seta-san Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 i believe that you misunderstood me. It is true that nvidia releases a binary driver but the kernel driver must be compiled(the kernel driver is a link between the kernel and the binary driver that has all of nvidia's propriatory code.). nVidia does have some pre-compiled versions of the kernel driver for the most popular/recent distros but could not possibly have them all for every nightly build of linux. The reason why you didn't really need to compile anything for linux with a good distro is because it was all precompiled for you. Not all distros or versions of distros will do this for you. That lead-off statement is just plain wrong (nVidia drivers, for example - binary only). The rest wasn't much more accurate, either... :ermm:I don't compile anything on my computer. I have never done anything to my kernel (compile or even change settings). It just works. Sure, there are those that probably enjoy doing that sort of stuff. And Linux certainly is the right OS for those who like to tinker that much under the hood. But it also meets the need of someone like me, who just wants to install the app and use it. Yes, there are people who treat you like you don't know anything when you ask for help in Linux. But look around (this forum and others), there are people who help. Now, look in the Windows forums. I'll be darned. They have the same types of people there, too. Some rude, some helpful. 586427782[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaNcom Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) seta-san, I tend to disagree. The Linux driver concept is different: If hardware is supposed to work, drivers will become part of the mainline/ vanilla kernel, and will be maintained in-tree. That's some sort of quality control, and it works. There are tons of cheap hardware with completely outdated and buggy Windows drivers, but why should the vendor be bothered to maintain the drivers? They somewhat work, sometimes, if you can live with a BSOD now and then. Want new drivers? Buy new hardware! Consumer-friendly? I don't think so... And it's in fact a huge asset _not_ to create a driver interface that keeps compatibility. There's a reason the interface changes all the time: First of all, it simply doesn't matter for open sourced drivers. But much more important is that this allows for improvements, system-wide bugfixes and performance improvements Windows could never achieve. A while ago, Linus removed almost all spinlocks from the kernel, including pretty much every single driver spinlock, to reduce the system latency - originally intended for realtime appliances. But that's also a great thing to have for audio work and general desktop responsivenes. In a few revisions, the stack size will be changed to 4k, and the kernel timer will use ultra-fast ticks with dynamic timeslices, considerably improving latency and throughput at the same time. Changes like that couldn't be done without breaking driver-compatibility, but they are well worth it, IMHO. The backward-compatibility is MS' worst enemy, they made countless mistakes years ago, and they simply can't fix them (loosing compatibility would break their neck), so they try to hack around the problems with varying success, or create completely new APIs that work side-by-side (.NET, WoW32, Avalon, Vista's new driver interface...). PS: Nvidia drivers come with a nice installer, just like ATI's - and they also include pre-compiled kernel modules for pretty much every common distro-supplied kernel. If you compiled your own kernel, chances are you have the tools to also compile the driver interface, no? PPS: If people come here, or to other Linux support forums, and ask for help in a friendly and civilized manner, they usually get treated nicely and it's almost sure someone will help them, even if the problem is simple or was already covered in a different thread two days ago. BTW, markjensen wouldn't allow us to get nasty even if the 'question' was definitely a flamebait... :-) Edited August 25, 2005 by LaNcom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 i know how to do it. but my point is that the average user wouldn't be bothered to manually exit X, which took me a long while to do with many people on IRC calling me a retard for not knowing how to do it. and then learn how to use the console, and then becoming a super user and then running the installer file. Not to mention if your kernel doesn't have a precompiled driver you have to have and know how to use a compiler and satisfy all dependancies, the least of which is the the kernel source code. My stance has always been; until linux standardizes X and some desktop system, such as gnome or kde, and a system of drivers and where these things will be commonly installed, normal users won't pay attention. i'm in no way making any comments for those people who compile their own kernel. Microsoft and Apple just have the market cornered. They both realized that they need to make their software work for the lowest common denomenator of human intellegance. Linux on the other hand makes software on the upper side of human intellance and if you don't beleive me get a friend who's never used linux before to try to read the MAN pages. PS: Nvidia drivers come with a nice installer, just like ATI's - and they also include pre-compiled kernel modules for pretty much every common distro-supplied kernel. If you compiled your own kernel, chances are you have the tools to also compile the driver interface, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaNcom Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 seta-san, I know what you mean. Anyway, you don't need to run the Nvidia installer by hand anymore (for (K)Ubuntu and Debian, you can get the drivers via apt-get, gentoo via emerge, SuSE via YOU...), so there's no need to quit X or something. Also, any recent consumer-targeted distro I could think of installs the kernel headers and a compiler by default, so that point is mood, too. And really, who cares what flavor of X a distro uses? The user won't see the difference anyway, and there is, in fact, only a single common XServer these days: Xorg. The DE doesn't really matter as well, there are only two big DEs, tailored for a different kind of user, and almost every distro comes with only one default DE (Gnome or KDE). BTW, two of my friends switched to Linux (1x gentoo, 1x Kubuntu), and even if they are not exactly geeks or something, they got the concepts very fast and are indeed able to install Nvidia drivers and stuff without the need to call me... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted August 25, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 25, 2005 Perhaps this article, posted just yesterday. sums it up best... True, a normal Linux installation and setting up basic internet access and email settings is proven to be equally easy under Windows as under Linux- if not easier under Linux. But I've been using Linux distributions for several years now, and I must say that for advanced problems it's harder to get things worked out under Linux.This is mainly just a result of the userbase of the respective OS' but it's a fact you can't go round. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and am one of its most enthusiast supporters but there is lack of a serious userbase that can help for every possible hardware/software problem on Linux. True, the same can be said for Windows in some cases but in general you'll get help faster for windows problems. The more the userbase grows the less the gap between the two OS' and maybe there will be a day in the near future when we can all laugh at the old days when we had to work with windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevcart3 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I haven't been keeping up too well with this topic, but I've read most of it. The following are MY OWN OPINIONS: I look at it this way, if you are going to install linux, you probably know enough about computers to go out and buy the right hardware. I can see the point that people complain about not being natively supported, but look at windows for just a minute. Go and try to install Windows Xp and not install any drivers, doesn't work too well, does it? When I start up an installation of Fedora, Ubuntu, etc. I bet the INSTALLER would run better than XP without any drivers installed. At least, in my experience this has proven to be true. My personal experience with Linux hardware support has been a very good one. I had no problem configuring a Linksys wireless card, or to get any other hardware up and working. As far as a broad range of supported hardware, how can people actually say that Linux doesn't support a lot of hardware? I am running Linux on my iMac G5, Xbox, PC, AND Ps2 flawlessly. I can't see the argument there. But like I said, my opinion, we all have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts