Linus Torvalds Gives 'Thumbs Up' To Nvidia For Nouveau Contributions 169
sfcrazy writes "Linus Torvalds has had some harsh words for Nvidia in the past. Their failure to work constructively with the Linux community is especially disappointing in light of the company's large presence in the Android market. That said, where there is life, there is change, and that is just what happened yesterday. Torvalds publicly gave a thumbs-up to Nvidia for contributing basic support for the recently released Nvidia K1 processor to Nouveau; something that was totally unexpected but received with open arms. 'Hey, this time I'm raising a thumb for nvidia. Good times,' said Linus."
nVidia binary blob drivers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I think moderators jumped the gun here. It is a fair point to make that the commenter voted with his wallet.
Re: me too (Score:3, Insightful)
You'be either never owned an nvidia product, or an ati.
I've owned two ati machines. For both of them, ati grew tired of supporting them long before I was done with the hardware. Now I have a laptop that works great except for its worthless ati video card. The open source driver is so slow it is worthless and the closed source one doesn't support a modern x11 server.
Nvidia may be closed source, but it works.
Re: (Score:3)
When I upgraded my PC I used the old parts to build an XBMC HTPC. The old MB was perfect because it had onboard video, audio, ethernet so it didn't require any cards (super low profile).
The onboard video was an ATI Radeon HD 4xxx and a pain in the butt. I couldn't just make a bootable thumbdrive as > Ubuntu 12.04 wouldn't support that card. And the XBMC version that was bundled with 12.04 had other issues.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, a $35 Raspberry Pi works great as an XBMC box. Silent, low power, and can be taped to the back of the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post does not have the ring of truth. I have been using open source Radeon drivers for years, without issue. Performance is good enough that the pain of switching back to binary never seems worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
-- running XBMCbuntu on AT5IONT-I since forever
...which has an nvidia GPU. Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a ten year old chip at 110 nm, right? Seriously playing games on it?
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago we played a bit of Left4Dead (on Windows), it ran well at 800x600 on a buddy's RV370 - Radeon X300SE, it used to be a highly common card. ATI dropped support because it's based on the Radeon 9700's architecture, which was several years old at that point.
Re:nVidia binary blob drivers (Score:4, Insightful)
nVidia's drivers have been the reason I've consistently purchased their products. On any OS, ATi/AMD have been consistently buggy and useless.
Re: (Score:2)
It may depend heavily on what you do. For performance tasks (games, fancy CAD, and [IMO] C-based compute), ATI/AMD drivers have been total garbage for as long as I've been in the market.
For 2D GUI purposes, I've never had a problem with any of them, but my Quadro experience is very limited -- Perhaps your issue is more hardware than software?
I'm curious what your use case is, though, that you need 24/7 embedded graphics? Manufacturing? I guess if you are doing 24-hour CNC work?
Re: nVidia binary blob drivers (Score:2)
You sound unfortunate. I guess if I bought one of these high spec items and had trouble then I could call tech support and get the explanation about the weak QC and an apology and immediate RMA for something that does what it says.
Linus is an asswhole for the greater good (Score:5, Insightful)
The results and tact that Linus uses this falls clearly in the acceptable category. He believes in high standards, but never goes out-of-bounds into silly land.
Something to admire, in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
He believes in high standards, but never goes out-of-bounds into silly land.
Never?
Linus gets results (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Linus gets results (Score:4, Informative)
Why, exactly?
- AMD's open driver is in *awesome* shape in latest 3.13, 3.12 brought the biggest improvements.
- AMD has been invested millions in open projects like Gallium3D, Mesa, etc to improve their drivers.
- AMD has been released specs for their hardware since 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sucks that every kernel upgrade causes me to start linux in safe mode and recompile the driver. Hopefully, this will end some day.
If its good enough for Linus (Score:5, Funny)
Then its good enough for me too. So "Thumbs up!" Nvidia!
In the wake of the Snowden revelations... (Score:2, Interesting)
Another factor that might be pushing vendors to provide information to open source developers and/or publishing open source drivers is the fallout from the Snowden revelations.
People worldwide have awakened to the possibility that malware may be imbedded in closed drivers and firmware (including closed "binary blobs" embedded in open-source drivers). Indeed, it WAS imbedded in some - and sold as a feature. (Example: Intel's AMT, early versions of which lived in and ran from the Ethernet interface firmwar
Re: (Score:2)
Now, that's a WTF. Code that shouldn't be touching the network at all, yet has remotely exploitable bugs.
You never display anything that came in over the network? Your browsing must be REALLY boring.
What's next, being able to take things out of my refrigerator from the nearest highway, even though my refrigerator does not leave my kitchen?
Funny you should mention refrigerators. Wasn't it last week when the stories came out about the botnets made of unpatched Internet of Things devices, turned into spam-tr
Are you reading AMD/ATI? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, this is what we find with the free Radeon drivers that support all sorts of old and modern hardware while at the same time, will automagically work on a modern OS.
Or we find that AMD has made hardware which has never been supported on Linux by any driver, like the R690M/X1250. When it was brand new fglrx claimed that it was too old to be supported, and the free driver has always had display corruption on it which has only gotten worse over the years. I won't even consider buying AMD graphics until that machine is supported; I still have it, and I run Vista on it because that's what came with it. Odds are it will never be supported, and I will never buy another AMD gr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? Wait, no, it only lasts as long as the developers stay interested. As soon as they come up with something different to work on you're 'impeding progress' by still wanting to use the older system. How many times does the init system need to be replaced? Don't like systemd? Tough, unless you're using Slackware or Gentoo. Don't like GRUB2? Tough. Don't like Wayland? You're a Luddite and won't matter soon anyway (I expect xorg to stop developing X11 when Wayland is released).
(if only XSGI or
Thumbs up, Xinerama still broken! (Score:2)
Collaboration strictly limited to Tegra K1+ (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, I'm a Nouveau developer and I had a chance to discuss with an nvidia engineer @ FOSDEM. This collaboration is strictly limited to Tegra and on the kernel side (at least for the moment).
There is some overlap with the desktop cards (mostly Kepler family) which will allow us to benefit of this collaboration in more than the SoC world. This is however very interesting and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it will pan out!
Re:Collaboration strictly limited to Tegra K1+ (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not news that nVidia will never be able to release full information on their legacy lines. They're encumbered by having got into bed with Microsoft. They tied their cards closely to DirectX and they'll never escape. The Tegra product is a wholly separate line not tainted by that relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
In Finland (Score:2)
Is upward thumbs is the equivalent of a middle finger?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme" or such (can't find a link sorry). (Also that if a GNU kernel or 386BSD had existed that he probably wouldn't've wrote Linux [wikipedia.org].)
That doesn't excuse G+ use (the first link actually caught me off guard...me and my stupid blind-clicking), but he doesn't see himself as so much of a strict FOSS advocate, so you probably see why he wouldn't give as much of a crap
Re: (Score:2)
From the article you linked to...
"Although not released until 1992 due to legal complications, development of 386BSD, from which NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD descended, predated that of Linux. Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux.[32]"
A 386 BSD *had* "existed" but it's future was cloudy due to lawsuit. Had the timing of those legal questions been more favorable, there would be no Linux today.
Re: (Score:3)
The project had weak leadership and a huge amount of infighting, which is the real reason 3 different *BSDs forked out of it. Its quite possible Torvolds looked at the BSD mailinglists and said "forget them!"
Is it safe to be exposed to such high levels of irony?
Re:Why do Free/Open Source gurus use Google+? (Score:5, Informative)
Torvalds has said in the past something about that he doesn't want to associate with "free software" (or at least FSF) types because they're so "extreme" or such (can't find a link sorry).
This [lkml.org] probably isn't the link that you were referring to but in the discussion around GPLv3 he does mention that Linux has always been Open Source as opposed to Free Software and the FSF evangelizing Linux as a free software project is not something he advocates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it would have been nigh on impossible to do anyway given all the contributions by individuals and companies.
"Or any later version"
Only if the authors specifically used that license, the default for the kernel is GPLv2 only. And it's not a democracy, if authors refuse or can't be located or are dead with no heirs to manage the estate the only safe way would be to totally write out those patches. Some have suggested various "abandonware" or "implied by contributing" theories to give the project authority to relicense but it'd be a legal landmine field. For example USC 17506(d): "Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Or any later version".
No, this was addressed years ago when the GPLv3 draft was first released:
The "version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" language in the GPL copying file is not - and has never been - part of the actual License itself. It's part of the _explanatory_ text that talks about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some author
Re: (Score:2)
Well he's somewhere on the half way between BSD and FSF. BSD people care about usage (open, proprietary, doesn't matter), FSF people care about freedom (abiltiy to fix it yourself). Linus cares about the source code and the project. He doesn't care that Tivo locks down their machine as long as he gets any improvements they make so he can roll it into his own kernel and run it on his machine. Linus doesn't like the GPLv3, Linus doesn't like the BSD license, he likes the GPLv2 no more and no less. What he wan
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, suggesting that Linus isn't perfect gets a down mod? I would suggest that some mod isn't perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Linus attacking the FSF all the time is hard to explain and tends to come across as petty rivalry.
He isn't attacking the FSF, in fact he is saying their work on the GPLv2 is brilliant, he just doesn't subscribe to their ideology.
Re:Why do Free/Open Source gurus use Google+? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe if those FSF types had spent more time innovating and creating a product people want then people might actually use Free Software,
*cough* *cough* Gcc, Libc, etc etc *cough* *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but gcc was pretty much the only game in town for many years and gcc remains in development and very widely used.
Re:Why do Free/Open Source gurus use Google+? (Score:5, Interesting)
If we assume that the Linux team does something similar, its probably easy for Linus to get his ideas across on a social media platform where a decent portion of his development community lives. I have seen many ex-Google friends follow this same trend when they leave Google and create their start-ups. Chris Messina do it with NeonMob, as well as a few others that I met at Plus20. I cannot say this is necessarily the single best method, but it might be that they don't like FB, Twitter's limitations make it harder to utilize in this manner, so G+ is the next best place to put your ideas down for a large user base to view.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Re:Why do Free/Open Source gurus use Google+? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Its not the facebook fans that hate it.
Its the people who have seen the abuse that things like facebook have done to violate people's privacy.
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random
hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
When one of these copycat services, provides public/private key encryption capabilities with the server side
not knowing your private key, let me know. But in the meantime, I trust regular old email (encrypted where necessary)
more than a central repository in the hands of a third party that can't make any money without selling something
to me, or breaking their promise and selling me to someone else After all, once you agree to go
public with a Plus profile, you've essentially surrendered the last vestige of your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I use email. I'm not putting up anything on G+ that I would want to hide from the entire world. Though it is problematic at time. Such as the android phone wanting to tie all its services to my G+ account if it can, that is I can't use a G+ app without it thinking that account should be used for everything. Targeted advertisements creep me out. I used to wonder if G+ was only for Doctor Who fans since that's half of all the public stuff I see, then realized that Google is filtering content based on
Re: (Score:2)
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random
hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
And how is this different than any other company? It's not. If you're worried about these things, you shouldn't be using any online products/services from any corporation at all. In
Re: (Score:2)
Regular old email can't be used to publish a blog to anyone in the world who cares to read it. You could use a blogging service, but then that could be hacked by some random hacker. Or, you could get an account with a hosting service and set up your own Wordpress site, but there again some random hacker could hack it, so that won't work for you either.
He was talking about privacy violation, if everything you put on Google+ is stuff you don't mind being public then there's not going to be any violation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point. If you're posting stuff for the world to read, then why would you care about "privacy violations"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The main problem with privacy on social networks, as far as I can tell, is presenting different information to different people. You might like to use your social network account to say something to a bunch of family members (perhaps talking about a reunion, or problems with a deadbeat sibling, etc.) which you don't want your employer or other acquaintances to see. Or you might like to share political things with your close friends which of course you don't want your employer or the whole world to see. S
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you post anything else?
Private messaging, private groups, hangouts...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's entirely true. However, if your whole goal is to share information with other people, then it's by definition going to be out of your hands one way or another. If you want complete privacy, then you shouldn't be using social networks at all. The whole point of them is to share things with others. The problem is that people frequently like to compartmentalize their sharing, so the best compromise you're going to get is to use a service that allows you to do that, and has a reputation for upho
Re: (Score:2)
Read the beginning of this very thread:
Google+, despite what a lot of people think, is very popular for companies to utilize for work projects. Hangouts is a great way to create conference calls, and since its tied into your other Google services like Drive, you can pretty much use it as a company intranet.
Letting Google, or any third party, be privy to all of your company's internal affairs is quite a precarious position to voluntarily put yourself in. This is the context in which this thread started.
Re: (Score:3)
Letting Google, or any third party, be privy to all of your company's internal affairs is quite a precarious position to voluntarily put yourself in.
Yes, but tons of companies do it all the time by using "cloud" services. You can't single out Google for this; if your company uses any cloud services at all, then it's making the same mistake. This also applies to the many, many large corporations who outsource their IT services. It's all-or-nothing: either never use any 3rd-party cloud services at all, and
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't single out Google: I specifically said "or any third party". I'll stop using the name Google and use "cloud" from now on if that'll ease your need to apologize for them.
Anyway, the solution to realizing that you've given someone else the keys to your kingdom and free access to all business negotiations and trade secrets isn't to "stop worrying about it", which is exactly my point.
