From: Andreas E. <eh...@ly...> - 2000-05-04 00:52:50
|
Hi. While trying to track down a GL_DECAL bug in Utah, I noticed that it didn't work very well in the mga-0-0-3 branch of the DRI tree either. See http://sourceforge.net/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=104207&group_id=1098 for a sample program exhibiting the behaviour. I have some screenshots on my web page that might be interesting: decal-hardware.jpg is from the latest checkout of the mga-0-0-3 branch as of Thu May 4 02:42:00 MET DST 2000: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~ehliar/3d/decal-hardware.jpg decal-software is from some late Mesa 3.2 snapshot: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~ehliar/3d/decal-software.jpg regards Andreas Ehliar |
From: Kevin J. W. <wa...@uf...> - 2000-05-04 15:29:26
|
i was wondering if anyone had tried the 3D drivers form nvidia? do they use dri or something else? also i noticed they have source rpms for their stuff. i thought the nvidia drivers were going to be binary only. i guess i am out of the loop on things : ) kevin |
From: Brian P. <ba...@pi...> - 2000-05-04 15:37:34
|
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:33:26AM -0400, Kevin J. Walchko wrote: > > i was wondering if anyone had tried the 3D drivers form nvidia? do they > use dri or something else? also i noticed they have source rpms for > their stuff. i thought the nvidia drivers were going to be binary > only. i guess i am out of the loop on things : ) > Just because you can get source rpms doesn't mean there is source code in it. It could just be the binaries with the spec file saying where to install them. This would allow you to easily change where the files are put on your system and still use the package management. Though, I haven't looked at it so I could be wrong. BAPper |
From: Kevin J. W. <wa...@uf...> - 2000-05-04 15:49:51
|
unfortunately i am on an NT machine right now so i can't checkout the rpm, but the directions sound as though you do build (compile) them, but they may just be really misleading and probably mean build an rpm. taken from FAQ on nvidia's web page: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Build from SRPM Building your own custom RPM is quite easy. All that's required is that you have the common build tools installed as well as the correct kernel header files for the kernel on your machine. This is typically the case. To install the buildable files use: rpm -i NVIDIA_kernel-0.9-2.src.rpm This will put the buildable files into the default RPM build directory. Something like /usr/src/redhat for RedHat distributions or /usr/src/packages for many others. As 'root', enter this directory and type: rpm -ba SPECS/NVIDIA_kernel.spec This will build an RPM for your machine and place the result in RPMS/i386/NVIDIA_kernel-0.9-2.i386.rpm. To install type: rpm -Uvh RPMS/i386/NVIDIA_kernel-0.9-2.i386.rpm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Pomerantz wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:33:26AM -0400, Kevin J. Walchko wrote: > > > > i was wondering if anyone had tried the 3D drivers form nvidia? do they > > use dri or something else? also i noticed they have source rpms for > > their stuff. i thought the nvidia drivers were going to be binary > > only. i guess i am out of the loop on things : ) > > > > Just because you can get source rpms doesn't mean there is source code > in it. It could just be the binaries with the spec file saying where > to install them. This would allow you to easily change where the > files are put on your system and still use the package management. > Though, I haven't looked at it so I could be wrong. > > BAPper > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel |
From: Dan M. <dm...@dc...> - 2000-05-04 16:18:32
|
> rpm, but the directions sound as though you do build (compile) them, but > they may just be really misleading and probably mean build an rpm. The GLX part is distributed as binary libraries only. The kernel part includes a large binary object file, together with some source code to link it into the kernel. i.e. they give you just enough source to build a module for your custom 2.2 kernel (2.3 with patches). Dan |
From: Rob <ro...@bl...> - 2000-05-04 17:29:54
|
< they give you just enough source to build a <module for your custom 2.2 kernel (2.3 with patches). I tried to build the kernel module but couldn't get to build on my 2.3.99-pre6 kernel. what are the patches you speek of? |
From: Adam K K. <ad...@vo...> - 2000-05-04 17:32:06
|
Rob, There are newer drivers (as of this morning or last night) on nVidia's server that include these (unofficial) patches... I was running 2.3.99-pre6 with the driver before these patches were added to the driver by nVidia. Adam On Thu, 4 May 2000, Rob wrote: > < they give you just enough source to build a > <module for your custom 2.2 kernel (2.3 with patches). > I tried to build the kernel module but couldn't get to build on my > 2.3.99-pre6 kernel. > what are the patches you speek of? > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: mitch <gt...@pr...> - 2000-05-04 22:08:56
