Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th May 2006 17:01 UTC, submitted by Phoronix
3D News, GL, DirectX "We have been overwhelmed with requests to take a serious look at the frame-rate performance differences between the various open-source and proprietary contenders. Our first article on this topic, which will likely be the first of a series of examinations, is looking at the differences between the X.Org open-source ATI Radeon driver and that of ATI's official but proprietary fglrx display driver."
Thread beginning with comment 121676
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why does it have to be open?
by dmantione on Sat 6th May 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "Why does it have to be open?"
Member since:

You want some reasons, you get them ;)
* Open source drivers run on multiple platforms. I.e. Radeon in a PowerPC is no problem with an open source driver.
* Out of the box experience. Install your Linux and don't bother installing drivers, everything works already.
* Upgradability. The current Linux architecture doesn't allow you to take a module from one kernel version to another without recompiling it.
* Discontinued hardware = discontinued closed source driver. Open source drivers tend to stay working much longer.
* Untrusted code. Nobody knows what the video card code is doing. There might be security bugs, stability bugs, or the code could even do malicious activities. Open source drivers can be audited independently and this happens regularily.

And of course let us not forget the four freedoms...

Reply Parent Score: 5

postmodern Member since:

Also, do not forget community support. If a bug is discovered in an open driver the original author as well as interested developers can fix it. Where as with closed drivers everyone waits on the original author.

Reply Parent Score: 4