Hi Danielph -- let me say first, that I intended nothing personal in my post; I think you know that

But in this context (this thread) I figure the new Linux user is more concerned about easing into Linux without too too much stress, than he is about whether or not his video driver is open-source.
I would certainly prefer an open-source solution to <insert problem here> too, and promote that solution, but in this case of ATI vs nVidia, AND for a new Linux user, nVidia is indeed a no-brainer choice.

Perhaps one of two things will influence nVidia to follow suit and release some 3D driver code to the open source community:
1 - ATI's code release may encourage them to do the same to some degree.
2 - Increased demand/pressure/user base of Linux users, asking them to do so

FWIW, a person who was so inclined could simply extract the nVidia binary installer (run it with the --extract-only flag) and study the code, and if they had the knowledge, perhaps design a new open source solution based on the concepts within (reversde-engineering) or at the VERY LEAST, in a case like your example**, fix one's OWN driver without telling anyone until an offical patch or upgrade comes along. I suspect this is precisely what the 'nv' driver is derived from, but I could be wrong.

So, in short, Danielph, I agree with you overall, but in this particular instance (this thread) I still vote for nVidia 100% .

Of course I know there is nothing personal, I haven't forgotten it was you that helped me solve one of my nvidia problems

You have summed this up well and argue the point very diplomatically and I think you are right that for ease of use currently nvidia is the better solution. (Ouch that was hard to say) and if Linux continues to grow then yes I think they will sit up and take notice and it will be better for all of us.

I personally won't be going there in the future unless things change.

Yes, the current nv driver was reverse engineered for some cards. 3D support was not present because Nvidia will not provide the hardware specifications needed.

I've learned a lot from your dialog you two, thanks!

Here's where I am now:
It seems that NVIDIA is the way for me to go "right now", and I know none of us can predict with any great certainty what the driver situation may be 3 to 6 months from now, but do you feel that the situation may be reversed in that time, and ATI will be the better choice?

The reason that I ask this, is because when I buy this new notebook, I plan on keeping it for years to come, and will not have another in that time, so I would hate to buy it with NVIDIA because of the situation today, when in several months time the situation may very well be reversed, and possibly for good, or at least for some time. As of right now, unless NVIDA gets with the program, ATI will likely pull way ahead of them in a very short time. So, in this context, as in the very near future, it seems that ATI will be the preferred Linux GPU provider, what are your thoughts about this? I'm thinking near future and longer term in preference.

Myself, I HIGHLY doubt the situation will ever be 'reversed'. It may well be much more 'competitive' and 'comparable' though, but even at that, we must wait to be able to fairly compare the performance & capabilities of the <possibly-upcoming> open source ATI drivers (whenever they might become available), vs the available open source 'nv' driver currently available..

For all we know, ATI hasn't (yet) released enough (of the needed) code for Open Source developers to create a full-featured driver of any greater capacity or performance than the current 'nv' driver, which is crippled by the lack of 3D (GLX) acceleration. The open source ATI drivers may end up crippled as well.
In this case, we (users) would again be no further ahead from a performance standpoint, really, and if nothing else and all other things are equal, then atleast choosing between ATI and nVidia would come down to personal preference, as it should be.

One good thing may come out of this situation ultimately:
*** IF *** ATI were to FULLY DISCLOSE ALL CODE needed to develop an Open Source, FULLY FUNCTIONAL <fglrx or whatever> driver for ATI devices, then nVidia would have something to be concerned about-- that being the potential for more Linux users to choose ATI, and for existing Linux users who currently prefer nVidia, to change their minds solely on principle.

The ATI vs Nvidia debate is an old one and you can find plenty of articles on the battle. Both make quality cards and from what I have read ATI excels in performance from some of the reviews of 2006. On Linux nvidia is better supported as we have concluded.

Not having a crystal ball I could not say one is going to be supported better. I think in general things will get better for Linux as time goes on and if you can find a card that works well (check on forums) from either manufacture you should be OK. Clean Suspend / Resume is often a complaint and maybe relevant for you as you are looking at getting a laptop.

You know where my vote is, but nvidia may make an announcement next week and things will turn around.

You could of course go for an IBM laptop which has intel chipset. Let the flames roll in.......

LOL, nothing wrong with Intel VGA either, but it does get chewed up bad when compared to the other GPU makers!
Scrappydoo, just don't get something with an SiS/VIA/Unichrome type VGA device. You'll probably (IMHO) not be happy.

Well, the point in some regards is on the other hand if one needs 3D.

I don't, I really give a **** for transparent windows, wobbling whatevers and cubes instead of plain old desktops. Therefore, I never check even if my graphic's chips even supports 3D. Yes, it looks nice, but that's IMHO all there is. (I obviously don't game, Yes. )

And I'm not starting with closed source binary drivers. I was able to avoid them since 1993 and I'm not going to start to accept a backlash in terms of "openness" now.