|
Most of us are quite aware that there are binary only drivers on Nvidia's page. No need to rant on about them in a email list like this. Take it to #nvidia |
From: Andreas E. <eh...@ly...> - 2000-05-04 16:20:16
|
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:53:41AM -0400, Kevin J. Walchko wrote: > unfortunately i am on an NT machine right now so i can't checkout the > rpm, but the directions sound as though you do build (compile) them, but > they may just be really misleading and probably mean build an rpm. > For what it is worth: The nvidia drivers do contain source code for a few files. But most of it is binary only. (450 Kb kernel module anyone?) regards Andreas Ehliar |
From: Adam K K. <ad...@vo...> - 2000-05-04 15:48:59
|
I gave them a whirl on an old TNT2 of mine... With 16 bit color, I was getting approximately the same fps on the gears demo as with my Voodoo3 3000 (both PCI)... Obviously, the TNT2 was faster with 24 bit :-) Quake3Arena gave roughly the same framerate. Quality, however, was noticably better on the TNT2, even in just 16 bit color. My only issue with the drivers is that, for some strange reason, I had to leave the PCI slot below the TNT2 card empty, or else Q3A would lock up almost immediately, and various other GL apps would lock up after a few minutes. I thought it was an irq problem (which nVidia is apparently trying to fix for the next release), but the TNT2 had it's own IRQ, which it wasn't sharing. The kernel module was available in source form... However the source rpm for the GL libs just contained the binary libraries. All in all, I would rate their beta drivers on par with the DRI for my Voodoo3 3000, if not higher. However, repeated attempts to get help from them concerning the PCI slot problem went unanswered, so it was, in essence, taking up two PCI slots. Also, no matter what I tried, I was unable to run multihead, with or without xinerama. They say in their FAQ that it works, but it *always* locked up on me almost immediately when I started X with two screens, even after I disabled the loading of the glx module. The increase in quality was definately not worth the price of losing two PCI slots, and losing my multihead functionality. Lastly, the drivers use a form of direct rendering, but don't actually use the DRI. Adam On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kevin J. Walchko wrote: > > i was wondering if anyone had tried the 3D drivers form nvidia? do they > use dri or something else? also i noticed they have source rpms for > their stuff. i thought the nvidia drivers were going to be binary > only. i guess i am out of the loop on things : ) > > kevin > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Marco G. <ma...@at...> - 2000-05-04 17:24:14
|
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:48:36AM -0400, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > Quake3Arena gave roughly the same framerate. Quality, however, was > noticably better on the TNT2, even in just 16 bit color. the 3dfx is fast, but doesn't render very good... (q3a seems... false .. with the tdfx...) > My only issue with the drivers is that, for some strange reason, I had to > leave the PCI slot below the TNT2 card empty, or else Q3A would lock up > almost immediately, and various other GL apps would lock up after a few > minutes. irq sharing problem. > Also, no matter what I tried, I was unable to run multihead, with or > without xinerama. They say in their FAQ that it works, but it *always* > locked up on me almost immediately when I started X with two screens, even > after I disabled the loading of the glx module. > > The increase in quality was definately not worth the price of losing two > PCI slots, and losing my multihead functionality. the problem is that those drivers are close-source. and dri incompatible. boicott nvidia: they made great hardware, but we using linux, not a 'windows clone'. |
From: Adam K K. <ad...@vo...> - 2000-05-04 17:31:22
|
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 11:48:36AM -0400, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > > > My only issue with the drivers is that, for some strange reason, I had to > > leave the PCI slot below the TNT2 card empty, or else Q3A would lock up > > almost immediately, and various other GL apps would lock up after a few > > minutes. > > irq sharing problem. > That's what I thought, but that's not the problem... When running X, /proc/interrupts shows the nVidia card as the only one on that particular IRQ... I can also account for all my other devices. There is a known problem, however, with nVidia's drivers and certain motherboards (namely ALI motherboards). > > Also, no matter what I tried, I was unable to run multihead, with or > > without xinerama. They say in their FAQ that it works, but it *always* > > locked up on me almost immediately when I started X with two screens, even > > after I disabled the loading of the glx module. > > > > The increase in quality was definately not worth the price of losing two > > PCI slots, and losing my multihead functionality. > > the problem is that those drivers are close-source. > and dri incompatible. > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... So far, they seem to have the performance nailed down... It's just that the headaches are still there. :-) I am still hoping that they will be releasing their code at some point in the future. Adam |
