Making ATI/AMD some expenses for their buggy drivers and lack of support (nVidia too)

[Kure]

Hello,

recently I came across this idea of forcing ATI/NVIDIA to stop neglecting open source community. Their only goal is to generate money - so let's make them lose a lot of money.

As a customer, you have your right to get support. You have your right to get the newest drivers and to ask.

They have to pay tremendous amounts for servers and customer care. Let's have them pay more by requiring more support.

Imagine if every user, who has ATI/nVidia graphic card (or any other barely supported hardware) wrote and email to customer support, informing them that he won't buy their hardware any more. Or imagine, if everybody downloaded drivers from vendors webpages on one single preselected day. Effect comparable to Slashdotting, and pretty expensive for the big ugly companies who ignore Linux desktop users, because they don't buy so much hardware.

Do you think it would be worth realising "want your customer care protest day", e.g. at the day when Feisty will be released?

[teaker1s]

Nvidia do support the community and have a forum to discuss things, as for ATI threre previous offerings have been crap-so unless AMD suddenly improve I'll be avoiding the brand

[mips]

The market share of those users would be very small.

[Kure]

The market share of those users would be very small.

It's economical question - if they can afford their servers and customer support being inaccessible for a day or two and if their marketing can survive it too. I think improving drivers will be much cheaper - that is what I am thinking - how many people have Linux with e.g. ATI graphic card? How many of them would do something so simple like downloading drivers / writing email on one day? Almost all, and it will effectively knock down ATI/NVIDIA for one day. Believe me, they won't try it again. Managers think of Linux as "3.5% market share, almost no gamers". Help them to memorize that Linux means "that late night meeting about our crashing servers and high expenses for leaving customers".

[beniwtv]

Well, while I think your effort for good Nvidia/Ati drivers is very nice, it think it's the wrong way to do it.

See:

Nvidia & Ati are at least trying to support Linux (with Nvidia being the more successful ATM). Ati & Nvidia could easily drop the support for Linux if they wanted - they do still not depend of that 5% of Linux users for their business, and Linux would be set back a lot until the Noveau nvidia drivers are ready - or any other drivers.

Sure, we all want drivers that are open source so that they integrate more cleanly with the system, doesn't cause headaches, work with suspend, etc...

But by showing them we don't even appreciate their effort to support Linux and we don't like their drivers is not the way to go.

Instead, we should remind them that we want stable and reliable drivers in the first place, but would like to have them open source.

Because we depend more on them as they on us. Without Nvidia, I wouldn't even be able to play Nexuiz and Planeshift, and the other games I play.


This applies as well to Adobe - some people were bashing Adobe that flash player is closed source - but at the end we can be glad Adobe tries at least to support us.

Just my thoughts...

[Kure]

Well, while I think your effort for good Nvidia/Ati drivers is very nice, it think it's the wrong way to do it.

See:

Nvidia & Ati are at least trying to support Linux (with Nvidia being the more successful ATM). Ati & Nvidia could easily drop the support for Linux if they wanted - they do still not depend of that 5% of Linux users for their business, and Linux would be set back a lot until the Noveau nvidia drivers are ready - or any other drivers.

Sure, we all want drivers that are open source so that they integrate more cleanly with the system, doesn't cause headaches, work with suspend, etc...

But by showing them we don't even appreciate their effort to support Linux and we don't like their drivers is not the way to go.

Instead, we should remind them that we want stable and reliable drivers in the first place, but would like to have them open source.

Because we depend more on them as they on us. Without Nvidia, I wouldn't even be able to play Nexuiz and Planeshift, and the other games I play.


This applies as well to Adobe - some people were bashing Adobe that flash player is closed source - but at the end we can be glad Adobe tries at least to support us.

Just my thoughts...

ATI wouldn't produce drivers if they really weren't forced to - and still, their drivers look like being created by primary school programming hobby course. After years. Why? Because they think it is not viable. So increase the costs induced by not producing working (not necessarily open-source, but just working) drivers.

[Sunflower1970]

If Dell really does begin selling systems with a choice of Linux (or no OS) on it, I'm sure companies like nVidia and ATI (ESPECIALLY ATI) will work harder to create drivers for Linux...since, I'm sure, Dell would begin asking them for it...

