Interview with NVIDIA Engineers
 

LQ) Can you tell me a little bit about what went into the original decision to release an NVIDIA driver for Linux?
NV) NVIDIA received several requests from our end users for giving the same quality Linux drivers that we provide on other platforms. In addition, our workstation customers were moving more and more of their development to Linux. NVIDIA recognized early on the demand for Linux drivers from the community as well as from significant commercial customers such as the film studios, national labs, geosciences, life sciences, etc and knew that this was to become a trend in professional graphics as customers started migrating from proprietary UNIX workstations to open platforms.

LQ) Does NVIDIA use Linux for anything internally?
NV) Yes, we use it for many things internally from developing drivers to designing and verifying our chip design. We use Linux substantially for software development, testing, as well as having the largest Linux data center for chip simulation in the industry!

LQ) Can you tell us a little bit about the current demand you are seeing for Linux drivers? What has the recent trend been?
NV) Demand has continues to grow for high quality Linux drivers with each new generation of GPUs. Around 15-20% of our workstation users ship with Linux. Some industries in the workstation business are 100% Linux. We have users using our Linux OpenGL drivers for things like designing automobiles, operating medical equipment, broadcasting television, and creating the latest special effects in movies.

LQ) From a technical perspective, which drivers do your engineers like working on? Why?
NV) I think its fair to say that our engineers like working on great GPUs. We have some folks on our team that like working on Linux, others on Windows, and others on Apple. Driver developers can be bigots too. We have too many developers to make such a generalization. Due to the unified driver infrastructure, we share a common driver base between multiple operating systems (like Linux, Windows, Linux64, Win64, MacOS, Solaris).

LQ) At times, NVIDIA has taken a bit of flak for the Linux drivers not being Open Source. Can you tell us a little bit about why they aren't? Do you have any plans for a full open source driver, or is the long term plan to stick with one Open Source driver (nv) and one closed source driver (nvidia).
NV) We have lots of IP in our supported closed source Linux driver some of which is licensed and cannot be open sourced. While we did our best to ensure that there was open source driver (nv) for our chips available, we got lots of feedback from our professional partners as well as end users that wanted a driver that had the same quality and performance characteristics of our supported drivers for platforms such as Windows and Apple. By taking on the commitment to providing great Linux drivers for our GPUs, networking adapters/storage/audio devices we have given our end users the same Compatibility, Reliability & Stability that NVIDIA Software has become known for. We will maintain the strategy of providing both. Due to the UDA architecture, there is too much IP in the driver source to make open sourcing the driver a practicality.

LQ) Is there anything the Linux community could do to help enable the release of an Open Source driver?
NV) Not at this time.

LQ) Has NVIDIA considered putting a "Compatible with Linux" type logo (similar to the Windows logo) on any of its products?
NV) We do use the Linux (Penguin) logo when appropriate on our software etc, but this is more of a question for our OEM's and channel partners who place these types of stickers on their boxes.

LQ) What do you see as the biggest obstacle for Linux becoming a mainstream gaming platform?
NV) Having better game developer tools for Linux, more installed base of consumer users for Linux and the general availability of Linux gaming titles.

LQ) Any comment on the recent X.org fork? Do you anticipate it impacting NVIDIA in any way?
NV) No comment at this time.

LQ) Can you give us a glimpse or tip on anything that may be upcoming from NVIDIA?
NV) The Linux team leaves product announcements to our marketing team but in software we are always focused on faster and more features.

UPDATE - 11/12/04
--------------------
LQ) Has NVIDIA considered releasing the hardware specs for any of their cards (video or otherwise) so that the Linux community could write a fully functional Open Source driver? If not, why?
NV) In answer to your follow-up question, the answer is really the IP involved. In talking with the developers, there is no effective way we could both do this in a manner that is effective while protecting our IP as it relates to the hardware. Similar response to the "why aren't our Linux drivers open source" question.

I also have a couple updates to the previous questions you asked - I inadvertently left out the comments from one of our Linux developers. Please update if you can - see below:

LQ) What do you see as the biggest obstacle for Linux becoming a mainstream gaming platform?

Update) Having better game developer tools for Linux, more installed base of consumer users for Linux and the general availability of Linux gaming titles. The extremely dynamic nature of Linux is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the components of Linux can change quick (from version to version) to provide new functionality or better ways of doing things, but that dynamic nature causes interfaces to change frequently, making it hard for anyone to release software that will run on a wide spectrum of Linux distributions/versions.