From: Vandoorselaere Y. <yo...@ma...> - 2000-05-04 17:43:13
|
Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source > drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with > the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... <rant> bravo. If every people out there was acting like you, the open source world never being what is it today. </rant> Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, but i will not. When the driver got reverse engineered or when nvidia release the code, i'll buy their card. > > So far, they seem to have the performance nailed down... It's just that > the headaches are still there. :-) I am still hoping that they will be > releasing their code at some point in the future. me too. -- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. |
From: Adam K K. <ad...@vo...> - 2000-05-04 17:52:40
|
On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source > > drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with > > the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... > > <rant> > bravo. > If every people out there was acting like you, > the open source world never being what is it today. > </rant> You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time being, nVidia's GL drivers. > > Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, > and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, > but i will not. > I agree completely... I currently own a Voodoo3, a TNT2, and an ATI All-in-Wonder 128. If I were interested in buying a new card I'd wait for the Voodoo5s rather than buy a geforce, because I prefer 3dfx's support of open source. But, seeing as I have the TNT2 already, never expecting to use it under Linux, I have no qualms about using it if it has the best performance. Adam |
From: Vandoorselaere Y. <yo...@ma...> - 2000-05-04 17:57:02
|
Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > > > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > > > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source > > > drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with > > > the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... > > > > <rant> > > bravo. > > If every people out there was acting like you, > > the open source world never being what is it today. > > </rant> > > You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use > Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they > serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time > being, nVidia's GL drivers. agree, but i think that people using linux could, at least, respect it's philosophy. > > > > > Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, > > and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, > > but i will not. > > > > I agree completely... I currently own a Voodoo3, a TNT2, and an ATI > All-in-Wonder 128. If I were interested in buying a new card I'd wait for > the Voodoo5s rather than buy a geforce, because I prefer 3dfx's support of > open source. But, seeing as I have the TNT2 already, never expecting to > use it under Linux, I have no qualms about using it if it has the best > performance. Voodoo5 is already outperformed by the geforce2. This is why i'm so angry. :) -- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. |
From: Adam K K. <ad...@vo...> - 2000-05-04 18:06:11
|
On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use > > Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they > > serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time > > being, nVidia's GL drivers. > > agree, > but i think that people using linux could, at least, respect it's philosophy. I respect it's philosophy... Or at least, I respect what I view as its philosophy... Didn't Linus, at some point, decide that kernel modules don't have to be GPLed? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any set policy regarding proprietary closed source kernel modules that says they can't be used? Please bear in mind that most computer users don't use their OS to make a political or social statement... > > > > > > > > > Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, > > > and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, > > > but i will not. > > > > > > > Voodoo5 is already outperformed by the geforce2. > This is why i'm so angry. :) It's a moot point for me. My computer doesn't have an AGP slot, and since there are no PCI cards with the geforce, I'm pretty much stuck:-) Then again, I could use the money I'd be spending on a Voodoo5 to help pay for a newer computer :-) Well, this has gone way off topic, and I apologize to all who probably don't care about my views on open source and close source... If anyone would like to continue this discussion with me in private, though, feel free. Adam |