Relying on a "cloud" company for all of your IT services is negligent and short-sighted. Having another company supply i
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, the solution to realizing that you've given someone else the keys to your kingdom and free access to all business negotiations and trade secrets isn't to "stop worrying about it", which is exactly my point.
What other solution is there? Now that most Fortune 500 companies have outsourced their IT services, what the heck is the point of worrying about other entities having access to this information?
Relying on a "cloud" company for all of your IT services is negligent and short-sighted. Having anothe
Re: (Score:2)
What other solution is there? Now that most Fortune 500 companies have outsourced their IT services, what the heck is the point of worrying about other entities having access to this information?
Well you could pick a cloud provider that does not know your encryption key [spideroak.com] at all. That way you get the the advantages of collaboration without the public exposure.
Or you could set up OwnCloud. [owncloud.org]
Admittedly these to not offer all the advantages of Plus and Drive.
Re: (Score:2)
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
Well, Google's word plus the annual privacy audits mandated by the FTC consent decree that came out of the Buzz fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
Well, Google's word plus the annual privacy audits mandated by the FTC consent decree that came out of the Buzz fiasco.
Correction: The audit is biennial, not annual.
Re:Why do Free/Open Source gurus use Google+? (Score:4, Insightful)
I HATE Google+ for one simple reason... Google is trying very, very hard to push it down the throats of everyone using any google services.
I used-to write reviews for Android apps in the Play Store, no problem... Now I can't do so, nor even vote an app, or a review of an app as helpful, unhelpful, or flag it as spam, without a G+ account. Nag nag nag. Strange that everything worked fine before G+, but now G+ is strictly required.
Nearly the same is true for YouTube. There is no end to the nagging about linking a G+ account. And they make it a one-click process, so you click "OK" once by accident, and you've got a G+ account populated with your private information and address book from your gmail account, and all your information is now subjected to their insanely intrusive G+ (lack-of...) privacy policy.
Google+ is plain, old-fashioned, SPAM.
Re: (Score:2)
It goes the other way too. Ie, you can't use Google+ without also having a stupid youtube account. Clicked by accident now I have that youtube account I can't get rid of. If I upload pictures they are a part of picassa automatically. So why blame Google+ while not blaming Youtube also? Google wants a universal account which is the core problem, not Google+ itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't there plenty of other, and Free, ways to publish?
I believe there are, but they're probably not widely enough used to be worthwhile for the desired purpose: to communicate.
It's not the end of the world but when someone like Linus Torvalds does it I think it sends a message that undermines the value placed on FOSS systems.
I don't think so. I do not believe that the value of Free systems is undermined by making any use of any non-Free systems or components. For example, most (if not all) banks use proprietary software for their ATMs. This does not mean that I expect every prominent figure in the Free and Open Source software world to boycott ATMs and go to a human teller when they need to get some money ou
Re: (Score:3)
"Though if memory serves, didn't Torvalds and Stallman have an argument on Google+? If even Stallman thinks Google+ is acceptable enough, it can't be that undermining to the value of Free systems."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
I kind of doubt Richard Stallman has a Google+ account tough there are probably multiple fake accounts of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
"For personal reasons, he generally does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For personal reasons, he generally does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox, claiming to limit direct access via browsers to a few sites such as his own or those related to his work with GNU and the FSF
He's an "Amish" programmer?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it sounds more like he has principles and wishes to stick to them. In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with all the anger and idiocy of the emacs split some time back RMS at least did not prevent the emacs developer of the time from using the code despite RMS having control of the copyright. He sticks to the principles he preaches.
I've got slightly different ones and think that claiming the work of others as my own is just not on even if it is "in a good cause" such as "calling attention to gnu" with the LiGnuX and gnu/linux thi
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument.
It hurts your brain, not my argument. If you've been alive even a few years, you'd probably know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world of unprincipled people (such as people who sacrifice freedom for safety), I guess principled people would sound "crazy" to those people.
Freedom is not one thing, the intentionally vague use of it just hurts your argument. RMS gives up a certain amount of freedoms for safety too so your argument is invalid anyway.
RMS is a todays hermit. He thinks that conveniences of modern life are enslaving him, so he learned to live without them and sees it as liberation. What he does is not different than refusal to use money (seen as Mammon), or many rules by which Amish or orthodox Jews live.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's better than Facebook at least.
Are there FOSS alternatives to Facebook and Google+ that are actually used by a number of people?