LQ) Any comment on the recent X.org fork? Do you anticipate it impacting NVIDIA in any way?
Update) As long as both X servers continue to maintain their binary compatible driver interface, our graphics driver will work with both X servers. We have open communication with both X.org and XFree86 developers, so we do not anticipate that compatibility will break. The politics involved are unfortunate, but some of the new features under development in the X.org server are exciting (Damage/Composite for translucent windows, etc), though we are unsure what impact Composite will have on some of our workstation customers: the interaction between Composite and things like workstation overlays is ill-defined, at best.

cool :)

I agree, if there are more games the Linux platform will be more accepted.

It is a bit funny that an operating system stands or falls with the availability of games.

Awesome - I am pro-nvidia, and admire their support and development for Linux platforms. However, I am stuck with my ATI card, only because dell didn't offer an nvidia card with my laptop (and i didn't get the choice of which version laptop to use :cry: so my games are stuck in windows at the moment) I helped get the drivers installed on other friend's machines - those willing to use linux.

I didn't know there were two drivers to choose from. Is there any other difference besides open/closed source?

That I definitely notice. My friends don't use Linux using the excuse that their game won't work (ported over) - which is true for a majority of the cases.




NVIDIA, keep up the great work! And thanks, jeremy, for the interview :D Always a pleasure to read them!

Yeah i'm an nvidia lover myself, i do have a laptop manufatcurer (toshiba) who put a geforce4 in it, although it's not as good as the desktop versions. got a geforce 2 in my old p3 600.

student04, to answer your question about the two drivers: the "nv" driver is a very basic open source driver that ships with most distro's and doesn't support 3d acceleration. if you want 3d you have to download the "nvidia" driver from the nvidia site or through the online update if your distro has it.

Right, that's what I have been doing. I just didn't know that whether now I was downloading and installing the wrong ones, but I guess everything is ok as the one on the nvidia site is the closed source, and 3d accelerated. No quarrels here :D .. uh, rather, with my friends! (haha unless one is reading this post and has a different view? :rolleyes: )

Awwww, they didn't put my question's in there... :[

Good Article!

i just installed nvidia driver on my "workstation" (userlinux aka debian-sid)
works great (gf2mx400)
And look what they have done with the new drivers ! :)
http://planet64bit.de/modules/news/a...hp?storyid=351
ps:
os linux drivers sometimes works even when the hw is faulty (when it shouldn't)
Had one gf4mx440 (elixir or something) and one day stoped working on windows (no hw acceleration even after driver/os reinstall) took the userlinux livecd http://hams.com/Mirror/userlinux-live-0.2.iso and booted .Was in the state of shock every thing worked (hw detected) , i could watch divx movies ...etc
Ok when i booted from the hdd (debian-sid) it crashed (black screen no signal)
What puzzled me was why it worked with live cd :) I know the board is dead (it will be replaced at vendor)

Great that they are willing to talk to the Linux community!

I think the closed source issue will plague NVidia for awhile, only for the fact that it can not be shipped with Open Source distros. I do see the possiblity of a trend developing where more hardware vendors offer closed source drivers, I belive that is how Intel does their network drivers. I think we just have been spoiled by the fact that so many drivers are open source and can ship with Linux, this has to do with the way Linux originated. We do need to be willing to accept the fact that the drivers we want that have full functionality need to be closed source from a developer standpoint so that internal development 'trade secrets' aren't available to competitors. Us accepting closed source drivers such as NVidia's is something that needs to be done since the hardware industry will always be leary of opening up their code and I think they have done very well in compromising by providing their linux drivers free to download with the excellent installer that they have.

My guess is that some sort of compromise should be reached with licensing so that Linux distros can ship with these closed source drivers. For now I'll take the fact that I have to get free downloadable drivers for my hardware seperatly from my Linux distribution if it enables functionality like the 3D support that NVidia has.

NVIDIA we LOVE you ! :)

How much hypocrisy, their NForce support is a joke, can't document a NIC so non-buggy drivers can be written? Can't they document their sound chipset so we don't have to deal with a crippled sound driver?

It's so sad that people has to reverse-engineer their buggy and useless binary drivers to get the network cards we paid for to work half decently.

