Xorg 1.5 missed the train?
gilboad at gmail.com
Wed May 21 13:08:27 UTC 2008
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:19 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Callum Lerwick [21/05/2008 11:03] :
> > I like how in these threads it keeps conveniently being ignored that we work
> > just fine out of the box on Nvidia. We just don't have 3D yet.
> I've always being surprised at the amount of blame-shifting that occurs
> in regards to Nvidia's drivers.
> - The free drivers suck. This apparently isn't NVidia's fault (which is
> strange since they help maintain it) but the x.org developers'.
Say what? Are you kidding me?
Ever tried to write/update/maintain a driver with no documentation?
Most of the work on the nv driver is being done by nVidia personal
mostly because they are the only ones that have any idea what's going on
with their own hardware.
Just look at this Changelog! 
> - The non-free drivers aren't free. This apparently isn't NVidia's fault.
I'm well aware of the OpenGL licensing problem that killed the OSS 3.x
driver and Intel/Microsoft C&D letters.
Never the less, nothing stops nVidia from doing an "AMD" and releasing
all the specs.
> - This makes the drivers impossible to ship as part of the distribution
> or support as a third-party repo. This is somehow the distribution's
A. ANAL, but AFAIK, by releasing binary drivers nVidia is dangerously
close to violating of the GPLv2 license under which the Linux kernel is
distributed. (AKA derived work). AFAIK, this alone stops most of the big
distributions from shipping binary drivers.
B. Fedora has a policy of shipping only open source drivers and
software. If you disagree with this policy, you're using the wrong
> - They don't release drivers once the ABI is frozen or even the day
> stable releases of x.org are issued. This apparently isn't their fault.
No. nVidia has right to decide what to support and when.
If I, as a client, disagrees with their policy, I -should- look
elsewhere. (And I am, trust me.)
However, given that fact that nVidia is more or less maintaining the nv
driver, they should have been well aware when the ABI got frozen.
> - They won't release the specs. This apparently isn't their fault.
Are you just guessing? Or do you have solid proof to back this claim?
More-ever, how both AMD and Intel found a way to release the specs
without hitting the same roadblock?
> - They badmouth the open source developement model. I have no idea why
> but this isn't their fault.
Badmouth the OSS development model?
Isn't their fault?
I don't think it means what you think you means .
More information about the devel