PDA

View Full Version : Should Legacy Drivers Be Open Source?



zer010
December 17th, 2010, 02:30 AM
I currently have an issue with the NVIDIA Linux driver and the ability to OC. I decided to have NVIDIA look into it. First, I gotta say that the response time was great and even though the issue hasn't been resolved, I felt that I received great service. In the end, I received a couple of emails. I will of course not reveal the tech's name, but will quote the correspondence.

Tech: Sorry I forgot to mention that you need to use 'sudo' with Ubuntu Linux.
Thanks for the log and nothing jumped out at me either.
I discussed this problem with our developers and they are aware of it.
However, because the problem is occurring in our legacy driver, it will probably take a very long time to get fixed, due to Engineering's workload and their priority to add feature and fix bugs in the current drivers, and then secondarily to fix bugs in the legacy driver.
Let me know if any more questions or problems.
================================================== ================================
Me: Thank you for your response and I understand that legacy drivers, especially for Linux, are not of a high priority. Perhaps NVIDIA should consider releasing legacy Linux drivers as open source and let the robust Linux community handle that part of the workload. I doubt this will happen, but one can dream, right? :)
================================================== ================================
Tech:"Perhaps NVIDIA should
consider releasing legacy Linux drivers as open source and let the
robust Linux community handle that part of the workload. I doubt this
will happen, but one can dream, right? :)"


I agree completely but unfortunately this is not my decision! -:)I don't really understand why Legacy drivers should still be proprietary, but maybe that will change one day....at least one can dream, right?

3Miro
December 17th, 2010, 02:36 AM
Drivers of all software make least amount of sense to not be Free Open Source. Legacy or otherwise. I payed for the hardware already, can I please use my hardware now?

unknownPoster
December 17th, 2010, 02:49 AM
Drivers of all software make least amount of sense to not be Free Open Source. Legacy or otherwise. I payed for the hardware already, can I please use my hardware now?

It's called a "trade secret." If NVidia releases the source, ATI could use it to their advantage. I completely understand the logic behind this.

And you are fully capable of using the hardware as the manufacturers intended, but that is with Windows. If the developers make the claim that they fully support Linux, then you can complain, but as of now developers support Windows, so if you want to fully utilize your hardware, you need to use Windows.

amauk
December 17th, 2010, 02:51 AM
It's always been rumoured that Nvidia's reluctance to open their drivers comes down to the fact that the driver (not the hardware) is the separator between nvidia's low price geforce consumer cards and their high price Quadro workstation cards

Open drivers mean you could get the Quadro's rendering power for CAD / animation on a cheap consumer gaming card

Frak
December 17th, 2010, 02:51 AM
It's called a "trade secret." If NVidia releases the source, ATI could use it to their advantage. I completely understand the logic behind this.

And you are fully capable of using the hardware as the manufacturers intended, but that is with Windows. If the developers make the claim that they fully support Linux, then you can complain, but as of now developers support Windows, so if you want to fully utilize your hardware, you need to use Windows.
*ehem*, this statement reflects my thoughts exactly.

unknownPoster
December 17th, 2010, 02:52 AM
It's always been rumoured that Nvidia's reluctance to open their drivers comes down to the fact that the driver (not the hardware) is the separator between nvidia's low price geforce consumer cards and their high price Quadro workstation cards

Open drivers mean you could get the Quadro's rendering power for CAD / animation on a cheap consumer gaming card

Which again reinforces the trade secret idea.

jerenept
December 17th, 2010, 03:01 AM
Don't you find that the current NV proprietary drivers are just fine? What exactly is the problem with them, other than the license?

zer010
December 17th, 2010, 03:02 AM
Ok, I get it. I kinda figured that it was a "trade secret" thing. I also kinda figured that opening Legacy drivers would lead to others learning the secrets of new drivers, no matter the differences in hardware.

Hyporeal
December 17th, 2010, 03:26 AM
It's called a "trade secret." If NVidia releases the source, ATI could use it to their advantage. I completely understand the logic behind this.

Offering an open source driver actually improves the overall quality of the driver. Higher quality drivers lead to greater demand and greater profits. There is a strong business case to be made for open source drivers.


And you are fully capable of using the hardware as the manufacturers intended, but that is with Windows. If the developers make the claim that they fully support Linux, then you can complain, but as of now developers support Windows, so if you want to fully utilize your hardware, you need to use Windows.

As customers, it is our privilege to give feedback and demand quality. If a business decision results in a lower quality product then you're damn right we're going to complain. Silencing the customer is never a solution.

unknownPoster
December 17th, 2010, 03:28 AM
Offering an open source driver actually improves the overall quality of the driver. Higher quality drivers lead to greater demand and greater profits. There is a strong business case to be made for open source drivers.


Any proof? Or is this just anecdotal?



As customers, it is our privilege to give feedback and demand quality. If a business decision results in a lower quality product then you're damn right we're going to complain. Silencing the customer is never a solution.

