DVI output, ATI or nVidia

[Lonni J Friedman]

On 6/27/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <mjc at avtechpulse.com> wrote:
> Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> > Based on what criteria?  I'm still amused how people keep making that
> > claim yet never provide any criteria, as if its just glaringly obvious
> > to all but the most casual observer.
>
> OK, random example: where is the nvidia bug tracker? Pretty standard
> support tool for anything linux-related - the kernel, xorg, gnome, kde,
> openoffice...

Its available to all of NVIDIA's customers.  If you have to ask where
it is, then you're not an nvidia customer.

> >> The only "bad" thing is that all current intel devices are integrated on
> >> the motherboard, and you generally need an ADD2 card to get the DVI port
> >> (and a LCD monitor with "DDC/DI" capability - obscure but important!)
> >> But if you have that... it just works!
> >
> > So if you have specific hardware, it works.  That seems like a rather
> > huge hurdle (and a rather poorly documented one, at that).
>
> Not a huge hurdle, but it is limiting, I agree. Nonetheless, it is a
> lower hurdle than making closed binary drivers work reliably, I find
> personally.

How is being forced to purchase a specific display device in order to
use the GPU a lower hurdle than using any display device with the GPU?

> > How do you mean "if the integrated intel chip doesn't work for you"?
> > I thought you said that support for Intel is superior to non-open
> > source options.  Either it is superior or its not.
>
> Glad to clarify: It is superior.
>
> The point was, if you get the cheap integrated chip and you find it
> doesn't meet your needs (for whatever reason: there's a bug that affects
> you, you decide that you really need to edit full-length motion pictures
> in real time on your computer, you become a competitive gamer, etc) you
> can slap in an ATI/nvidia card. You can go both ways: decent open driver
> on the intel hardware, or closed higher-performance binary driver on the
> add-in card. Doesn't apply to laptops of course, but hopefully you
> aren't editing movies on a laptop.

Many people are editing movies on laptops.  Just not with Intel GPUs.

> > As long as "everyone else" doesn't include anyone running workstation
> > graphics applications or anyone in the film industry or anyone doing
> > GPGPU work, or even casual gamers who want to play Quake every now &
> > then.  I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear.  You're
> > concept of "everyone else" is an extremely small percentage of the
> > graphics market from a revenue perspective.
>
> Fair enough - from a revenue perspective. MS Windows also dominates
> server OS sales - from a revenue perspective. Not true from a count of
> installations, of course.

We're talking about hardware, not software.  Please don't change the
focus just to bolster your argument.

> > Fan boy much?  Opening the driver does not equate with aggressively
> > supporting linux.  The list of companies that have released the specs
> > or an open source driver, and provided very poor support (the source
> > only works with a specific kernel version, its buggy, its incomplete,
> > etc) is rather long.  Open sourcing a driver does not equate with
> > aggressive linux support.  You're deluding yourself if you truly
> > believe that it does.
>
> Are you trying to say that intel doesn't really support linux? Or that
> nvidia's linux support is actually better? Or what?

I'm saying that open sourcing a driver does not equate with support.
I'm sure that Intel does the best job that they can to support
whomever they deem as important to their business.  However,
pretending that just because they have open source drivers their
support is somehow better is delusional.

> Are you comfortable with the fact that the source code and development
> process for the kernel, the application software (word processors, image
> browsers, the gimp, cinepaint), the other drivers (mouse driver, network
> driver, ...) are open, but the video driver is binary and secret?

Yes, I am.  I've yet to see any evidence that open source software
provides a higher level of support than closed source software.

>
> Is it good that the kernel bugzilla says "NO BINARY MODULES or other
> tainted kernels. Do not file bugs here if you have any binary kernel
> modules loaded, reproduce without that module first. NVIDIA users - THIS
> MEANS YOU!"?
>
> In what way is the closed nvidia code and process better than being
> open? How does that benefit users?

I never claimed that it was better.  I just said that its certainly no
worse.  No one here has yet to provide any concrete evidence to prove
otherwise.