[beniwtv]

ATI wouldn't produce drivers if they really weren't forced to - and still, their drivers look like being created by primary school programming hobby course. After years. Why? Because they think it is not viable. So increase the costs induced by not producing working (not necessarily open-source, but just working) drivers.

While I agree partly with you on this, and that all software should be open source (it really should!), it's not always possible from a business point of view.

Let's imagine you have a company, that builds a software that allows customers to access account details on the web, etc, etc... .

Well, the company might not like to give the source code of the application to not to allow 'easily' access for everyone that knows a username/password, because then somebody could 'easily' access directly that information without the app - which is beyond the control of that company.

Sure, there are ways to make your things secure, but how any companies do really invest much effort and time in making really something that is 100% secure, even when used by any open source program and/or guy?

Or, a company developing a hardware component. They put a chip in which only does I/O. The rest is made by software. In this case, the company can not really control what's being made with that hardware, when giving the driver open source - and this *could* be a legal problem for that company.

Ideally, I say, get rid of that closed source - make better hardware components, and make an open source driver so that everyone can use your product.

Sadly, this is not always possible, a thing what drives me mad, but as long as we live in this capitalism world, that's going to be the way.

[Kure]

While I agree partly with you on this, and that all software should be open source (it really should!), it's not always possible from a business point of view.

Let's imagine you have a company, that builds a software that allows customers to access account details on the web, etc, etc... .

Well, the company might not like to give the source code of the application to not to allow 'easily' access for everyone that knows a username/password, because then somebody could 'easily' access directly that information without the app - which is beyond the control of that company.

Sure, there are ways to make your things secure, but how any companies do really invest much effort and time in making really something that is 100% secure, even when used by any open source program and/or guy?

Or, a company developing a hardware component. They put a chip in which only does I/O. The rest is made by software. In this case, the company can not really control what's being made with that hardware, when giving the driver open source - and this *could* be a legal problem for that company.

Ideally, I say, get rid of that closed source - make better hardware components, and make an open source driver so that everyone can use your product.

Sadly, this is not always possible, a thing what drives me mad, but as long as we live in this capitalism world, that's going to be the way.

I believe they can create open-source part of the driver (as they do now) and closed-source part with the specific functions, which are platform independent (if they weren't, it would be too expensive to make them work with Vista). So, I don't say "let's ask them for open source drivers" (although I believe they could relase the 2D part of their drivers), I want them to offer working drivers (supporting e.g. AIXGL). I understand their reasons for secrecy about inner working of the driver, but that doesn't mean they can't create a good API, usable by Xorg/XGl/whatever.



Sadly, this is not always possible, a thing what drives me mad, but as long as we live in this capitalism world, that's going to be the way.

Only capitalism gave us the drivers we have now - they would loose far too many customers without fglrx. What I want is to use capitalism - and the Internet. Capitalism (or rather some sort of capitalism, we don't have pure capitalism anywhere in the "civilised" world) offers us a chance to cast dollar vote. By not buying their product, or by inducing higher fixed costs. We can flood their servers and customer support - and thus increase their fixed costs they cannot change. They need customer support no matter how many graphic cards they sell. And we can use the Internet to coordinate such movement to strike in one single day...

[karellen]

it's their right not to make something about their software as it's your right not to buy their products. and...why do you need drivers for 3d acceleration in linux as there are almost no games? beryl maybe?...:)

[Kure]

it's their right not to make something about their software as it's your right not to buy their products. and...why do you need drivers for 3d acceleration in linux as there are almost no games? beryl maybe?...:)

It is my right to get the same support as other customers get - specifically, drivers. In other way, they have hidden part of the price of their products - Windows license.

Why 3D? Beryl, video acceleration/playback, and games - why do you think there aren't many games for Linux - there aren't many gamers. Why? Because it is relatively hard to make games work. Wine is enough work, why have problems with drivers? You paid for the hardware - did you pay less because you don't use 3D acceleration?

[karellen]

well....wine it's too complicated and bothering. if you want to play, use windows. and no driver problems. I don't need proprietary drivers, the open source ones are good enough for me. I quit playing. even with beryl/compiz and so on

[beniwtv]

I believe they can create open-source part of the driver (as they do now) and closed-source part with the specific functions, which are platform independent (if they weren't, it would be too expensive to make them work with Vista). So, I don't say "let's ask them for open source drivers" (although I believe they could relase the 2D part of their drivers), I want them to offer working drivers (supporting e.g. AIXGL). I understand their reasons for secrecy about inner working of the driver, but that doesn't mean they can't create a good API, usable by Xorg/XGl/whatever.

