Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: How Hardware Companies Determine Their Linux Base

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Can you show me one such example where that has worked?
    Core2.....

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    Core2.....
    What? Are you saying that the only reason that Core 2 has linux support is because people bought another processor that supported linux? FYI the Core 2 always was supported in linux. Care to try again?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The demand for free drivers and open specs.

    Nvidia could get away with being the only major hardware manufacturer with completely closed specs for a while because they were the only ones with reasonable Linux support.
    You assume that we all care about open specs and open drivers and forget that many of us believe that companies should have the right to keep their code and specs closed as long as they deliver a good product (software or hardware) that it's worth its money and therefore we're glad to pay for. If they stop delivering a good product, no matter of open or closed, *then* I will stop buying from them.

    So no, from my point of view, NVidia should not open up anything. It's their hardware, they have the right to market it as they see fit. You're essentially blackmailing here. "Open specs or else..." Where I come from, this is called bigotry.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I'm not sure which comment you're referencing, but that doesn't sound quite right. Best guess is that I said something along the lines of "even if we had the whole *nix home market it would not cover the costs of developing an OSS stack comparable to the proprietary driver", or something like that.

    Could be

    Would you then say that the current team is "profitable"?

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Where I come from, this is called bigotry.
    Although I agree with the rest, where I come from this is called being a customer, ie only buying the product if it suits your needs...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    What? Are you saying that the only reason that Core 2 has linux support is because people bought another processor that supported linux?
    No, it was a more general case and not about linux in particular. The reason Core exists and was as good as it was was because the Pentium4 sucked ass and intel's market share started declining a lot due to the then excellent Athlon Xp/64. The point being that if a company doesn't offer what the market wants, the market will turn to somebody else. Of course that the scenario of current linux graphics drivers always involves a tradeof, so all the companies involved are somewhat tied in that regard. Either way you go, you end up loosing something. If either AMD manages to offer great video acceleration and more driver stability or nvidia implements missing functionalities like optimus and xrandr support (and changes to a more open-source friendly stance) things might change. And let's not forget the other gentleman lurking in the shadows. If intel can provide better drivers and more powerful hardware it may also win this "battle".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    858

    Default

    It doesn't work. AMD/Nvidia don't sell hardware to you, they sell it to OEMs/AIBs/...

    Only if the OEMs demand it, then you will see change. It has worked with VIA (even if only temporary).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    You assume that we all care about open specs and open drivers
    No, not all of us, of course.

    Just the vast majority of those who actually make Linux and software for it. And that's a very unfortunate enemy to have. If you keep showing the middle finger at these people and making their life difficult, they might not rush to help you when you need assistance.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    What I'm saying is that your average Ubuntu user doesn't care, but the average Ubuntu user does not design the kernel API, or decide about x.org functionality.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    No, not all of us, of course.

    Just the vast majority of those who actually make Linux and software for it. And that's a very unfortunate enemy to have. If you keep showing the middle finger at these people and making their life difficult, they might not rush to help you when you need assistance.
    This is also true in reverse. NVidia is also a very unfortunate enemy to have, because you need their Linux driver support. If you show them the middle finger even though they keep providing driver support against all odds (missing driver ABI, etc), one has to wonder at which point they'll go like "screw Linux."

    The fact that they keep bothering with desktop Linux and multimedia even though kernel and X.Org don't treat binary drivers as first class citizens is something that I personally value. It's good customer support.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •