The SLI Godfather 86
CaptCanuk writes "Phoronix has an insightful article about the motivation behind Nvidia's alternative operating system support. From the article: 'When it comes time for a user to upgrade their computer hardware, and decide to go with a choice from a leading manufacturer of graphics solutions, software support is a given, correct? Wrong.' Read on to find out what truly funds their development and why some think they treat Linux as a second hand citizen."
This should be on the front page (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft didn't have such a significant segment of the PC market, they would also have to make deals with hardware manufacturers to get drivers written. NVIDIA needs to support Microsoft, so NVIDIA foots the bill with tons of help from MS. HP needed NVIDIA support, so HP was the one who ended up paying for the development.
It's not about conspiracies, it's about money and the need to have a hand in a market segment. If Linux owned a significant percentage of PCs, you'd see NVIDIA tripping over themselves to get a driver written (if it weren't a trade secret risk).
Driver support (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they are never going to use Linux, they still get an NVIDIA instead of an ATI card, just because NVIDIA provides the better drivers.
None of them provider good OS drivers tho
How is this article insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't doubt that some of it might be true, but at the same time, I don't see anything in here that really makes me turn around and go "Wow, HP paid xxxxxxxx for NVidia to write Linux drivers"
From what I have seen previously, the reason that NVidia make the driver available is because it's an easy port. That's why their IP is worth so much. Admittedly this isn't backed up with fact (Or at least a link to a website) either, but a quick google should see you good, right?
*sigh*
I disagree (but you're right) (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, I disagree. While the authors do not prove any of the points they are making, it is very much standard industry practice for one company to pay another to develop software. If HP needs Linux drivers for their latest CGI-oriented workstations, then they will need to pay NVidia to develop them. If NVidia really needed those Linux drivers, it would have been their first priority to develop and ship them with the release of the HW.
There really isn't a conspiracy to keep drivers out of FreeBSD or Linux or whatever niche OS you're running. The only question is who is going to pay for those drivers. If you need it the most, you will pay for it. NVidia *needs* Windows drivers, so they pay for it themselves. Try getting NVidia to release drivers for Symbian. It's never going to happen without a wad of cash.
Re:I disagree (but you're right) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another topic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when your kernel developers refuse to provide a stable driver API.
Yes, it would be better if drivers were open, but it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if Linux provided a stable driver API. It'd make everyone's lives easier if the APIs were more stable. People who won't release an open driver for whatever reason would at least be more likely to develop closed drivers, users already using closed drivers would have less issues going forward, and people writing drivers would no longer have to worry about hitting a constantly moving target.
Re:Windows drivers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ballmer needs to stomp his feet and party's over! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're in it for the money, and their real customer base consists of Windows gamers. Now, these customers are rather picky about stable and optimized drivers. They read articles about benchmarks, and a driver that squeezes out an extra 5pfs will in many cases make the difference between $300 of revenue or similar money in the pockets of the competitor. That's why NVidia work hard on Windows. It's their lifeline.
We're living in an age when Microsoft doesn't fear Linux on the desktop. They just don't; they think it's a joke. Suppose something happens to change their mind, and they really start competing in their ham-fisted, machiavellian way. They really only need to do one thing to destroy desktop Linux: Make a phone call to NVidia. Ballmer: "Hey, you know all that work you do on Linux drivers that makes you almost no revenue? Well, stop it. Stop it or you will find some rather unfriendly code in Vista sp1. End communication."
That's all it would take. Remember that starting next year, if you don't have a 3D-accelerated desktop, your machine will look like a dinosaur. So never mind Linux games. Just the regular desktop will look and work like crap without the proper GPU acceleration. And proper GPU acceleration on Linux is impossible without the mercy of GPU manufacturers. This is really the greatest Achilles' heel of OSS. Just one phone call by Ballmer (maybe involving a thrown chair) is enough to cut off the air supply of OSS on the desktop. There is no remedy. Linus was writing code for a chip (386) with documented internals. He did a great job. GPU manufacturers won't document the internals, they keep changing anyway, and trying to reverse-engineer something is probably banned by the DMCA.
This is the grim lesson I leaned from TFA.
Stable API only helps out of tree drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
I was chatting to Linux kernel developer about a year ago and he described how in the early 90s he found a remote security hole in a closed source operating system. He let the vendor know but the vendor did not patch the hole for over a year. To fix the hole the vendor had to change the API (which of course was set in stone) which would break all sorts of other things so the problem sat around unfixed until the next major release of the operating system.
The number one reason for running an out of tree driver on Linux is because it is a binary driver. And there are Linux developers who don't want to help binary driver developers [kroah.com]. The prerogative is with the Linux devs - it's their kernel and perhaps it is those very open drivers that are keep said developers working on it. Secretly, I think you need the resources of Microsoft to produce APIs that don't change for years on end and support a large range of software but I'm told the NetBSD folks do this too. Why don't people simply use NetBSD rather than complaining?
Re:Another topic (Score:3, Insightful)
People who won't release an open driver for whatever reason would at least be more likely to develop closed drivers, users already using closed drivers would have less issues going forward, and people writing drivers would no longer have to worry about hitting a constantly moving target.
So fork Linux and create a version with an API that promises to be stable, backporting improvements from Linus' version.
I'm actually not suggesting that you, personally, do this, just pointing out that someone could and if it were that valuable, someone probably would. Red Hat, IBM, Novell and others have the resources to provide Linux kernels with a stable driver API, but they obviously don't feel it's worth the effort, and buy into Linus' position that it would cost Linux more than it would gain Linux.
It's a tradeoff, and the concensus decision is that flexibility, ease of debugging and the ability to keep the APIs clean are more important than enabling closed-source drivers. Keep in mind that the core team of Linux developers, headed by Linus, aren't really open source fanatics. Their motivation for not helping closed-source drivers isn't because they have an RMS-like abhorrence of closed source, but because it makes their jobs much harder in real, pragmatic ways. It's not that they discourage closed drivers in order to force companies to provide open drivers, but that they don't want closed drivers to hobble and destabilize Linux.
Re:Where are RedHat, Novel, IBM, etc on this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ballmer needs to stomp his feet and party's ove (Score:2, Insightful)
And it takes just one nVidia employee to spill the beans, and Microsoft finds itself in some rather hot water. I'm not saying that MS wouldn't do such a thing, but they would want to think very long and hard about the approach they take; something that ham fisted would be prima facie evidence of monopoly abuse.
All we would need then is somebody in the US government with the backbone to take such a charge and make it stick. Oh. Never mind.