I had enough of NVidia nonsense. Other companies suck, but NVidia will have to change a lot before I consider buying anything from them again.

Their 3D Video drivers might be good, but if you run any development kernel they don't work half of the time, and anyway, I don't feel like tainning my kernel just so I can get some extra FPS. If they really cared about Linux they would release the documentation to their hardware and let people write open source drivers for it. Maybe they wont be every bit as fast as their proprietary ones, but at least they will be better integrated with the system.

How about actually reading the article? If you don't like it, STFU and have a great time getting an ATI card to work. lol, or have fun with Intel's piece of shit video cards.

I'm impressed with nVidia's attitude and this interview. I've got to admit that I've spent endless frustrating hours wrestling with ATI, and plan on making my next video upgrade a high-end nVidia card.

I do think however that nVidia should push its OEM's to include the Tux emblem on the box. If they publicize their cards' compatibility with Windows, then the absence of a Linux-compatibility sticker very well could create doubts in the minds of purchasers who might not know that these cards are in fact Linux-compatible. I would think that nVidia would want to maximize the chances of making a sale, and therefore if the Linux market is growing, it would be foolish _not_ to advertise that these cards work just as well under Linux.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Thanks for the insightful interview -- J.W.

I can tell you that Linux drivers is the sole reason I buy nVidia, and ONLY nVidia. Congrats guys, you earned brand loyalty from me by supporting Linux. Many other Linux users feel the same way, and if anyone asks me what graphics card to get, you can be sure I'll recommend nVidia because of its good Linux drivers.

See, supporting Linux is profitable :)

-= Obi-Wan =-

How about learning to read?, I never said they should open source _their_ drivers, I don't care what they do with their drivers, I said they should release the documentation so I can _use_ the hardware I paid for.

And to say that there is IP that they can release about how their shitty NICs work is too stupid to be even funny, they are the only company for years that has refused to release such documentation.

Anyway, binary drivers have no place in Linux, if I wanted binary-driver-hell I would run Windows.

Funny we don't ever see any ATI community interaction. Kudos to nVidia!

I will send the question regarding releasing hardware specs as a followup right now. Stay tuned.

--jeremy

Im not exactly happy with the "no comment" response to the X.org question. :(

Nvidia Open Source driver works just as well as any other video driver, with fully functional Xv support. So really, we get the best of both worlds... Believe me, when a open 3D chip with decent performance comes out, I'll be the first in line to buy it, but until then..

FreeBSD support
 

I'd like to thank Nvidia for producing FreeBSD drivers too! We have several Dell desktops which we specifically chose because the the graphics chip is supported. I know this is a Linux forum, but thanks anyway.

I totally subscribe what you say, and shocked about other's comments about "the need of let binary closed souce driver be part of [GNU/]Linux distributions".
This way the Freedom will end really soon. If you change master, you are not more free.
The documentation is the key, and having people avoid buy hardware that is not FreeSoftware friendly, and NVidia is not.

Sorry, but markit, could you re-type that, i have no idea what you just tried to type

You say this is the way freedom will end....so what...first they will release binary drivers in an elaborate scheme to take over the Linux kernel? No one said you have to use them.

In regard to Nvidia not publishing the documentation to their chips I have a few comments.

All video chip manufacturers have been tight lipped about hardware documentation since IBM published the SVGA programing specs. Often this information is only available under NDA and often they will only give it to you if they deemed you really did need it and your needs benefit them while not giving any information out. Even getting them to cough up Documents on obsolete chips is impossible ( I know this from working on the Bochs IA-32 Emulator Project).

At work I develop wireless communications equipment. I am seeing this "we won't tell you how to talk to it" approach more and more in all sorts of chips. They are even applying this policy to people trying to build stuff using their chips. At most I can only get a pin out of the chip, the voltages and currents it needs, and maybe some crude documentation on the bus interface. Our company has even had companies refusing to sell them chips because we are too small ( we fill a niche market ).

Most recently, our latest product was designed around the IBM 405EP embedded micro processor. IBM was excellent for providing documentation on this, you could download all the technical details on the chip without having to get an account or sign an NDA. Unfortunately IBM sold off this processor line to AMCC. AMCC is treating all this information differently. They will give out a few bits of information on this part, a broacher, an application note showing how it could be used in a system, and a data sheet with mainly physical specifications of the part. To get a programming manual you must get it under a NDA. We use linux as our operating system on our latest products, and not being able to discuss programming details, problems, bugs and such with other linux people is a _big_ hinderance. Needless to say we will be using different processor made by a different company in all new products from here on out. I can understand and live with be under NDA for advanced (preproduction) information, however once a chip has been announced and is in production it is a different story. Note that AMCC is not the only company that operates like this that we deal with, they are just the most recent one and fortunately we have the opportunity to go somewhere else.

