Open source and unencumbered drivers for 3D acceleration on Linux are lagging behind their proprietary counterparts. When 2D hardware goes away and everything requires 3D hardware, what options are there for people who use free software? Old hardware… unless something changes. Yes, I’m being deliberately provocative. No, I’m not really kidding.
It’s okay if you’re the pragmatic type, but it’s important to be aware of the limitations of mixing low-level proprietary software required for the proper operation of your computer with free operating systems. You don’t have to agree with me. That’s fine.
For Linux to succeed on the desktop, I think its supporters need a new driver strategy. Proprietary binary blobs from video card manufacturers aren’t working, and — forgive me for being Cassandra — the situation doesn’t look like it will improve.
Right now, most of the transistors on a video card are for 3D functions. The 2D parts of cards are shrinking with every new generation. They’ll go away soon; with good texture mapping and ever-better acceleration, you can do everything 2D with 3D hardware, and you can do even more impressive things with transparency, shadows, depth buffers, and more.
Right now, free and unencumbered and open source drivers exist for some 3D functions and most 2D functions of many video cards. Most of them aren’t the latest and greatest. For now, they work, and some of them work very well.
For full feature support of newer cards from ATI and NVidia, you have the option of running proprietary binary blobs with several caveats:
- They require frequent updates to run with specific kernels.
- They are only available for certain architectures.
- They are only available for certain operating systems.
- They make other programs on your system impossible to debug.
- There is a support window for hardware, outside of which you cannot get even proprietary binary blobs anymore.
When 2D goes away, the situation will be even worse. Get used to the command line.
The so-called “argument” that there is a real competitive advantage in not releasing even specifications is, at best, a meaningless fabrication. The big two video card manufacturers often match feature parity within a generation of a leap by either one — and they both track the defacto specifications of Direct3D (and OpenGL, to some extent) anyway.
It’s as if an Nvidia employee somehow cannot buy an ATI card (or vice versa) and put it under an Xray or an electron microscope or on a lab bench and test inputs and outputs. Are the only people reverse engineering hardware hobbyists writing drivers? Are video card manufacturers too stupid to realize that they could do the same?
(If they’re not stupid, these manufacturers could make a good side business selling old cards that actually work on Linux and other free operating systems after the new, unusable cards come out. Then again, any business that clever is clearly not stupid enough to realize that it could perform clean room reverse engineering anyway.)
It’s my opinion that putting up with proprietary drivers is starting to hold back the progress of desktop Linux. Appeasement isn’t working, and the situation may indeed get much worse very soon.
What’s the solution?
To my knowledge, there is currently one company providing video hardware and open drivers: Intel, with integrated video.
If you buy or build a new desktop computer, consider purchasing this hardware.
Don’t stop there.
Write to Intel (paper letters are likely better) and tell them why you bought this hardware.
Write to NVidia and tell them why you did not buy their hardware. Write to ATI and tell them why you did not buy their hardware either.
Finally, write to AMD and tell them why you did not buy their hardware.
Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t work. I don’t know.
I do know that relying on the so-called “goodwill” breadcrumb appeasement offerings of video card companies will eventually backfire. That eventually is looking sooner and sooner.


Don't forget that the OpenGraphics Project is only a month or two from its first hardware release. . .
My wise old mommy taught me these important things:
1. don't assume business people are smart
2. don't assume business people are visionary
3. don't assume business people can find their own behinds with maps and guide dogs
Companies like nVidia and ATI are run by ordinary mortals who are more concerned about conveying an impression of possessing big swinging brass nads than delivering good, useful, customer-friendly products.
The Free Software movement gives powerful tools to any individual who wants them. Hardware is more difficult because you can't escape the costs, so Free Hardware is going to take some serious cash. Maybe the next billionaire who wants to make a real contribution will put it into hardware, instead of Yet Another Linux Distribution. Yeah, we sure need more Linux distributions. :P
You have not heard of this project?
nouveau : Open Source 3D acceleration for nVidia cards
http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/
They are making progress. :)
There is a future!
But aussiebear, that is still a dead-end, because as long as the hardware is closed and specs are kept secret, third-party drivers are always going to be playing catch-up, and unable to deliver all features. Still, it's better than nothing.
I'd rather see a glimmer of hope than nothing...
I guess there's always the Open Graphics Project.
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
I'm hopeful that OGP will produce open, working hardware. It's a difficult project, but it has great (and large) goals.
However, I missed a point in the original post, and that's the whole issue of Linux on a laptop -- what choice is there for video card within a model line and what chance is there to change to a supported video card in a laptop? Ouch.
Link to the Intel GPL drivers? I can't seem to find any fully open source Intel drivers (that are better than the GPL DRI ATI drivers), just a nebulous "wink wink" that they'd feel fit to release them in the future.
The real issue isn't that the ATI/nVidia video drivers for linux are proprietary, it's that they're crappy; they don't even work very well, causing lockups for a lot of people, they only work with certain kernels, which locks you into a distribution (or at least that distro's kernel) that you may not particularly like, and they're just generally a giant headache to get up and running, editing Xorg.conf files and all that.
If the drivers were more reliable and there was an installer that automatically installed everything in the correct place and modified the necessary config files so the kernel blobs 'just worked,' we would more than likely not be having this exchange.
I agree with chromatic that in our capitalist system, the best answer is to vote with our dollars. Buy motherboards and laptops with the integrated Intel chipset, if you can, and keep writing AMD/ATI and nVidia to tell them why you won't buy their products. If there is one thing these companies understand, it's money, and in this case money literally talks.
I don't understand ATI/nVidia's collective choice to essentially ignore the Linux market. Ignoring the long tail of the market and concentrating on one platform is about the least visionary thing you can do. So many linux users, including myself, use the money we save by ditching Windows to buy better hardware, and that usually means a top-notch video card. If they would only provide decent and user-friendly kernel drivers, Linux users could be one of their largest buyers of after-market video cards. It seems like those companies are shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring such a large niche market. (Let's face it, we Linux desktop users are still a niche, but a potentially profitable one.)
You are right, we need a new strategy for drivers in Linux to make them independents from the kernel versions and as pluggable binaries modules built by manufacturers and sold with hardware. But you should write this to Linus Torvalds who explained his kernel strategy for Linux: "drivers will never go out the kernel, they are staying completely dependent of it and have to be integrated in the kernel sources and must be compiled with it each time generating a new kernel binary (including modules which are only dynamic linked kernel parts but never independent and pluggable modules)".
Linux will never emerge from dark, as long as the drivers will stay more dependents from the kernel than from the hardware.
why do nvidia donnot launch driver as ati has catalysts?
@aditya, NVidia has several reasons. First, they believe that their drivers and hardware information gives them a competitive advantage. Second, there are some patent issues with regard to their hardware and software (I believe S3 texture compression is one of the major patented items). Third, they don't believe that the F/OSS community will contribute much in return, as they've received few or no contributions to some of their existing open projects.
I don't agree with all of these reasons, but I can understand them.