Well, then we agree. That was what I tried to say in an earlier post - at least push them to make working drivers, and by meaning "working" I mean suspend and other things too. ot even to mention the crashes...

A good API is great ieda - however Nvidia & Ati never will implement a common API - rather we have to rely on OpenGL and hope they always will 100% support it. And I see nothing wrong with OpenGL so far - correct me if I'm wrong.




(we don't have pure capitalism anywhere in the "civilised" world)

Well, what's about Microsoft then?

[Kure]

Well, then we agree. That was what I tried to say in an earlier post - at least push them to make working drivers, and by meaning "working" I mean suspend and other things too. ot even to mention the crashes...

A good API is great ieda - however Nvidia & Ati never will implement a common API - rather we have to rely on OpenGL and hope they always will 100% support it. And I see nothing wrong with OpenGL so far - correct me if I'm wrong.




Well, what's about Microsoft then?


A common API is not necessary, an API for each driver is needed - with or without heavily using OpenGL (which is good).


Microsoft would make people pay for Service pack (released as new versions of OS) :-D

[beniwtv]

Why 3D? Beryl, video acceleration/playback, and games - why do you think there aren't many games for Linux - there aren't many gamers. Why? Because it is relatively hard to make games work.

Yes, you're right. There are plenty of games for Linux - just we don't always know of them.

And, if we had the opportunity to play more games in Linux, we certainly would - Companies: make Linux games NOW! :)

[Kure]

Yes, you're right. There are plenty of games for Linux - just we don't alway know of them.

And, if we had the opportunity to play more games in Linux, we certainly would - Companies: make Linux games NOW! :)

They need to know that if they sell the game, it will work. It is OK right now to rely on Wine, which makes development, or porting, cheaper (for now). But how do you want to sell a decent game without proper hardware 3D support? Even old games run are horribly slow in Wine without 3D hardware (not mentioning DOSBox).

We have to start at hardware vendors - that is the reason why I am suggesting to make them "suffer" a bit.

[beniwtv]

They need to know that if they sell the game, it would work.

Well, I'm on the way of fixing that - at least for software companies. See the link in my signature.



It is OK right now to rely on Wine, which would make development, or porting, cheaper (for now). But how do you want to sell a decent game without proper hardware 3D support? Even old games run are horribly slow in Wine without 3D hardware (not mentioning DOSBox).

We have to start at hardware vendors - that is the reason why I am suggesting to make them "suffer" a bit.

Hardware vendors - soon or later - will have to support Linux. It's just a matter of time I think. And of course, without proper 3D support from them, all porting or development technologies are not very useful.

I think that Ati/Nvida think: "For now 2D works on open source drivers, so why bother much about 3D anyway? There are no gamers that want them."

Obviously, that's not true.

Ok, Nvidia works great for me - but there still are issues that need to be resolved.

[Kure]

Well, I'm on the way of fixing that - at least for software companies. See the link in my signature.



Hardware vendors - soon or later - will have to support Linux. It's just a matter of time I think. And of course, without proper 3D support from them, all porting or development technologies are not very useful.

I think that Ati/Nvida think: "For now 2D works on open source drivers, so why bother much about 3D anyway? There are no gamers that want them."

Obviously, that's not true.

Ok, Nvidia works great for me - but there still are issues that need to be resolved.

They should solve these issues, or at least cooperate to solve them. They don\t know about this, so reminding them may help.

[beniwtv]

They should solve these issues, or at least cooperate to solve them. They don\t know about this, so reminding them may help.

Yes, they should cooperate more - but that's sadly a thing I don't see happen in the near future - no matter how hard we try.

And that's sad. Linux has really great potential. :-({|=

[Kure]

Yes, they should cooperate more - but that's sadly a thing I don't see happen in the near future - no matter how hard we try.

And that's sad. Linux has really great potential. :-({|=

They will cooperate if it will be cheaper than ignoring Linux. They can't ignore the publicity - I wonder if this will work if a protest was planned useing Digg/Slashdot...