3 ms·
Are you referring to the small decade it took them to support KMS so that their driver behaved even remotely like a modern one? Or perhaps their marvelous inst
by arghwhat 7y ago
Are you referring to the small decade it took them to support KMS so that their driver behaved even remotely like a modern one?
Or perhaps their marvelous installation methods of running a random script as root that rewrites configuration files, and its configuration interface that likewise also rewrites configuration files in attempts to get multi-monitor setups working that until recently hardly ever worked?
Maybe you are referring to their magnificent support, forcing you to stay on outdated kernels as upgrading would break compatibility and render you without a functioning graphics adapter short of a VGA-resolution framebuffer console?
It could also be their fantastic backwards compatibility, requiring you to keep track of driver series compatible with certain adapters, where every other GPU in existence just works OOB.
I used NVIDIA up until a 2 years back. While you could arguably get things to work, claiming they had excellent support is laughable at best.
- michaelmrose 7y agoMost distros have a nvidia driver package that aligns with the kernel version shipped. This also means updating one updates the other automatically. Furthermore lag time for supporting newest kernel normally lags what 30 days? In brief what you are describing is self inflicted wounds.
- arghwhat 7y agoIndeed, any problems spawning from using NVIDIA can be considered self-inflicted, which is why I left that dumpsterfire.
- Crinus 7y agoI think he refers to the fact that Nvidia's drivers provided excellent OpenGL support for multiple years compared to the absolute dumpsterfire that fglrx was. Before Valve decided to pay attention to Linux and thus prod AMD to improve their drivers, if you wanted anything approaching serious 3D performance on Linux, you had to use Nvidia. Anything else would be a waste of money.