> I think these distinctions are important, becaues NVIDIA is not telling anyone that they have (1) an open source driver, and (2) that this driver is well supp

> I think these distinctions are important, becaues NVIDIA is not telling anyone that they have (1) an open source driver, and (2) that this driver is well supported. this is not correct. this is an extract from an nvidia presentation: > We'll report up-to-the-minute developments on NVIDIA's status and activities, and possibly (depending on last-minute developments) a few future plans and directions, regarding our contributions to Linux kernel; supporting Nouveau (the open source kernel driver for NVIDIA GPUs, that is in the Linux kernel), including signed firmware behavior, documentation, and patches; and NVIDIA kernel drivers. Now, even putting this aside, the situation is not so black-and-white. I wasn't able to boot Ubuntu with my latest Nvidia card. The closed-source driver can work perfectly, but it doesn't boot a Ubuntu image. I don't remember the details, but I think rebuilding the image with closed-source drivers didn't produce a functioning system, and if memory serves me well, I had to go as far as booting with another card. Therefore, a closed-source only approach does actively damage the open source world in a concrete way. Second, the nv driver story (obfuscating the code) is really deplorable, and there's no excuse for being explicitly antagonistic. All in all, I think that being fiercely closed-source (they'd be good friends with the GNOME devs...) in a open source world, can't avoid doing concrete damage.