From: Kevin J. W. <wa...@uf...> - 2000-05-04 18:34:45
|
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > Well, this has gone way off topic, and I apologize to all who probably > don't care about my views on open source and close source... > that's okay, i enjoy a good debate (freedom of speach and all). just didn't think my asking about these drivers would start this. : ) |
From: Andrew E. <ae...@ka...> - 2000-05-04 20:25:57
|
This whole debate has started me thinking: Are there DRI drivers planned for nVidia cards? Would PI write them and keep them closed source? At 2:37 PM -0400 5/4/00, Kevin J. Walchko wrote: >Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > >> Well, this has gone way off topic, and I apologize to all who probably >> don't care about my views on open source and close source... >> > >that's okay, i enjoy a good debate (freedom of speach and all). >just didn't think >my asking about these drivers would start this. : ) |
From: Vandoorselaere Y. <yo...@ma...> - 2000-05-05 08:11:14
|
Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > > > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > > > > You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use > > > Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they > > > serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time > > > being, nVidia's GL drivers. > > > > agree, > > but i think that people using linux could, at least, respect it's philosophy. > > I respect it's philosophy... Or at least, I respect what I view as its > philosophy... Didn't Linus, at some point, decide that kernel modules > don't have to be GPLed? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think > there's any set policy regarding proprietary closed source kernel modules > that says they can't be used? Please bear in mind that most computer > users don't use their OS to make a political or social statement... I don't know if they can ( legally i mean ) use binary only module... I know Linus tolerate this, but he is strongly against it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, > > > > and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, > > > > but i will not. > > > > > > > > > > > Voodoo5 is already outperformed by the geforce2. > > This is why i'm so angry. :) > > It's a moot point for me. My computer doesn't have an AGP slot, and since > there are no PCI cards with the geforce, I'm pretty much stuck:-) Then > again, I could use the money I'd be spending on a Voodoo5 to help pay for > a newer computer :-) > > Well, this has gone way off topic, and I apologize to all who probably > don't care about my views on open source and close source... If anyone > would like to continue this discussion with me in private, though, feel > free. You're right, i apologize too :) -- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. |
From: Josh F. <jo...@fa...> - 2000-05-04 19:54:37
|
On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > > > > > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > > > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > > > > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source > > > > drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with > > > > the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... > > > > > > <rant> > > > bravo. > > > If every people out there was acting like you, > > > the open source world never being what is it today. > > > </rant> > > > > You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use > > Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they > > serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time > > being, nVidia's GL drivers. > > agree, > but i think that people using linux could, at least, respect it's philosophy. So you would prefer it if there was NO proprietary software for Linux? > > > > > > > > > Now, i'm angry against this 3dfx card which is so slow, > > > and i'd really like to buy a geforce if it was open source, > > > but i will not. > > > > > > > I agree completely... I currently own a Voodoo3, a TNT2, and an ATI > > All-in-Wonder 128. If I were interested in buying a new card I'd wait for > > the Voodoo5s rather than buy a geforce, because I prefer 3dfx's support of > > open source. But, seeing as I have the TNT2 already, never expecting to > > use it under Linux, I have no qualms about using it if it has the best > > performance. > > Voodoo5 is already outperformed by the geforce2. > This is why i'm so angry. :) > > -- > -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ > It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). > The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Vandoorselaere Y. <yo...@ma...> - 2000-05-05 08:59:02
|
