[Nottingham] Connect 3D Radeon 7000 AGP and Five Button Mouse info

[Michael Simms]

In taking some of these out of order

On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 16:12 +0100, Robert Hart wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just really surprised you
> think like this. Surely as a developer of code that relies so much on
> these drivers you must wish they were open source. How many times have
> you hit a bug and wished you could step into the driver code/GL
> implementation to see what's going on? how many times has that been for
> a bug that was actually in the closed source driver, that you (or one of
> your developers) could have fixed, or at least diagnosed fully and
> reported upstream?

Oh, no, I DO wish they were open source, I really do. When open source
is as good as closed source, or when I feel closed source limits my
freedom, I'll use open source. Im just trying to put the arguement that
open source isnt always better and closed source isnt always evil.

I mean, Ive been using Linux as my OS of choice since 0.99 kernel, so
nobody can say Im not a complete convert. I just dont see a problem with
a tool that works better in most instances, just cos its closed.

> Just because less than 1% of desktop computers run Linux doesn't mean
> that Linux users control less than 1% of the PC market. I personally
> have probably advised a dozen or more people on their computer
> purchases, and I can think of other Linux users who buy PCs in bulk as
> part of their job.

Oh I agree, but Im just going on desktop for the moment on the subject
of graphics cards.

> but at least with 1) you can take it to any mechanic or garage, and if
> necessary go to a scrap yard and acquire spare parts from any similar
> model, whereas with 2) you probably have to take it back to the place
> you bought the darn thing just to get the oil changed. Which is going to
> cost you more in the long run?

Possibly correct, but the line is less certain than it may be.

> Yeah right. You know as well as I do that software development really
> doesn't scale all that well. Doubling the number of programmers on a
> project will not get it done twice as fast. 

Well, very true, but I still think that they should concentrate on just
one of the two now - polish it off properly instead of never quite
getting there. I know, I dont expect it to happen, Im just being all
hopeful and utopian {:-)

> In fact, I would suspect that having some visible competition and source
> of new ideas is a much better way of making progress. Yes, some
> resources are wasted (e.g. debugging, translating, packaging), but other
> resources are better utilised (e.g. creativity, innovation, radicalism)
> and it's perhaps these that we need the most of.

I agree in many cases, but I think that that mostly holds true in the
earlier part of a projects lifecycle. Both gnome and KDE are mature
enough now that they dont tend to compete any more on anything big.

> As a counter example, take media playing software. There was a time when
> winamp was the de facto way of listening to music on a PC, and even
> today many media players are simply a clone of it. However, in reality
> it didn't fit with the way many people listen to music, and it never
> provided you a way to easily manage your music collection. The wide
> selection of music players we have today is simply a reflection of the
> fact that there are many different ideas floating around, and it is very
> healthy.

Again I find I dont disagree, but did we REALLY need to write a new backend
for each of these players? Why not use the same backend, improve it
where needed, and put a new frontend on it.

> I can see this is a sore point for you, but it could equally go the
> other way. Open source could well be the best route in the long run to
> decent graphics support on Linux, if this happens (before you go out of
> business ;-) ) then you could well find yourself at the top of
> multimillion pound Linux gaming industry.

Heh, actually, no it snot a sore point, I just tend to rant when I get
on my soap box {:-) I just wanted to try and bring some other points
of view across, because I personally dont find the nvidia drivers
evil, in fact they have helped the Linux desktop acceptance - a LOT.
That to me is a good thing.

> You keep harping on about patents. There's nothing intrinsic about
> patenting that makes it any different for open source than it does for
> closed source. Somebody who holds a patent can pick whatever terms they
> wish, and recently we've begun to see some of the big players through
> the weight of their patent portfolios behind free software rather than
> against it.

Oh there is a definite difference. Bit companies like nvidia can ignore
most patents within reason, because they have theirown patents that
they can use to countersue anyone that gets litigeous. Open source
groups do not have that defense. If you write a bit of code that
infringes on someones patent, they can legally make you pay royalties,
and there is nothing you can do to stop them. Hands up which open
source developer has a few spare million in the bank to do that.
Thats the big difference.
Some of the big companies yes, they have started to do open source
stuff even with patented code, but you can be VERY sure they didnt
put any code out there that was encumbered by a patent owned by
someone else.

