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 121747
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IP
by MrEcho on Sun 7th May 2006 00:08 UTC
MrEcho
Member since:
2005-07-07

Why cant Linux developers and the Linux community just respect companies intellectual property?

People talk about buggy closed source drivers, its not like the ones in the kernel are not buggy. One being the NForce4 driver.

Out of the box experience: I dont see why distros couldn't package these proprietary drivers with the CD, OR have a simple way of downloading them off the net during the install(easy way of displaying the license agreement). In Gentoo we dont have that issue.

Untrusted code, well when was the last time you have ever heard of a HARDWARE, not software drivers doing "bad things". The sony thing wasnt hardware is what im getting at.

One of the issues I see with these closed source drivers is that you cant just "install" a driver, you have to compile the driver(part of it) every time you update your kernel. WHY? Why cant there be a "2.6" kernel driver that would work for any 2.6.X kernel. From a Desktop users standpoint the kernel is unstable, and cant provide a stable interface for drivers to work. Why not have differnt ABI's for different parts of the kernel? That would cut back on drivers screwing with parts of the kernel they dont need to be touching.

I have 0 issues running closed source drivers or software.
Not everything in this world cant be free people, would be nice, but wake up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: IP
by deathshadow on Sun 7th May 2006 01:40 in reply to "IP"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Why cant Linux developers and the Linux community just respect companies intellectual property?

Because that would be 'working for the man'.

>> One of the issues I see with these closed source drivers is that you cant just "install" a driver, you have to compile the driver(part of it) every time you update your kernel. WHY?

Because Linus still has his head up his backside about the kernel interface to drivers and devices, and refuses to set a FIXED api for getting at things - making it nigh impossible (or at least damned tricky) to make a driver that works in BOTH 2.6 and 2.4 off the same codebase, much less 2.6.1, 2.6.13, 2.6.pick a damned revision.

If I was a hardware manufacturer, I'd flat out REFUSE to make drivers for linux on those grounds ALONE, before we even got into the dirty {censored} hippy intellectual property debate.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: IP
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sun 7th May 2006 11:29 in reply to "IP"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

---------Why cant Linux developers and the Linux community just respect companies intellectual property?----------

There's alot of zealots out there who don't. I can only speak for myself when I say this(because I haven't seen many others say it) that nvidia and ati should be opening up their specs for older cards(maybe 2-3 gens back) but I respect them keeping their current lines a secret.

----------People talk about buggy closed source drivers, its not like the ones in the kernel are not buggy.---------------

This isn't so much an issue assuming (x company) is providing adequate support.(like nvidia) But nVidia doesn't support it's older cards anymore. AFAIK their new drivers don't support geforce/GF2 class cards. These specs should be released.

-----------I dont see why distros couldn't package these proprietary drivers with the CD, OR------------

If you are a distro which has the newest kernel packaged that isn't possible unless (x driver) was just recently released with support for that kernel. It just won't work. And having it downloadable online defeats the purpose of "it just works" off the CD.

Alot of people appreciate "it just working". I know I do. That's why until someone releases specs for something newer, I'm stuck with a firegl 8800.

-----------Untrusted code, well when was the last time you have ever heard of a HARDWARE, not software drivers doing "bad things". The sony thing wasnt hardware is what im getting at.----------------

ATi's drivers do bad things constantly. They're horrible.

------------Not everything in this world cant be free people, would be nice, but wake up.------------

Agreed. But at least with asking for older-cards' specs there's a chance we'll get them. ATI/NVIDIA/ETC might not want to support them anymore, but we do. And with older cards, the issue of IP isn't so much a big deal anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: IP
by flywheel on Sun 7th May 2006 14:28 in reply to "IP"
flywheel Member since:
2005-12-28

"Why cant Linux developers and the Linux community just respect companies intellectual property? "

No problem, but then should the compangies deliver drivers to other systems than the latest MS-Windows revision - I'm not just talking GNU systems here.

Reply Parent Score: 1