Since when are the customers being silenced? NVidia said no open source driver. That is their decision. Deal with it or move on.

Frak
December 17th, 2010, 03:39 AM
In My Opinion Offering an open source driver actually improves the overall quality of the driver. Higher quality drivers lead to greater demand and greater profits. There is a strong business case to be made for open source drivers.

Fixed that for you.


As customers, it is our privilege to give feedback and demand quality. If a business decision results in a lower quality product then you're damn right we're going to complain. Silencing the customer is never a solution.

If you don't like it, you have the right to ask for a refund. Nvidia doesn't have to do what you like, and if you don't like it, you have the right to end your contractual relationship.

jerenept
December 17th, 2010, 03:43 AM
Offering an open source driver actually improves the overall quality of the driver. Higher quality drivers lead to greater demand and greater profits. There is a strong business case to be made for open source drivers.

Maybe you haven't compared ATi's open drivers (mind you, they release hardware specs openly) to NVIDIA's binary blobs lately.

There's a reason NVIDIA graphics cards are recommended here at UF.

Hyporeal
December 17th, 2010, 03:51 AM
Any proof? Or is this just anecdotal?

What is it you want me to prove? That there is a business case to be made for open source drivers? I've already explained that. Is it that open source drivers are higher quality than proprietary ones? This should be obvious, since opening the source does not make the driver any worse, and potentially makes it better.

You should be much more skeptical of your own claim that trade secrets are the underlying reason why drivers are not open source.


Since when are the customers being silenced? NVidia said no open source driver. That is their decision. Deal with it or move on.

You said that people can't complain:


If the developers make the claim that they fully support Linux, then you can complain, but as of now developers support Windows, so if you want to fully utilize your hardware, you need to use Windows.

I disagree. People can (and should) complain. The "deal with it [and] move on" attitude is completely useless. Most companies desire your feedback.

Hyporeal
December 17th, 2010, 03:55 AM
Fixed that for you.

Thanks.


If you don't like it, you have the right to ask for a refund. Nvidia doesn't have to do what you like, and if you don't like it, you have the right to end your contractual relationship.

I still maintain that people should not be reluctant to give feedback, and I think you agree with me.

jerenept
December 17th, 2010, 03:58 AM
What is it you want me to prove? That there is a business case to be made for open source drivers? I've already explained that. Is it that open source drivers are higher quality than proprietary ones? This should be obvious, since opening the source does not make the driver any worse, and potentially makes it better.
And I explained why not, up there ^


You should be much more skeptical of your own claim that trade secrets are the underlying reason why drivers are not open source.
So, you deny that opening the drivers would release trade secrets to compteitors like AMD and Intel?



You said that people can't complain:

I disagree. People can (and should) complain. The "deal with it [and] move on" attitude is completely useless. Most companies desire your feedback.

People can complain, but, NVIDIA isn't going to take you as seriously, because, quite frankly, we are about 1% of the market share and have few resource-intensive 3D applications. the Linux Desktop is not as important as Windows, to NVIDIA.

Hyporeal
December 17th, 2010, 04:08 AM
And I explained why not, up there ^

Are you saying that nVidia's driver would get worse if the source were opened?


So, you deny that opening the drivers would release trade secrets to compteitors like AMD and Intel?

No. Are you claiming that trade secrets are the primary reason that drivers are proprietary?


People can complain, but, NVIDIA isn't going to take you as seriously, because, quite frankly, we are about 1% of the market share and have few resource-intensive 3D applications. the Linux Desktop is not as important as Windows, to NVIDIA.

So they don't want feedback on their Linux driver, right? Because they don't care, right?

jerenept
December 17th, 2010, 04:30 AM
Are you saying that nVidia's driver would get worse if the source were opened?
No, it would not, but there would not, I am sure, be any huge improvements either.
What exactly is wrong with it now? NVIDIA's drivers support the latest X.Org, OpenGL, and VDPAU. (I should know ;) )


No. Are you claiming that trade secrets are the primary reason that drivers are proprietary?

Most likely this is a very important reason to NVIDIA. There are other reasons as well, I am sure. Besides, any code that is Linux specific is released as open-source.


So they don't want feedback on their Linux driver, right? Because they don't care, right?

They will take feedback, but hammering out bugs from the nv drivers will most likely be put on the back burner, to issues with Windows drivers.
Besides, NVIDIA has done a great deal of work on the NVIDIA kernel drivers, and they are pretty darn good.

Frak
December 17th, 2010, 05:01 AM
Are you saying that nVidia's driver would get worse if the source were opened?

Nobody said that, it's just the notion that there's nothing that says it would get better.


No. Are you claiming that trade secrets are the primary reason that drivers are proprietary?

YES


So they don't want feedback on their Linux driver, right? Because they don't care, right?

Considering the majority of the Nvidia codebase is cross platform, no, they probably don't. If a problem occurs in one, it probably occurs in all of them.