[conspire] video drivers (was Re: "madwifi" is proprietary sludge (was: driver))

[Daniel Gimpelevich]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:23:40 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:

>> ATI, as supported by the open-source drivers, is more tolerable than
>> either Matrox or Intel.
> 
> Not unless you're a framerate freak, e.g., a gamer, which I'm not.
> For one thing, Matrox has much better image quality (which the gamer
> kiddies disregard).  Intel 945G has decent open-source 3D, and more than
> acceptable other characteristics.

The framerate freaks and gamers unanimously eschew ATI in favor of nVidia,
and typically give three major reasons: 1) ATI proprietary drivers are
unusable. 2) ATI open-source drivers require more modest hardware. 3)
Everything ATI makes constitutes more modest hardware. I say that ATI
hardware that their proprietary drivers no longer support is a "best of
all worlds" compromise EXCEPT the framerate freak/gamer world.

>> The Intel [945G) driver isn't quite open-source,
> 
> My information suggests you are in error.  Do you have evidence to
> support your claim?

How is this license in any way open-source?
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/df-support/9722/ENG/readme.txt

>> and neither are the drivers for anything comparable from Matrox.
> 
> If by "comparable" you mean with fast-framerate 3D, as I've abundantly
> noted in many places, I really don't give a damn about that.  All the 
> patent-encumbered proprietary solutions in this area can go hang, as far
> as I'm concerned.
> 
> I _know_ Matrox cards.  They rock, for all purposes I care about.

Then I'm sure you can report on their status regarding good 2D support,
video capture, multi-head, S-Video and composite out, etc.