NVidia wants to try and be ahead of the game as far as what their hardware does and one of the ways to do that is to not let competitors get detailed information about it. It's as simple as that, even if you do see some open source 3D chip appear in the market it will most likely be 2nd or 3rd generation technology because giving out your best company secrets is to a hardware company like just handing your books over to the competition. This is why it's so hard for companies to agree on and establish standards like PCI or USB or any other technology that took forever to come about because it involves more than one company.

We've found ways to make open source software work only because there are other means for developers to generate revenue from it but hardware isn't there yet and may not be for a long time, if ever. Having the specs for the direct software interface to your hardware is almost as good as having the hardware specs and companies don't want that, thus the machavelian Non-Disclosure Agreements that Obscene_CNN mentioned. All of the hardware companies are ambiguous to releasing their programming specs, some more than others, these guys have just done one of the better jobs of actually implimenting a highly functional closed-source solution rather than just thumbing their noses at the open source community altogether. The fact that this differs from the philosophy of open source seems almost irrelevant seeing as how they actually work on a solution. Their drivers themselves still need to be compiled against your kernel, so rather than thinking of it as closed source 'taint' think of it as a small shift of what you call 'hardware' to include some code.

Or maybe we should just ask them to give us the hardware for free too?

Darin,

Actually with the rapid movement in the video chip market I don't think releasing detailed programing specs would help a competitor much. By the time a competing video chip maker could reverse engineer the spec, incorporate the idea into their design, and make a chip two more chip generations will have come out.

The complexity of todays video chips is such that a programing spec is not going to give away all the critical details of the chip inards. They are similarly to high end microprocessors. The secret sauce is how you pipeline the execution unit and an efficient memory interface, not what instructions you feed it. If video chip makers come up with a break through in technology they get a patent which locks out the competition. It is true that to write good *fast* drivers you need to know details on the internal pipelining of the chip, however to write functional drivers you do not need to know this. Microprocessor manufactures give out programing details on their chips (except the dorks at AMCC) and we don't see hoards of clones out there. Today there is no good reason to keep programing information secret.

That's not entirely correct. The Simputer(tm) www.simputer.org for example is a GPL'ed palmtop computer that has been openly available for 4 years.

Nephilus- that Simputer looks like a handy device, I imagine there will be exceptions to every rule though.

Obscene_CNN - I agree with you about programming specs vs internal workings except product development involves writing drivers prior to hardware release (At least in the Win world, as it should in the Linux world) so the time gap is not all that big if specs are released before the hardware.

I guess my view is affected by the M$ world where hardware vendors provide the drivers. This gives the advantage that the coders know how the h/w works. If more vendors put effort into drivers that NVidia appears to have put into Linux, even in a closed implimentation, we would see more h/w that works well in Linux and works better than if drivers were written by people less familiar with the h/w.

Open-Source drivers are almost pointless if the vendors really work on effective Linux drivers. In the end the consumers choose the h/w mainly because it works. Imagine a vendor saying they won't do a Win driver and handing M$ the programming specs, would anyone praise them more? It could also be argued that there is internal software in the chips, should that too be Open-Sourced? The Linux community is growing and the typical Linux user is not worried about 'true' Open Source, they want h/w that works and works well. If this involves closed drivers, that I think the vendor should be responsible for anyhow, then I say kudos.

There are several views that hardware manufacturers have taken on drivers for the Linux community and I think the true test will be whether it works, not how it was implimented. If their stance is to put real effort into drivers but don't open the code then let others come forth and do a better job and we can let the market decide. In the video card market has any other manufacturer come close to the level of commitment that NVidia has?

I like the Open Source philosophy and I don't think their method is perfect but I still praise NVidia for doing something that works.

Linux supports _dozens_ of architectures, and there are dozens of Open Source operating systems that are not Linux. Anyone that runs either is locked out from using the hardware they paid for because NVidia wont release the needed documentation to _access_ their hardware.

