Re: The future of "nv" driver (was: Linux compatible mainboards -another thought)
On 04/24/2010 08:53 AM, James P. Wallen wrote:
On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/22/2010 08:49 AM, Stephen Powell wrote:
[snip]
I shall now avoid, when possible, computers with Nvidia graphics cards.
Except that Nvidia's drivers are still *much* better than ATI's drivers.
Insofar as my experience goes I'd have to qualify that with a
/sometimes/ they are better...
I've got a couple of fairly high-end Quadro graphics workstation cards
that have given me fits in every distro I've tried. If I used restricted
/ blob / proprietary / whatever drivers -- whether I got them directly
from nvidia or from distro-associated repositories -- the result was
always that bits and pieces of the desktop environment would break from
time-to-time. Trying to use Compiz under Gnome could be a nightmare.
That's one difference between us: I don't use Compiz.
Using the nv drivers has at least always left me with a reliable system,
albeit without much in the way of glitzy special effects.
... because I don't need glitzy special effects.
Are there any non-glitzy benefits to compositors?
Right now I run a bunch of systems with ATI, integrated Intel, and the
Quadro cards in them. I've settled happily into Debian Squeeze with
Xfce. The desktop compositing in Xfce 4.6.1 even works with the nv
drivers -- but very, very slowly. The far cheaper ATI and Intel graphics
subsystems are snappy and responsive with the same environment. If I use
the binary blob nvidia driver, I get fast, snappy -- and unreliable.
Which driver version do you use?
I don't like that. And I don't like nvidia's attitude. I came over to
GNU/Linux because I was tired of feeling that I was being screwed over
in the name of business models and IP. I won't be buying any more nvidia
stuff, either.
Heck, I haven't even installed the non-free firmware to make wireless
work in a couple of these notebooks.
--
Dissent is patriotic, remember?
Reply to: