"Recently there has been a lot of discussion bubbling up regarding the possibility that Ubuntu will ship proprietary 3D drivers by default for some video cards. My aim here is not to discuss the specifics of that decision, which is still being fleshed out and ratified, but to instead define my views on the bigger picture behind the discussion - features vs. freedom."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-19
other hand accepts them as a temporal solution
temporary solutions have a bad way of dropping the *temporary* aspect...
How does a growing community have the power to demand specs be opened? With 50 million linux users, all running nvidia cards, all using closed drivers - that puts pressure on nvidia how?
Member since:2005-12-31
> How does a growing community have the power to demand specs be
> opened? With 50 million linux users, all running nvidia cards, all using
> closed drivers - that puts pressure on nvidia how?
A growing community is one that doesn't stop at 50m. A larger number also means more people who value free software and can actually use it, except for that driver. It means more people who want good integration of the driver. It means a louder outcry if there are bugs in the driver, or security problems - let alone an intentional backdoor. In short, it means that nvidia can actually lose something if they screw up.
It also means larger numbers of people who can learn from an open system and may want to learn how that last closed piece works.
It also means that many more people get to know about free software that never heard of it.
You may be referring to the following argument: What if nvidia don't screw up? What if they write a well-integrated, bugless, highly secure, superfast driver, always deliver it in time, never build intentional restrictions or backdoors into it... what if they actually make the sky blue, but the driver closed? Answer: Then at least the sky is blue, because right now it isn't.
EDIT: typo
EDIT: You should also note that while nvidia is quite good at delivering quality, many other hardware companies aren't, and they still keep specs private which must be reverse-engineered for Linux or other free software. More users means pressure on those companies too, eventually meaning specs, making high-quality free drivers possible, eventually meaning more users... you get the picture.
Edited 2006-12-19 15:33
Member since:2005-06-29
"other hand accepts them as a temporal solution"
temporary solutions have a bad way of dropping the *temporary* aspect...
How does a growing community have the power to demand specs be opened? With 50 million linux users, all running nvidia cards, all using closed drivers - that puts pressure on nvidia how?
You're absolutely right 
Compare with ATI - they don't have [didn't have] useful propieritary drivers for linux. In result we have pretty good open source ATI drivers (well, I know that not for latest cards, but anyway).
If NVidia hadn't released their drivers for linux - probably we could have good opensource NVidia drivers too. Of course not for the latest cards though...
Neither situation doesn't put any pressure for ATI or NVidia to open their drivers. NVidia even doesn't need open their specifications, because everybody is using their drivers. ATI released some spec-s to help create multimedia drivers for older cards; for newer cards they don't need that anymore, becuase their closed drivers are working.
Member since:
2005-12-31
I think the author is right. He has a goal, that is, the promotion of free software. You may agree or disagree with this, but he is free to think this way. He values this goal very high, calling it a compromise to incorporate nonfree software.
However, unlike others sharing his goal, he does not blindly call any compromise unacceptable. He thinks that blob drivers cannot be the ultimate solution, but on the other hand accepts them as a temporal solution. If there is a wall between you and your goal, do you walk the indirect route, or do you run against the wall over and over again?
Also a nice thing is that he sees that Linux must be competitive to survive. Only the community took Linux as far as it is now, in terms of features, but also in terms of compatibility. Blaming companies that they don't release specification for hardware, file formats, protocols etc. means positioning yourself as the loser. A growing community has the power to *demand* that specifications be opened.