Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Linux Efforts to bring glitzy new graphics to Linux are fueling an old conflict: Does proprietary software belong in open-source Linux? The issue involves software modules called drivers, which plug into the kernel at the heart of the open-source operating system. Drivers let software communicate with hardware such as network adapters, hard drives and video cards.
Permalink for comment 116333
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I'm all for it.
by siki_miki on Wed 19th Apr 2006 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm all for it."
Member since:

Agreed, they should keep core of their open source drivers in userspace form, much like the current DRI architecture, and interoperate with kernel userspace DRM ABI.

Problem would be a DRM kernel gfx-card driver ("miniport" in windows terms), but it's much lesser problem for them to open source relatively small part of their code. Maybe with transition to Longhorn driver model (which is similar concept as DRI) both ATI/NVIDIA will rethink their philosophy.

However, much work (and willingness of the hardware makers) is required to improve DRM ABI/API to the feature level that would satisfy both big companies, and it still isn't guaranteed they will cooperate. Maybe borrowing few ideas from Microsoft's new model would be helpful. Or waiting for Linux to become more present on desktop, so companies will beg for cooperation.

OT:In fact much of the new windows driver model will shift things to userspace, linux could have short-term "benefits" of those with help of various wrappers (though this will harm native kernel drivers in long term).

About the ibGL problem, Mesa developers tried recently to enhance dispatch tables in libGL. Maybe nvidia/ati will use that feature and avoid overwriting it in the future, but I take that with a grain of salt.

Reply Parent Score: 1