Re: [S.u.S.E. Linux] Next rev on XFree86?
At 03:19 PM 7/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
It really isn't in the interest of the hardware manufacturers to write drivers for an operating system that doesn't make them any money. If you are unhappy with xfree there are always AccelX and MetroX.
You don't think that hardware manufacturers would make more money if they sold more of their product? When Matrox sell a card for an NT system, they aren't making money off the drivers they're making it off the hardware. This would also apply Linux (maybe even better since fewer companies actively support their hardware for Linux). Wouldn't you be inclined to purchase a video card that said something to the effect of 100% Linux Compatible on the box. With millions of people using Linux and more buying distributions everyday, I don't think thatthe cost of programming a driver for Linux would outweigh the potential gains made by selling more product.
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Steven T. Hatton wrote:
I am wondering what the future plans for XFree86 are. I have a few gripes about the current version. I am not able to go beyond 16bpp, and I had to manually edit the file to get the refresh rate above 60Hz. I am using a Matrox Millenium II with 8Meg. I also have a 21" monitor running at 1600 x 1200. I have also had some problems with my system and the M$ Intellimouse. For some reason the mouse caused the KDE to loose its backgounds. The mouse would also take off every once in a while and hide in a corner as if it had seen a cat. My mother board is an Asus with a PPro MMX 200.
I wish I understood more about what goes on under the hood with this stuff. Is it reasonable for hardware manufacturers to write components for XFree86 that would support their products? I hesitate to call these 'drivers' because I'm not sure if that is the technically correct term.
Steve
- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
kyle wrote:
With millions of people using Linux and more buying distributions everyday, I don't think thatthe cost of programming a driver for Linux would outweigh the potential gains made by selling more product.
I agree, unfortunately that's just not how it is. I wish game companies other than id and crack.com made linux bins for their games. That's a big market not being exploited. The number of linux boxes is miniscule compared to all the boxes running windows os'es. It is the responsibility of the linux user to make sure his/her hardware is supported prior to making a purchase. Try running one of the other unices and I'll think you'll see that hardware support in linux is phenomenally good. -- ==================================================================== Michael Lankton <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org</A</A>> ==================================================================== - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
kyle wrote:
You don't think that hardware manufacturers would make more money if they sold more of their product? When Matrox sell a card for an NT system, they aren't making money off the drivers they're making it off the hardware. This would also apply Linux (maybe even better since fewer companies actively support their hardware for Linux). Wouldn't you be inclined to purchase a video card that said something to the effect of 100% Linux Compatible on the box. With millions of people using Linux and more buying distributions everyday, I don't think thatthe cost of programming a driver for Linux would outweigh the potential gains made by selling more product.
That would be most desirable, but unfortunately most hardware manufacturers aren't creating drivers for Linux. I don't think we can expect the very hardworking folks at XFree86 to accomodate every video card/monitor combination. They've come a *long* way as it is, but it is still up to the Linux user to make sure that hardware purchased is compatible with Linux. Isn't that why we have the Hardware-HOWTO? If the generously provided XFree86 isn't sufficient, there are commercial alternatives available as Michael pointed out. But one would have to make sure that his hardware was supported before purchasing AccelX or MetroX, at least I would hope he would. Regards, Mark - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Actually, the problem is the FSF aspect of the Linux community. Many video card companies wont agree to release source for their base drivers or specs for creating drivers without an NDA. That's why Redhat is doing the XBF (X Binary Free) project, to provide binaries without source for most popular video cards. How if they could just get the damned sound right for us PCI audio users. :) kyle wrote:
At 03:19 PM 7/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
It really isn't in the interest of the hardware manufacturers to write drivers for an operating system that doesn't make them any money. If you are unhappy with xfree there are always AccelX and MetroX.
You don't think that hardware manufacturers would make more money if they sold more of their product? When Matrox sell a card for an NT system, they aren't making money off the drivers they're making it off the hardware. This would also apply Linux (maybe even better since fewer companies actively support their hardware for Linux). Wouldn't you be inclined to purchase a video card that said something to the effect of 100%
- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
participants (4)
-
jmbrooks＠nr.infi.net -
kyle＠binary.net -
mwagnon＠ixpres.com -
satan3＠home.com