"I've been saying for years that Linux was well along on its way from being the tech fanboy operating system of choice, to becoming one of big business' favorite operating systems. Well, I was right all along, but in 2006, that progress smacked many Linux fans in the face. This is my list of the five most significant changes in Linux this year. They are not changes, however, that many who have embraced Linux in the past will appreciate. Like it or lump it, these are the changes that I also think clearly predict Linux's future in the mainstream."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Closed-source drivers impair development, yet the best graphics drivers coincidently happen to be closed?
They impair the development of the rest of the stack.
But Avalon and the NVIDIA drivers for windows are also closed. Microsoft makes a change, NVIDIA brings their driver up to snuff, progress is made. Why does Linux need to be any different?
Microsoft does *not* iterate with NVIDIA over every change to Avalon. They have NVIDIA's driver sources, and can make necessary changes themselves, long before they have to get NVIDIA to integrate the changes. Apple follows an even extreme approach. Nobody touches Apple's GL stack but Apple. They have the sources for both NVIDIA's and ATI's drivers, and they integrate pieces as necessary into their own stack.
X.org is no more dependent on closed drivers than OSX or Windows, yet x.org which is open and designed by comitee hasn't really changed much in ~10 years.
That's the thing you don't understand. OS X and Windows *aren't* dependant on closed drivers. The source of most Windows and OS X drivers are open to Microsoft and Apple developers. They can test things, modify APIs, etc, all with the advantage of source code and specifications. The OSS world plays with a handicap --- they have to keep up with Microsoft and Apple, without access to the same driver source and specs that they have.
Member since:2005-06-30
The OSS world plays with a handicap --- they have to keep up with Microsoft and Apple, without access to the same driver source and specs that they have.
So the proposed solution is to try to throw the collective market weight of the Linux community (remember, only 3-4% at best) at these hardware vendors, in the hope that by dictating your ideology to them day after day, after day, after day, that they will be forced to listen and change?
Good luck with that. You let me know how that works out.
Just be glad that they even bother to develop binary-only drivers. With SkyOS, we don't even have that luxury, and are forced to stick with 2D acceleration (and believe me, we could do some pretty cool stuff with true support for their hardware). However, rather than trying to force their hand (which we of course could never do, for the same reason it doesn't work for Linux), we are just dealing with the reality of the situation and moving on. Hopefully, if we just continue to make really good, and innovative software, our market will eventually be large enough that the hardware companies might actually have to care about us.
But until then, we're just dealing with reality. That is my biggest suggestion for the Linux community. You have binary drivers; use them.
Edited 2006-12-20 02:56
Member since:
2006-05-12
Fact: Closed-source drivers impair development.
Closed-source drivers impair development, yet the best graphics drivers coincidently happen to be closed?
"When Microsoft built Avalon, they didn't wait for NVIDIA to approve and implement every change they wanted --- they went in and did it themselves."
But Avalon and the NVIDIA drivers for windows are also closed. Microsoft makes a change, NVIDIA brings their driver up to snuff, progress is made. Why does Linux need to be any different?
X.org is no more dependent on closed drivers than OSX or Windows, yet x.org which is open and designed by comitee hasn't really changed much in ~10 years.