Linus uses Google+ for more than just commenting on kernels and such, he sends photos what's happening on his vacations and so forth, like a typical social network person. However as a minor celebrity he can have people follow him without him accepting friend requests and such, split people into separate groups for posting purposes (though I heard facebook evolved to do
Re: (Score:2)
I hear status.net and friendica.com are useful but have not tried either personally.
"that are actually used by a number of people?"
Oh. Not that I'm aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the ability for someone to run a FOSS environment is largely because of work done by Linus, doesn't mean he's actually a FOSS advocate. He's always used the best tool for the job be that open source or otherwise. Usually he'll eventually write some alternative that fits his needs better (see Git), but I doubt he plans on writing a social networking tool.
Re: (Score:2)
He has on occasion really pissed people off by going overboard with the "pragmatism" which degenerated into a huge mess with the Bitkeeper fiasco for example. Didn't believe the warnings he got. Eventually bailed his rep out out by coming up with Git, but that doesn't mean he wasn't just acting stupid at the time, in fact that is arguably where the Git name comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideals really went out the window there didn't they? "Respect no licence but mine" doesn't sound fair does it?
Forcing Linus to roll his own wasn't a victory for free software but instead the consequences of a wrecker who did not respect the very thing free software is built upon - respect for the licence terms that the person who has provided the software asks for.
Re: (Score:2)
Your story is pure revisionism. Bitkeeper blew up because the proprietor keep changing the license terms to be more draconian, which everybody knew would happen except Linus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a great comedian.
Re: (Score:2)
To me free software looks like it is all about respecting the views of the people producing and distributing the code. To me the bitkeeper licence violation goes against that philosophy no matter what the terms of the licence are.
A lack of convenience is not enough of an excuse to break the terms of a licence - or indeed to revise history if it's inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Using Bitkeeper for OSS development in the first place was stupid, that was the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can assure you, you do not have a clue what you are talking about. You are throwing around a serious allegation without substantiation and it is pretty disgusting actually. I am sure you have some twisted concept of what "substantiation means" and you will justify yourself to the ends of the earth. Bye.
What's with the false outrage? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the very thing free software is built upon - respect for the licence terms that the person who has provided the software asks for.
Oh, please. Copyleft is a reaction against copyright, not an endorsement of it. Free software is built on the idea that users should have free access to the source code for the software they use and the right to modify it as they choose, and redistribute the modifications under the same terms. The only reason to choose copyleft over public domain, if you happen to fall into that camp, is the fear that some company will take the software, develop and promote it to the point that no one uses the original vers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"licence terms" which is different to the copyright you are complaining about.
The "right" to set license terms derives from copyright. Without copyright no one needs a license, so there are no license terms. Everything is public domain.
The point, in case you missed it, is that the foundation of free software is a community of developers who want software to be free, not "respect for license terms", which is something many in the free software camp do not have. Copyleft is first and foremost a pragmatic tool to be used against others who do want licenses to be respected (so that they
Re: (Score:2)
If it were really a community of developers who want their software to be "free" they'd release everything public domain. That's not what they want. They want software which will remain "free" which requires enforcement of the terms they place on it. Without copyright it is impossible to keep software free as in speech in any meaningful way. Anyone can modify it, keep those modifications private and contribute nothing back.
Re: (Score:2)
...for how communication gets skewed fast these days.
'Hey, this time I'm raising a thumb
<pedantic mode="on">Speaking of skewed communication: isn't it weird to welcome a Tegra driver with open [opencores.org] ARMs [wikipedia.org]?</pedantic>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the Amber core was based on an older version of the ARM, in order to avoid IP problems. Not sure, though...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nouveau has been fine, but I'm not a gamer. Now nv (Score:2)
The open source driver has been fine for me. I'm not a gamer, though. For games, I don't know. In any event, since Nvidia is now beginning to contribute rather than obstruct work on Nouveau, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be similar to the proprietary driver very soon.
Re: (Score:3)
if you use linux, you understand that nouveau isn't about "competing" with the binary driver. It has many advanatages that come with open source such as unlimited redistribution rights, and it plays nice with other drivers, between the two making it the only option for LiveCDs and with that install CDs.
Noveau is almostly always installed by default with Xorg. It also works on a larger variety of hardware.
Nouvea is essential for getting a GUI on linux to "just work", even if the proprietary bl
Re: (Score:2)
The nvidia driver has unlimited redistribution rights. It's the Linux guys that have an issue with free non-open source software (nvidia ships with Solaris (and Open Solaris) without issue).
Re: (Score:2)
but from now until they stop beta, I am participating in the slashcott
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of office computers with nvidia that don't need anything more complicated than multi-screen support.