Talk:Graphics hardware and FOSS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Raison d'être 2 Weasel words in the article introduction 3 Proposed name change and expansion 4 Question

[edit] Raison d'être

I created this article because it's a distinct topic in its own right, with a history going back years. The situation is very confused and this article could help to clarify it. It's far too specialised to be merged with the NVIDIA and/or FOSS articles, IMHO. Spliced 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• That seems fair. I removed your original blurb on the Nvidia page because the tone was too npov. This page appears to be more of npov which is good. Dan Granahan 20:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• This page is nothing more than a complaint. It's not something that belongs in Wikipedia. Microsoft doesn't give out the source to their OS, but I think they should. Should I start a "Microsoft Should Give Me Their Source Code" Wikipedia topic? Does it matter whether or not my complaint is even realistic? Wikipedia is not a personal complaint forum or a wishlist forum.
  • The FOSS school of thought is not asking Nvidia to give away source code. It is asking for technical data about the hardware, sufficient to enable it to write its own source code. (This is the standard approach for hardware drivers in Linux, BSD etc. - binary-only drivers are the exception rather than the rule.) As such I feel that to describe the page as "nothing more than a complaint" completely misses the point and is unfair. And please sign your comments - for all we know you are nothing more than an Nvidia PR flack. In fact I see from whois that your IP address, 219.213.198.25 is indeed in a /24 netblock assigned to Nvidia. Spliced 07:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite parts of this, because there is POV subtly built-in... notably in the tone and lack of a real counter-balancing argument. I'm aiming to make both sides of the argument unemotional and objective, as Wikipedia should be. --Dr. Fuzz 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted this because (a) the intro has been more than doubled in length to little useful effect, (b) it doesn't remove POV but rather inserts one of its own, (c) the purpose of the article is to assist users of NVIDIA cards, regardless of which side they're on, and not to waste their time with an interminable and ponderous debate between the two camps. Therefore, before making any more changes, please explain here what you think is wrong with the previous version, and let's not forget the virtue of brevity. Harumphy 11:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • From the original author, this article is "a distinct topic in its own right, with a history going back years. The situation is very confused and this article could help to clarify it." Now here are my issues with it: 1) It doesn't address the history, 2) it stops short of suggesting that basically only gamers care about the binary drivers (and by extension any OpenGL acceleration on FOSS platforms with NVIDIA hardware), and 3) it hinders clarity by introducing the controversy, yet speaking only to a FOSS audience. Granted, I missed the remove-POV goal, but isn't the debate best served by addressing both sides, if it's to be discussed at all? --Dr. Fuzz 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, some suggestions: 1) Add a "History and Background" section at the bottom to contain the history, background, philosophical differences, pros and cons of the available drivers; 2) Clarify in the Introduction who other than gamers may benefit from 3D / OpenGL support, regardless of whether the code which provides that support is FOSS or proprietary. --Harumphy 17:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in the article introduction

Most members of the Linux kernel development community detest binary drivers [1] and some actively seek to make life difficult for people who develop and use them. Binary drivers may only work with a particular kernel version, whereas FOSS drivers are built right into the mainstream kernel source, enabling users to take compatibility for granted.

It may also be the case that binary-only kernel modules, because they do not comply with the GNU General Public License, are a violation of the kernel developers' copyright.

• The above statements contain weasel words to make uncited allegations against kernel developers on both sides of the issue. Citations and/or rewording is in order. BigE1977 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. Both done. Hope it's OK now. Harumphy 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed name change and expansion

Maybe this article would be both more neutral and more useful if it was broadened into, say, "Graphics hardware and FOSS". Then a comparison could be made between nVidia, ATI and Intel and the relative merits of each with FOSS. ATI provides 3D-related documentation (under NDA) to X.Org developers for up to the 9200, but nothing more recent. Intel is actively participating in X.Org's development of full 3D support for its new GMA 3000 and X3000 chipsets. If I hear nothing I'll assume I have everyone's blessing to 'be bold' and just do it. :-) Harumphy 16:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not consider that NDA is acceptable for the Free software community. Specifically about ATI, see their incident with rms on the MIT campus. I think we should not get rid of this article, but leave it as it is, and write a general article about Free graphics hardware in addition to this very article. This article already has some information specific to NVIDIA. MureninC 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think moving this article and expanding it to cover all graphics hardware is an excellent idea. NicM 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, why not turn it into a general article, including NVIDIA-specific information under a relevant section? There doesn't seem to be an "ATI vs FOSS" articl yet. -- intgr 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus in favour of this, so I've made a start. Harumphy 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why are there two sections on FOSS support from all the different manufacturers? --Ysangkok 13:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic: Damn that bot is fast. I forgot to sign and five seconds later it had already added an "unsigned" template. --Ysangkok 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There aren't, one is manufacturer's support for their hardware in FOSS and the other is "native" FOSS support for graphics hardware. However, they are both pretty short and the second one is a bit useless, so merging them could be a nice idea. NicM 14:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Done it. Harumphy 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)