The reason people runs Open Source operating systems is to not get locked (in or out), and not for religious reasons, but for purely and sound business reasons; using hardware which only has binary drivers is throwing all this advantages out the window.

I run the tech department of a small/medium size company; and I have been screwed over by both software and hardware companies that wouldn't want to tell me how their junk works, just so they could bait and switch on me; force me to "upgrade" to versions I didn't need, pay insane amounts of money for documentation to use the hardware I had paid for, etc.

The argument that that information would help their competition is bullshit, because we are not talking about the inner workings of the chip, only about the _interface_ to access it, and anyway their competition has more than enough resources to reverse engineer their binary drivers drivers, and I'm sure they already do.

Back in the dark ages network card manufacturers didn't release documentation for their NICs, this changed long ago, and this days only NVidia(and other really stupid companies that fortunately aren't very popular) refuses to release docs for their NICs.

It's about time graphic card manufacturers wake up and get out of the dark ages. Releasing the documentation benefits their customers, which directly benefits them, as making your customers happy is a good way to have them come back. And by customer here I'm not talking about an 31137 kid playing DooMIII at his mom basement, I'm talking about companies buying tons of hardware to get real work done.

Personally, I feel that as long as their is never a compatibility issue because the drivers are Closed-Source, I don't care. There are more things that I want to do with my Linux box than to spend countless hours trying to get a video card to work just so that I can see the desktop.

Thank you nVidia for making my Linux experience a little easier.

Mike

I agree completely. As long as it works and provides complete compatability, I'm satisfied. Keep in mind that people do sometimes push the open-source philosophy a bit too far sometimes. For me, if a company makes something that works in linux and I do not need it to be open-sourced, then that's fine. But if its functionality is restricted.. then of course that is a problem.

When you go out and buy a new tv or video or equivalent piece of electronics they give you a manual that tells you the details of how to use your new device. (except for maybe a few service options that you arent likely to use)

Yet you go and buy a computer and then you have to either pay extra to use it (windows) or download/borrow someone's linux/*bsd cd

why pay to use something you already have paid for ??

they release programming notes for x86 and most other microprocessors/controllers so why cant they release the programming documents for graphics cards and other vital system chips.

while investigating graphics engine programming for GroupOS other than vesa and svga specs there is pretty much nothing to go on. (making opengl support near impossible).

Yes i run Linux (LFS 6.0-testing based) and have an nvidia card (and 2 other's SiS & S3,all in this pc) i use the nvidia driver because its there and it seems to do the job.

Nvidia sells us these devices but forgets to tell us how to use them. (does this seem fair ?)

Regards,

Scott

Yup, me too. Nvidia every time. Especially after they released the drivers in the present installer form - the paired RPM's were a nightmare for me as a n00b...

I still don't fully understand or accept the explaination of IP, documentation and drivers.

IT'S ALL A BIT VAGUE FOR THOSE OUTSIDE THE HARDWARE INDUSTRY. Can I have a laymans explaination as to what's changed from the early days?

Would you buy a CPU without documentation, without being told how to use it? Why is the GPU industry so different? Why does one industry consider it essential to provide a transparent explaination of its hardware while another does exactly the opposite?

The answers given state something along the lines of "We can't give away that information because there are IP and legal implications". However, what are the details?

What technology is licensed to NVidia and used in their *ware? Who was this licensed from?

I originally thought that hardware should be open because otherwise it's not future proof and out of the hands of the user. However, I can see now that hardware can be copied as easily as software.

The only difference I can see is that source code is quicker to understand than binary code so providing this makes it more accessible.

IP, I think this will kill linux and OSS communities in the end. Money thrives on trust so will a lack of trust kill the progresses of OpenSource?

I don't want to hear "oh, it's just because they don't want to give away secrets", I want a detailed, reasoned answer from anyone reading this thread able to give it. Is law not enough? Can anyone give me a case study? - because this smacks of "OSS is doomed" to me... and I can believe that no matter how much I love OSS.

I believe in Free Software/Software Libre, I don't believe in proprietary software and I think that nvidia should make their driver Free Software/Software Libre or at least that they should release their hardware's specifications.

What if nvidia will stop to support my video card or future drivers will become incompatible with the library files installed on my system?

When I buy a piece of hardware I try to be sure that I will be able to use no matter the future policy of the company I bought it from.

