Compiz Community Forums

by **mikedee** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:19 am

This is really what people mean by having compiz/beryl default in fiesty. The decision is actually not related to compiz or beryl. It is all to do with whether or not binary drivers should be enabled by default. This is NOT a GPL license issue. I suspect the drivers will be downloaded separately as per normal, but it will be part of the installation and enabled.

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/binary_drivers.html

I have made it a poll to see what people think, I tried to narrow down the question to what it is really about.

by **RYX** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:34 am

I don't think its good to use it as default. Ubuntu's philosophy says Ubuntu is designed for everyone and so the default install should be usable by everyone even with an ancient graphics-card.

The better way would be to make the installation-process less automatic and ask the user which driver he wants to use ... the new graphical installer badly needs an "expert-mode" (currently one can only set language, timezone and partitions - the rest is done automatically).

by **mikedee** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:31 am

RYX wrote:I don't think its good to use it as default. Ubuntu's philosophy says Ubuntu is designed for everyone and so the default install should be usable by everyone even with an ancient graphics-card.

I think the plan is to have a whitelist of cards that work and use it then, otherwise make it an option....

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AcceleratedX

by **stjepan** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:47 am

Ubuntu isn't following free software philosphy very much. There are other really free Ubuntu-based distros.
Kororaa, an XGL/AIGLX live cd distro with nvidia and ati drivers was GPLed. It had problems with violoatig GPL. Read more here.

I voted yes. I think Ubuntu should go it's own way as it's, RYX said, designed for everyone.

by **amgeex** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:14 am

I voted yes, although its not hard to add it post-install. Maybe it should be an option during install, like RYX mentions.

by **nightfrost** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:22 am

As far as I understand the current plan is something like installing binary drivers and then informing the user that they really should use open source alternatives.

Why not go the other way around, if that truly is the sentiment? I don't think *anyobody* would mind not having binary drivers installed by default and then, perhaps at first boot, be informed that there is another alternative that's not open source but enables 3d acceleration. The user can then proceed by clicking "Please install" or "I'm happy with OSS stuff".

Nah, I don't think they should.

by **nesnomis** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:21 pm

I must say no!

Proprietary kernel modules is a violation of GPL (as i understand it) and i cant see why ubuntu should get away with that?! What the user does after installation is one thing, but as a serious opensource distribution to include proprietary kernel modules ... nope!....

Offcourse there is a portion of hypocracy in saying no, and then installing proprietary drivers ... :roll: ... So, a debate would be nice, either opensorcing proprietary drivers or some changes in the license?!

by **mikedee** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:50 pm

nesnomis wrote:Proprietary kernel modules is a violation of GPL (as i understand it) and i cant see why ubuntu should get away with that?! What the user does after installation is one thing, but as a serious opensource distribution to include proprietary kernel modules ... nope!....

You are right, DISTRIBUTING these with the kernel is a violation of the GPL and is therefore illegal. I don't think they will be actually distributing it, but they will make it so that if you have a supported card, it will automatically download and install the nvidia driver.

I doubt they would get away with it, which is probably why they wouldn't do it.

Its all a great big game of wait and see, its interesting to hear all the opinions though.... I suppose you can all guess mine so I didnt really make it clear

by **DBO** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:59 pm

Well lets at least get a fuller grasp of the true situation here. The nv driver is obfuscated and about as open source as the nvidia binary module. The only real difference in practice is that the nvidia module gets updated more often. If a security hole is found in the nv kernel module, you are still more or less reliant upon nvidia to fix it (they are the maintainers of it after all). This is all however not really new news, or even news at all. What might be more interesting to note is that like many other distros, Ubuntu is and has been for quite some time, shipping binary kernel modules for wireless chipsets. They do in fact distribute them out of their own repos, they come on the install media, and they have been doing it for quite some time. If this was about licensing why wasn't that a big deal? I really don't understand this sudden backlash to what had occured over a year ago...

by **mikedee** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:42 pm

DBO wrote:Ubuntu is and has been for quite some time, shipping binary kernel modules for wireless chipsets.

Are they actually binary kernel modules which link to GPL'd headers?

My laptop card works with ndiswrapper which just wrap a windows driver AFAIK, so there isn't a problem there. If Ubuntu has permission to redistribute the windows drivers then they are not breaking any law at all.

Compiz Community Forums

To binary or not to binary, that is the REAL question

Should Ubuntu make nvidia the default driver over nv?

To binary or not to binary, that is the REAL question

Who is online