Comments on: No(vell) sticky questions http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-sticky-questions/ Thoughts of little consequence Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:38:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tony http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-sticky-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Tony Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:04:29 +0000 http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-stuff/#comment-54 Umm. yes they do. Not for every card. But, as I mention in my post, if you've gone out of the way to purchase graphics cards that can provide 3D using the Open Source drivers, you still can't use XGL. For example, I have a Radeon Mobility 9000 in my laptop, which supports 3D using the "ati" driver. My desktop has an ATI Radeon 9200 SE card that supports 3D using the "ati" driver, even under dual head. Umm. yes they do. Not for every card. But, as I mention in my post, if you’ve gone out of the way to purchase graphics cards that can provide 3D using the Open Source drivers, you still can’t use XGL. For example, I have a Radeon Mobility 9000 in my laptop, which supports 3D using the “ati” driver. My desktop has an ATI Radeon 9200 SE card that supports 3D using the “ati” driver, even under dual head.

]]> By: Charles Hughes http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-sticky-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Charles Hughes Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:44:09 +0000 http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-stuff/#comment-53 It is not that XGL requires use of propriatory drivers. It requires hardware 3D acceleration, which the open source drivers for nVidia and ATI cards do not support. It is not that XGL requires use of propriatory drivers. It requires hardware 3D acceleration, which the open source drivers for nVidia and ATI cards do not support.

]]> By: Tony http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-sticky-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Tony Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:23:51 +0000 http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-stuff/#comment-46 As ever Ted, you are hot off the mark on any blog that mentions NOA. :) Perhaps "not developed in the normal Open Source manner" might be better said "not developed in the normal Free Software manner." Hey, if Novell could get ATI and Nvidia to open their 3D drivers, that would be great. Personally, I made sure I purchased cards that supported 3D using the open drivers, and as a result can't use XGL. This isn't a great loss, but it irritates me that people who strive to use Free Software wherever possible are excluded from cool new technology. It also worries me that cool new technology relies so heavily on propriatory components. As ever Ted, you are hot off the mark on any blog that mentions NOA. :) Perhaps “not developed in the normal Open Source manner” might be better said “not developed in the normal Free Software manner.” Hey, if Novell could get ATI and Nvidia to open their 3D drivers, that would be great. Personally, I made sure I purchased cards that supported 3D using the open drivers, and as a result can’t use XGL. This isn’t a great loss, but it irritates me that people who strive to use Free Software wherever possible are excluded from cool new technology. It also worries me that cool new technology relies so heavily on propriatory components.

]]> By: Ted Haeger http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-sticky-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Ted Haeger Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:57:56 +0000 http://tonywhitmore.co.uk/blog/2006/09/11/novell-stuff/#comment-44 Tony: Thanks for the comments. The reason why we did not ask some of the questions you might have asked were in partly Nat's answer. Chock it up to the issues being familiar to us. SE Linux was started after AppArmor. It uses LSM interfaces that were actually created and contributed by the AppArmor team. Perhaps the real question is: why did Novell chose to acquire a proprietary tool (AppArmor) rather than an open one (SE Linux). I think the answer is that AppArmor is in better alignment an important security principle: if the basic enforcement capabilities are similar, then the security tool that is more simple to configure will be likely more effective than tools that are complex to configure. Novell liked AppArmor's simplicity over SE Linux, so we bought Immunix, and open sourced AppArmor. As a result, Linux now provides more choice for strong security. Regarding Xgl, Nat pointed out that Xgl merely enables the windowing and compositing manager (Compiz).If I remember correctly, Nat mentioned that we may even look to switching over to AIGLX when it makes sense to do so. However, the most common PC graphics hardware today includes a lot of Nvidia and ATI. So, perhaps a good question we could have asked is, "What is Novell doing to get ATI and Nvidia to open their 3D drivers?" which still remains an unsolved mystery. Finally, the "not developed in the normal Open Source manner" might be better said "not developed with the community." A recent <a href="http://reverendted.wordpress.com/2006/08/27/accused-as-being-proprietary/#comment-1014" rel="nofollow">comment left on my blog</a> examines this pretty well. At the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion, and not everyone will agree with our execution on Xgl. The final result is that the single engineer on Xgl (David Reveman) took it behind closed doors for a few months in order to get it working well enough for it to be a usable proof of concept before releasing it. When he did, he provided a working foundation for hackers to experiment with. --Ted Tony:
Thanks for the comments. The reason why we did not ask some of the questions you might have asked were in partly Nat’s answer. Chock it up to the issues being familiar to us.

SE Linux was started after AppArmor. It uses LSM interfaces that were actually created and contributed by the AppArmor team. Perhaps the real question is: why did Novell chose to acquire a proprietary tool (AppArmor) rather than an open one (SE Linux). I think the answer is that AppArmor is in better alignment an important security principle: if the basic enforcement capabilities are similar, then the security tool that is more simple to configure will be likely more effective than tools that are complex to configure. Novell liked AppArmor’s simplicity over SE Linux, so we bought Immunix, and open sourced AppArmor. As a result, Linux now provides more choice for strong security.

Regarding Xgl, Nat pointed out that Xgl merely enables the windowing and compositing manager (Compiz).If I remember correctly, Nat mentioned that we may even look to switching over to AIGLX when it makes sense to do so. However, the most common PC graphics hardware today includes a lot of Nvidia and ATI. So, perhaps a good question we could have asked is, “What is Novell doing to get ATI and Nvidia to open their 3D drivers?” which still remains an unsolved mystery.

Finally, the “not developed in the normal Open Source manner” might be better said “not developed with the community.” A recent comment left on my blog examines this pretty well. At the end of the day, it’s a matter of opinion, and not everyone will agree with our execution on Xgl. The final result is that the single engineer on Xgl (David Reveman) took it behind closed doors for a few months in order to get it working well enough for it to be a usable proof of concept before releasing it. When he did, he provided a working foundation for hackers to experiment with.

–Ted

]]>