What if nvidia will decide (if they haven't already) to introduce malevolous functions in their drivers?

When I buy a piece of hardware I try to be sure that I have the opportunity to know what its driver is actually doing.

I wonder how many customers nvidia would have to hear from, or how many they were willing to disenfranchise, before they would put effort into finding a way past their (claimed) IP problems.

Unfortunately with companies such as nvidia, I know that I am not going to get anywhere.

However, as former consumers of their products, after having stopped to buy their pieces of hardware some time ago, I decided to do something as my last action. Maybe they will listen to enough customers, or they will learn to not make this mistake again with future chipsets. I for one have already decided that I will never recommend an nvidia product to anyone ever if there is choice. (There is almost always choice).

ATI is, at least by this moment, a valuable alternative. Not because their policy is that much different from the nvidia one, (they don't release Free Software/Software Libre drivers and hardware specifications, too) but because at least there are decent Free Software/Software Libre drivers around that often support 3D hardware acceleration and because at least I'm sure I will be able to use decent drivers on different architectures from the x86 ones, too. When I bought my iBook, for exmaple, I accurately ignored the nvidia based models.

Perhaps you -- their consumers -- can do better.

Good luck.



# Freely inspired by Theo de Raadt's "Intel says no to permitting
# firmware redistribution"
#
# http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4202
# http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...f125280&rnum=1

Being out to make money doesn't allow you to do everything you want.

Making their driver Free and Open would surely mean that competitive companies could potentially gain from the drivers, which i don't think nvidia really wants... But that would lead to more competition thus better quality and lower prices... Unfortunately it looks like customers doesn't care a lot about it even if making them Free and Open would be in everyone's interest...

How can one agree with nvidia not open-sourcing and making the drivers free due to intellectual "property" issues? Can you agree from the nvidia's point of view or from yours? I don't understand.

Making their drivers and/or specifications Free and Open would lead to more competition thus better quality and lower prices. You are customers... How can you agree from _your_ point of view?


Furthermore it looks like a lot of you doesn't run GNU/Linux on ppc or any of the many other non i*86 arches... (Not to mention the users of all the other open source operating systems that are not FreeBSD or GNU/Linux)

Having grown in the "microsoft' era", we are so used to monopolies of every kind, that a lot of people doesn't only think that there is only the windows operative system around, but does think that there is only the i*86 architecture around, too.



# Freely inspired by "Nvidia and icculus" comments thread
# on linuxquestions.org
#
# http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/...hp?storyid=547

What is IP, exactly?

If I have understood well, IP should stand for -I-ntellectual "-P-roperty".

About this issue please consider take a look at the following.

http://www.logosfoundation.org/copyleft/copyrigh.html

Thanks Nvidia
 

I just want to say thanks Nvidia for making my 3D graphics programming on linux that much more bug free.

Obviously this is a hot topic since it hits the very core of Linux. Having read all the other opinions thus far I have to say that many of you have made valid points.

On the one hand, I appreciate NVidia for offering up at least a partial solution for the Linux community. Their effort towards Linux appears to be, at least in the area of the video driver, better than any other video card makers so I do want to give them credit for that. It would be nice if they take it further and also do the same in other areas like their motherboard chipsets and LOM (onboard network cards - LAN on Motherboard) and hopefully the video driver development is a way for them to test the waters that will lead them to more effort in these other areas of development as well.

I see that many people disagree with the company about their stance on Intellectual Property and closed-source development and I'd like to add to this. Having worked for hardware companies before, I can understand their reasoning for wanting to keep their information private. We can argue against this reasoning and truly have valid arguments, from a consumer standpoint, but what is needed to make companies with this belief change are more arguments for Open-Source that show benefits for their company. We need to look at it from their perspective and then offer up reasons for Open-Source that will be beneficial for them. Saying that competitive companies could potentially gain from the drivers sounds great to consumers but it will definitly NOT convince a company to Open-Source anything.

From my point of view I have to agree with them, I don't want them going out of business just to meet my demands. So lets hear some solid arguments for Open-Source that will help NVidia change their minds. This was actually what I was hoping to inspire in my original post in this thread.

