On 6/27/07, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak <mjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
