, same driver code is shared between Windows and Linux.
Also of interest:
NVIDIA also provides an open source OpenGL and XFree86 3.3.5 driver implementation on their website. The implementation supports the NV1, RIVA 128, RIVA 128ZX, RIVA TNT, RIVA TNT2, and GeForce 256 chipsets. This driver has lower performance than NVIDIA's proprietary driver but it does include source code.
Yes, I fed a troll, but only so that he might not mislead others. May god have mercy on my soul.
x++omgzBBQHAX!
... nVidia for the win.
It took all of my skill but it might just do it.
No, sorry
nVidia's linux drivers are very solid. They aren't open - get over it - but a given nVidia card in a Linux box has the capability to do everything that a nVidia card in a windows box can do. The linux drivers and windows drivers share the same codebase, sans kernel hooks, etc. using their unified driver architecture.
Unfortunately the same cannot be same for ATI. ATI drivers are flaky and as a developer features are missing under Linux that exist in Windows.
So nVidia has a / a few kernel monkeys that keep tabs on the kernel and update the codebase. Big deal. If they want to keep their code close to their chest it is their perogative. One of the nice things (from a developer standpoint, I do 3D graphics work) is that their Linux drivers are the same as their Windows drivers, minus the kernel hooks. The same can't be said for ATI. That's probably one reason why they don't want to release drivers.
Have you ever run the nVidia installer? It is very handy. It will go out to the internet, download the appropriate kernel module and install it. If it doesn't exist it will compile one there, on your computer, against your current kernel. So unless they are breaking the kernel every night you really don't have to worry about breaking your drivers...
... except you picked the perfect example of linux drivers that always WORK FLAWLESSLY. You run the file, and if it can't pull a binary from nVidia it compiles a driver right there and then for you. I've installed it on many, many machines with more than 10 differnt nVidia cards and have never had an issue. nVidia has a vested interest in keeping those drivers working well because, quite frankly, ATI's been sucking (Only supports radeon 8500 and later, DIFFERENT CODEBASE THAN THE WINDOWS DRIVERS, mising features, etc.)
nVidia is the PERFECT example of closed source drivers done right.
I'm not even sure where I would start in making my applications handicap-friendly
The reason why it is important in this case is because communications with the government, et cetera, must be done in a manner that is accessable to everyone. So if KOffice/Star Office/OpenOffice don't support accessibility, guess what - they missed their shot at the revolution. Public computers will be stuck using Microsoft Office with the ODF plugin, since that will be the only thing that meets *all* government requirements. Their loss.
.. The optional content is exactly what you miss.
and it is optional. You purchased a complete, working game. They later release additional, optional content that you can choose to play with. It doesn't degrade your current experiance. You have the same experiance you had when you purchased the game. I don't see the problem. You don't lose value, and the people who see the value in the new content can choose to purchase it...
Zonk just f*ed up. The other game is an exclusive, GTA is being simultaneously released (you should really RTFA)
Some people have that single game or two that they love, and would rather spend more money to improve the experiance of that one game than purchase more games. Similar to MMO's where users pay money each month for continued / interactive content. It is optional, you don't have to buy it, you aren't missing anything if you don't get it ... just an option for those who would rather get more of the game instead of buying a different game.
Pick up any good Psychology 101 textbook, they will tell you that depth perception is not dependant on stero viewing. It can be derived from a painting, a monitor, a person with only 1 eye, etc. You do not need motion, time domain, etc.
... of course there are some disabled people who can write code, but does that mean they should quit their day jobs just to write open source solutions that open source developers managed to overlook?
There is a solution. They should keep using Microsoft Office with the ODF plugin until the Open Source community finds it valuable to write the proper accessibility options into Linux.
FTA:
None of the prominent desktop applications that can create and save documents in OpenDocument currently work well with screen readers, magnifiers and other assistive technologies -- at least at a level comparable to that of products from Microsoft, whose 40-person Accessibility Technology Group is now widely praised by disabilities advocates.
3 axis.
Think about it. Your mouse moves on a desk... forwards and back, left and right. How would you translate up and down? Your mouse is a 2 degree of freedom (2DOF) input device. You still need 3 more degrees of freedom (rotation... you can get 2 of them using arrow keys...)
There are some 6DOF input devices. They tend to be expensive.
It was 3D because you could interact in 3D. You could walk into/around/through the scene. In 1997. That's the point.
You will never have perfect (or good, even) pop-out-of-the-screen 3D with a 2D screen. Polarization is faking it. Red-Blue glasses are faking it. (These two are also noted for not working on some people with depth/color perception issues, and causing migraine headaches in a good portion of the population with extended use) HUD's are good but an expensive piece of hardware.
Its not copyrighted, its public domain.
I guess... Here is a link. WMV files can contain scripting for podcasts and stuff, and can be abused. That's the the easy way. If you were hardcore you'd make a video file that would perform a buffer overflow and infect your target that way...
... RTFA. Or the summary at least. They can trademark it.