I would buy other cards than nvidia if they had proper open source 3d drivers (but there is any)
Here is only one example with sis (xgi)
:scratch:
and scroll down a little and read this

at least is open source but not officially suported by xgi (aka sis)
http://www.winischhofer.at/linuxsisvga.shtml

and here is a little joke about ati's drivers (ot)
:D
ATI's most secret Linux development tool revealed!
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33784907

You don't want them going out of business... Well... Who have ever said that? Do you actually believe that they could go out of business if they make their code and hardware specification Free and Open? The worst that could happen to them (since this kind of market has huge entry barriers) is having more competitors. Having more competition shouldn't be something we have to pray for...

Having a law system that enforce companies to release hardware specification would be great but... Their lobby has too much influence to make it happen.


I still don't understand a thing... From YOUR point of view? How can you agree with THEM from YOUR point of view. Wouldn't be in your interest to have more competition and lower price? The funny (actually sad) thing IMO is that lots of you talk like competition is NOT normal. That lots talk like a company that is allowed to do anything it wants in order to reduce competition is normal and the worst is that lots are fine with it...

No, but they do and I can see why they think that way, even if I don't agree with their reasoning.

Linux can run almost every Windows game though Cedega (a specialized Wine-based project) with little noticible difference in most cases. I take my Linux box to LAN parties and when you're in the game nobody can tell that you're not using Windows. WC3:FT, Steam (Counter-Strike), BF1942, BFV, and DAoC all run prefectly on my Linux box. Thank you nVidia for providing good drivers! I wish ATI would follow their lead and provide better Linux drivers for their cards.

ncrfgs, I think the IP they're talking about may be code that they've licenses from other companies. As in, it's not their's to release and doing so would put them in legal trouble with whoever licensed them the original code. If they owned all the code they probably wouldn't be citing IP as their primary reason for not going opensource but from their response it sounds like who ever licensed them the code they're using doesn't want it shared.

But what have they licensed? From who? I think the story of the IP problems is just a fairy tale they use every time they have to deal with this touchy subject... An easy exit way that people easy believe in. After all, we are talking about a huge company with a lot of influence. What kind of "evil" little company is preventing them to make their drivers and specification Free and Open? They likely have enough money to buy it all...

An interesting question would be: if you didn't have these kind of IP problems would you make your drivers and hardware specifications Free and Open? I can guess the answer...

Interesting interview
 

The decision to support Linux better than the competition has won be back into the nVidia camp. I used to like their products a lot and owned TNT, TNT2, GeForce, GeForce2MX cards. However, when it was time to upgrade again a year or so ago, I decided to go ATI in the future because the great reviews they had been getting (unlike the reviews for the first GeForce5s which were less than stellar), and I like to support the underdog. So I got a Radeon 9800 All-in-wonder.

Frames per second etc were good under Windows, but the Windows drivers were slightly buggy, and I eventually gave up completely on getting even the basic functions like X to work decently under Linux (not to mention openGL acceleration or MythTV). So I used my old GeForce2MX when working under Linux, and when I felt like playing games, I had to open my chassi and switch cards before I could boot to Windows. This quickly became a chore. Also, the nVidia drivers for Linux kept getting better, and nVidia seemed to fix the flaws in GeForce5. ATI in the meanwhile completely ignored the Linux market. So now I have ordered a GeForce 5200 card, and as soon as it arrives my Radeon is going to go on the shelf and gather dust, unless a friend wants it.

Yes, however, as a recent real newbie to linux and refugee from the windowboxes, even using an easy distro like Suse, I found it hard to cope with getting manufacturer's stuff and installing it. In fact to date I have not succeeded (!)

Until I just read this interview I had nvidia stuff down as a definate nogo no-no! I would have gone to much effort to either change a card or even choose another mainboard to *avoid* nvidia.

When installing a distro (eg suse) as a real newbie, if the kit does not *work* at all with the first install - because of nvidia for example - I would likely put off getting to linux for another year (!)

Fortunately I did not have the problem, but the install notes in the distro have a caveat for nvidia, and it will be some long time before I have enough experience to confidently use something like a closed source driver.

The compromise suggestion you made is very important - there must be *something* open source or free with distros, and something of higher quality from nvidia, protected.

I have no problem at all with IP and maybe paying for ip stuff, I just do not have the experience (yet) to make use of it.

And if it is difficult to get to use nvidia products I simply would make choices to avoid them, and so would many other newbies. Make it easy to start with, with closed source stuff available as special.

LarsWestergren,

If you would like to sell that ATI Radeon card of yours, please let me know and we can talk. If you need an email address, let me know that too.