My preferences for "good GUI" simply lie somewhere else (really, really good font support, the idea of display SVG, to name just two) and they would all work perfectly on a nice, well supported 2D card like the old generation of matrox cards.

Therefore, the only way I think of 3D cards ATI/nVidia-alike is in terms of the layering concept to gain better font display. (Dutifully, I read a paper WTH I should even want 3D...)

But I'm visually totally into 2D, so my needs and wishes are very specific.

The point is, that all this GUI stuff is full of patent traps (ttf in freetype - need I say more?) and closed source compromises.

And instead of SuSE and Red Hat putting together their industrial lobby forces, they develop to different systems of GLX support to be included into X which only works with very specific chips under certain circumstances and only the second day after full moon (but not on Thursdays before Easter and at the end of Ramadan).

Personally I will be attempting to set up some 3D gaming, so 3D will be something I would like to have my system be capable of. I want some power, so Intel IGP will not be purchased. The notebooks I am considering come equiped with either an NVIDIA 8600M, or an ATI Mobility HD 2600.

From what I've gathered here, it looks to be that ATI Vs. NVIDIA need not be a deciding factor in my purchase. Is this correct in your opinion?

btw, good to hear from you Su-Shee!

Very well stated. I agree completely, and FWIW I don't game either, at all, nor do I use any rotating cube things-- I'm dizzy enough already
I did not know this, but then I don't follow the RedHat/SuSE developments closely. Kinda sounds like they reinvented a wheel.

Despite that I really don't NEED 3D either for anything I couldn't live without, one place I do enjoy its functionality is screensavers. Just my personal preference, or champagne tastes perhaps , but my favourite X screensavers happen to be of the OpenGL variety, and barely function without GLX, making for a very annoying display. Otherwise, I am pretty much using 2D almost all the time, but am content in the knowledge that if for whatever reason I should want or need 3D for something anytime, it's at my disposal.
Another thing I hadn't considered until reading danielph's post below, is my multiple-monitor setup and multiple-serverlayout configuration. I'm not sure how this stuff would work without the 'nvidia' driver. Also, in the not-too-distant future, I'll be adding another card into my second PCI-E slot, and again, I don't know how a multi-card, multi-head, multi-layout setup (phew!) setup would fare on the 'nv' driver.
@ danielph -- I'm liking that CPU heater concept right now -- it's FREEZING COLD in here :/

Yes 3D and in addition proper support of the hardware and all it's features. Dual Head for example or proper blanking of LCD screens on laptop are a couple of reasons I use proprietary drivers for nvidia. 3D is actually not one of them The OpenGL screen savers are more like CPU heaters on my laptop. Good for the winter.

One exception is occasionally playing with Google Earth. As for games, I spend enough time in front of a screen without needing games.

As far as I read it, Suse and RH simply both started to develop behind closed doors first and the result is AIGLX of RH's (already included in X and perfectly working with my old ATI card) and SuSE's XGL on the other hand which apparently WILL be included in the next X version.

Don't ask me which supports what better, I just checked "ah, ATI Radeon, yes, fine, click here, do that, add this, comment here and sign here, thankyouverymuchcomeagainsoon." and it worked.

On the other hand - to become more philosophical and I just polished my crystal ball - these are exciting times for the GUI development under Linux. I played with the upcoming KDE4, with the "Screenlets" and the Cairo-Clock (Composite-enabled SVG drawing on X) and I'm totally waiting for the fully enabled Cairo-based Firefox 3 which will have PDF support included, because Cairo supports so many backends and also PDF thanks to poppler. Than, I read some papers and rss entries about "Moonlight" which is the de Icaza-Mono answer to MS's Silverlight which both are a direct competitor to Mozilla as an development environment to develop cool webgadgets and desklets with, because Silver/Moonlight will _exactly_ support what we right now can only have with FF in a webbrower's realm. Think like Google's personalized Page or protopage, but on your desktop.

So, it's totally getting interesting over the next 2 years and they probably will bring a) 3D until I get seasick looking on my GUI, b) vector drawing on X and c) more and more merging of web-2.5-ish services with your desktop itself. (Hello security and privacy hell...)

Yes, that was totally off topic.

Addition: Here's a nice article about XGL and AIGLX: Free Software Magazine: Accelerated X

OK, I'm leaning towards ATI because of the direction they appear to be headed, but more than likely, I'll end up with NVIDIA, just because they are more prevalent among the Intel CPU based notebooks.

Are "packages", "source", and "binaries", three different versions of essentially the same thing, just in a different form?

A package is just what it says, it is normally an application or driver that has been bundled up into a package. Packages can be source or binary.

Source - this is referring to source code and has to be compiled on your system before you can run it. A good example is Gentoo which all packages need to be compiled from source and therefore it will take longer to install a package. However the package would have been compiled on your system and for your system. This can include customizing the package or simple compiling for a particular architecture, eg x686

Binary - pre compiled packages, ready to go, just install them, no compiling.

Thats my understanding, maybe someone else has something to add or correct here.