Discussion: Partial Open-Source GPU Drivers
Phoronix: Discussion: Partial Open-Source GPU Drivers
Last week VIA re-released their Chrome 9 DRM in hopes of pushing it into the mainline Linux kernel. However, the only user of this DRM code at present is their Linux binary graphics driver and VIA Technologies has no intentions of providing an open-source Chrome 9 3D driver...
I agree with Stephane Marchesin. If a company does not support open source or free software, then I don't support them.
I tend to be a little more pragmatic than most on issues like this. If the binary driver works perfectly then honestly, I could give a rats ass if it isn't open source. I could care less about the politics - I just want things working properly.
As far as the security risks and possibilities of future breakage: Well those are very important concerns, so I think I'll leave the debate up to the experts
I no expert but I too see the darkness in proprietary drivers, but how is this different from the current binary blob situation? Besides the binary blob having some GPl code sprinkled on top?
For example the nvidia blob. It has problems with new kernels, and has to "catch up" to them. If nvidia release a new GPL sprinkled version of their blob, it would still have to catch up to stay current.
And the blob probably has some unknown security problems too. But it seems better to have security problems in user-space, with the xserver running as user rather than root.
Keeping proprietary drivers from working with the latest kernel functions would only make things stay the same rather than to improve a little.
It would not make the binary blobs go away, voting with your wallet maybe can.
If only open source drivers have latest kernel functions, many people may consider buying hardware with documentation and FOSS drivers. If not, voting with the wallet effect would be negligible and everything will stay the same: suspicious binary blobs, no support for new kernels, X. So if the feature is only available in free drivers I see nothing wrong.
Originally Posted by Solitary
Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
Off-topic: I don't usually mention things like this but "I could care less" is totally wrong and it annoys the hell out of me when I see it. You're basically saying the opposite of what you wanted to because you said "could" instead of "couldn't". If you *could* care less about something, then that implies you care a great deal about the issue and you have some way to go before you don't care. If you *couldn't* care less, then you don't care at all about the issue. I don't know where people got the idea that it was "could" and not "couldn't" but I see it everywhere, usually by Americans I think (maybe it's just another American butchering of the English language?). When said aloud it doesn't really matter but when written down it just looks stupid and makes no sense, especially to people whom English isn't their first language and perhaps don't know the proper phrase.
It's because the "n't" in Couldn't is easy to leave off or not hear in conversation. So a lot of people think it's "could", as wrong as it is.
Originally Posted by fat_chris
And yes, when I was young, I was very much confused the first time I heard someone say "I could care less".
Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack
If you have this opinion there isn't much more to say about this topic, but I just want to show that there is a notable percentage of people who do not care at all or that much about whether their software is FLOSS or not and just want to have their system running properly.