DVI output, ATI or nVidia

[Lonni J Friedman]

On 6/27/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <mjc at avtechpulse.com> wrote:
> > Granted, I work at NVIDIA, so my opinions are going to be slanted
> > here, but I don't see how one defines support as better in one driver
> > versus the other unless you've got some written contract guarenteeing
> > a particular level of support.
>
> Open code and open discussion make for better support... that should be
> obvious on a Fedora list :-) Since just about everyone on this list will
> have no support contract with intel and no support contract with nvidia,
>   intel "wins" because it's an open driver...

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.

> I've talked with the intel driver developers on the xorg list (Keith
> Packard, for instance), who have been extremely helpful in resolving issues.
>
> I have nothing against nvidia, but the intel driver eliminates so many
> issues related to binary drivers, making it very compelling if you have
> to support multiple computers. (For example: you don't need to sync
> driver/kernel releases, you don't need livna rpms, compiz works, you can
> get straight answers from the driver developers, the developers are real
> intel employees rather than volunteers working without access to nvidia
> technical specs...)

NVIDIA employees (myself included) interact directly via both of the
support methods documented in the NVIDIA driver README.  So, I regret
that you are misinformed.

> 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).

>
> Also - if the integrated intel chip doesn't work for you, for whatever
> reason, you can always install an ATI or nvidia expansion card.

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.

>
> The rendering performance won't impress hard-core gamers, but for
> everyone else it's more than adequate.

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.

>
> The open driver means all of my current and future computer purchases
> will require intel integrated graphics...
>
> Intel has chosen to aggressively support linux by opening the driver
> code. nvidia hasn't. Intel wins!

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.