Josh Faust <jo...@fa...> writes: > On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > > > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > On 4 May 2000, Vandoorselaere Yoann wrote: > > > > > > > Adam K Kirchhoff <ad...@vo...> writes: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > > > > > You'll get no arguments from me about that... Frankly, open source > > > > > drivers are preferable, but if nVidia can give me better performance with > > > > > the least headaches, I'm more than willing to use their drivers... > > > > > > > > <rant> > > > > bravo. > > > > If every people out there was acting like you, > > > > the open source world never being what is it today. > > > > </rant> > > > > > > You mean it wouldn't be full of ranting, raving lunatics? I don't use > > > Linux, or the DRI, because they're open source. I use them because they > > > serve my needs better than any other option, including, for the time > > > being, nVidia's GL drivers. > > > > agree, > > but i think that people using linux could, at least, respect it's philosophy. > > So you would prefer it if there was NO proprietary software for Linux? exactly. -- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. |
From: Daniel O'C. <da...@do...> - 2000-05-05 12:59:15
|
> > So you would prefer it if there was NO proprietary software for Linux? > exactly. Yes, then they can all write software for FreeBSD :) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum |
From: Vandoorselaere Y. <yo...@ma...> - 2000-05-05 13:05:17
|
"Daniel O'Connor" <da...@do...> writes: > > > So you would prefer it if there was NO proprietary software for Linux? > > exactly. > > Yes, then they can all write software for FreeBSD :) And then bsd guys say the same thing as us :) -- -- Yoann, http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/ It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. |
From: Sven G. <sgo...@ja...> - 2000-05-05 05:57:58
|
Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > the problem is that those drivers are close-source. > and dri incompatible. > PI: Precision Insights OS: Open Source :) This is the truth ! I have also problems with the nvidia driver for my geforce, but i am not willing to put any more efforts in this closed no working well driver ! If this was open source, they could expect a lot of bugfixes ! PI has described the benefits of OS 1st of all: Nvidia does makes great hardware ! BUT ! I wonder myself, why nvidia and their former SGI developers do want to pay so much effort to reinvent the wheel the n'th time ? Also I must ask myself, why nvidia does support a OS Linux withouth OS source, or paricipating OS software ? It is not the dirver software, what makes nvidia makeing money, it is the hardware. So IMO the only reason could be, that nvidia does not own the license for their driver sources ! Is that true ? I think nvidia hurts themself too much ! > boicott nvidia: they made great hardware, but we using linux, not a 'windows clone'. > Well, this could be a task to thing about :)) But the hardware is so nice :( Best Regards, Sven PS: I fwd. this to nvidia, may be they want to deal with ? -- mailto:sgo...@ja... www : http://www.jausoft.com voice : +49-521-2399440, +49-170-2115963; fax: +49-521-2399442 |
From: Dave M. <mo...@ni...> - 2000-05-05 06:34:38
|
Sven Goethel writes: > Marco Ghidinelli wrote: > > > the problem is that those drivers are close-source. > > and dri incompatible. > > > > PI: Precision Insights > OS: Open Source > :) > > This is the truth ! > I have also problems with the nvidia driver for my geforce, > but i am not willing to put any more efforts in this closed > no working well driver ! > If this was open source, they could expect a lot of > bugfixes ! > > PI has described the benefits of OS > > 1st of all: Nvidia does makes great hardware ! > BUT ! > I wonder myself, why nvidia and their former SGI developers > do want to pay so much effort to reinvent the wheel the n'th time ? > > Also I must ask myself, why nvidia does support a OS Linux > withouth OS source, or paricipating OS software ? > > It is not the dirver software, what makes nvidia makeing money, > it is the hardware. > So IMO the only reason could be, that nvidia does not own the > license for their driver sources ! > Is that true ? > > I think nvidia hurts themself too much ! > speculation abounds... I think they just want to make money. The 3d market is very competitive, and they are afraid of giving away their edge to ATI or 3DFX. Nvidia is a competitive company. When some other company breaks their record on a benchmark, they assign a couple people to figure out how they did it, and (if possible) incorporate the changes into their drivers. When your salary is much less than the value of your stock options, you really care about your stock valuation. Right now their stock valuation is based on their superior consumer card speed on windows. Linux is nice but is only a long term strategy for them. I think they don't OpenSource because it might concieveably threaten their windows lead, and hence their short-term shareholder value. In other words, R&D can't be allowed to blow up the company... |