> Do you really thing that? Most people would count everything that comes
> on the OS installation CD as part of the OS. That includes, the kernel,
> all drivers for any kind of software, a desktop environment, including a
> web browser, music player, minesweeper, and so on. 

Yes but the original reference was a technical term for discussing which
things are evil to keep closed, not a common use definition. My comment
was that I strongly oppose the closing of operating systems and of
file formats, as both of these lead to the ability to lock-in. If those
two are open, then everythign else is a level playing field. Drivers
dont lock you in unless they start extending standards with proprietry
extentions that are patented or otherwise encumbered. nvidia doesnt do
that, in fact they offer very good support for OpenGL, which is a very
open standard.

On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 13:43 +0100, Martin Garton wrote:
> Each of us has just the same buying power as each windows user or user
> of any other os for that matter.  Saying our buying power is useless
> just because we are a minority is the same flawed logic that says there
> is no point in voting for anything but the main two political parties.

Err, completely different situation. Im saying that a big company will
use its resources where there is most money. If you want to develop a
product you develop for the biggest market, simple common sense. Unless
you have a reason for wanting to go with a niche market, which most
big companies dont.


> > Whats going to be more beneficial. A kernel thats oh so nice and open,
> > and bugger all works on it, or a kernel thats actually some use?
> 
> False dichotomy.

Makes sense to me. If the most morally perfect open piece of software in
the world doesnt do anything useful, whats the point other than as an
example of how it should be done elsewhere?

> Well no but I have been hurt by the closed ati drivers.  I had random
> crashes with no way to debug without the source (okay, I may not have
> had the knowledge anyway, but I have successfully debugged other drivers
> before).
> 
> I could only avoid random crashes by not using their driver, which is
> what I did.  Now everything works and it stable, and all the 3d games I
> have work fine.

I have to say that in most peoples cases, the ATI driver has been
similarly bad. This is because ATI did a terrible half-assed job
of their driver, nvidia employs a fulltime team of linux developers
just for their driver. They take an active part in the community,
to the point where they have a member that takes part in all the
betas of LGP software, so they can find possible driver issues via
our software. They go to great lengths to make their driver
good.

> Perhaps for doom3 and quake4, yes, but quake3 & rtcw are very quick on
> my radeon9200 using the open source drivers.

Which is exactly the point. The two games you mention are bargain bin
games now. They are 5 and 4 years old respectively. Open source drivers
are great, for being 4 or 5 years behind. If thats what you want them
for them more power to you for using them. I personally need more
and I cant work with the open drivers.


> I think you are missing one of the basic important features of open
> source. _YOU_ don't have to be able to fix it. Only _ONE_ of the
> millions with access to the source does.  Then you can get the fix from
> them.  The car analogy breaks down unless somehow when I fix my car it
> fixes everyone else who has the same type of car (or at least suddenly
> makes it trivial for them to apply a mechanical patch)

No, Im not missing it - Im just looking at it in another light. To
counter your arguement - that assumes that anyone else out there can
be bothered to apply the fix. As was discussed earier with utah-glx,
people used it, but couldnt be bothered to keep it going. If they had
it could have been a serious product, but those that used it were
left in the dust when the developers got bored with it. It happens
in open source just as much as in closed, if not more. Take a look at
sourceforge, the number of half completed abandoned projects...

> I would add though, that although there is clear disagreement on this
> driver issue among various LUG members, I do find it mostly okay that
> games themselves are not open source and I appreciate and admire the
> work that Michael does for bringing more games to linux.

Well, thanks {:-) And yeah, just cos there is a bit of disagreement,
well, thats life, we're all friends and I'll happily buy a pint for
each of the people that have helped make it a quite lively and
interesting discussion {:-)
-- 
Michael Simms - CEO, Linux Game Publishing
http://www.linuxgamepublishing.com