Root exploit found in binary NVIDIA driver

Does anyone know if XGL/Compiz still works when using the free NVIDIA driver?

If you mean, will the compiz/xgl effects continue working if, instead of updating your nvidia driver, you nuke it and downgrade to the "nv" skeleton driver included in the xorg distribution, the answer is no.

Nope. You want an Intel chip for that.

I'm curious, because I really haven't paid close attention to the Intel chip. Can I buy a graphics card with the Intel chip, or is that integrated into the mobo? I assume it's integrated, based on what I've seen so far. If it's a dumb question, just realize that I am dumb about this. I used to keep up with hardware more than I do now.

Quoting: dcparris: Can I buy a graphics card with the Intel chip, or is that integrated into the mobo?

I'd like to know too - from all the looking around I've done, the only recent intel graphics chips I've found are embedded in the motherboards. I'd like to see intel re-enter the graphics card market, as that would provide a viable choice for a modern video card with FOSS drivers.

I think you just answered my question. It would be nice to have a separate card to buy.

> Can I buy a graphics card with the Intel chip, or is that integrated into the mobo?

The last chipset which Intel offered as a discrete video card was the i740. It's performance was adequate for the day, but it was crippled by poor to non-existant drivers. AFIAK, everything since then has been motherboard only.

Quoting:It would be nice to have a separate card to buy.

Where's the market? Aside from us FLOSSies who want to replace their current cards with cards that have Free drivers I don't know why anyone would buy such a card. Older ATI's and NVidia's go for as low as $40 a piece and they beat Intel GPU's by a mile. On-board video an possibly future on-CPU video looks like the only viable place unless Intel starts closing the performance gap.

One think I do wonder about: Could a FLOSS-friendly entity simply buy large stacks of Intel GPU's and put them on a separate board for us at a decent price, or does the design make that impossible?

I just don't care for having everything integrated. If you need to replace your sound, video or whatever card, then you pretty much wind up replacing the whole mobo. I used to cringe over that. In fact, I think I still do. I suppose that in a laptop, integrated circuitry makes a little more sense, since you're not quite as apt to run out and replace your graphics card on those. But in a workstation I want "interminglable" components.

Since I just got soaked financially, I'll have to add an Intel mobo to my Christmas wishlist.

> I just don't care for having everything integrated.

I definitely 2nd that.

Since the onboard chips are so small, I'm wondering why they can't made removeable and upgradeable. Instead of the only other option being a PCI or AGP card.

> I'm wondering why they can't made removeable and upgradeable.

Can we say 'Profit'...

No, it has to do with the motherboard layers...current graphics cards use a 10-12 layer PCB (at least), a desktop motherboard usually has only 4 layers. Don't get me wrong, it *can* be done, but the price of the thing would be outrageous. Just like a 100 MPG car, it can be made easily, but again nobody would be able to afford it. :-(

> No, it has to do with the motherboard layers...

And that's not about profit? The point for the OEM is to sell a bunch and maximize their profits. If it's too expensive initially, as you say, few will buy it. Better to put a bunch of less expensive boards on the market.

Quoting:I'm hoping that NVidia gets tired of having to carry the load all by themselves and releases their drivers under an OSS license. They are responsive, but it has to be taking a fair amount of effort and resources.

They [NVidia] say that it's too difficult for an OSS community to write drivers for "such a complex device". Yeah.

My favourite theory is that of shame. Their driver workarounds so many hardware bugs that releasing that information to the public would be bordering on a PR catastrophe ;)

> My favourite theory is that of shame. Their driver workarounds so many hardware bugs that releasing that information to the public would be bordering on a PR catastrophe ;)

That may be a good point, both with NVidia and ATI. Nothing like showing the world how incompetent you are.

Quoting:They [NVidia] say that it's too difficult for an OSS community to write drivers for "such a complex device". Yeah.

From nVidia's web site they claim they don't release drivers for a different reason.

Quoting:One of the biggest growth areas for Linux is in the workstation market, where NVIDIA's enterprise customers are using custom deployed OpenGL applications under Linux with our Quadro GPUs. Most of these companies require NVIDIA to provide an end-to-end solution which stipulates that NVIDIA be wholly responsible for product delivery and support, including the drivers. This is the primary reason why NVIDIA has decided to retain source code control for our 3D graphics engine.

I would love to see an Open driver for nVidia's cards, but as long as they can't or wont figure out a way to provide a free driver as well as the closed driver for the workstations that require it, I guess I am out of luck. Although the OSS dirver for my unichrome chip in my laptop is junk, and a pain to work with. Makes me wish I could program.

Quoting:One of the biggest growth areas for Linux is in the workstation market, where NVIDIA's enterprise customers are using custom deployed OpenGL applications under Linux with our Quadro GPUs. Most of these companies require NVIDIA to provide an end-to-end solution which stipulates that NVIDIA be wholly responsible for product delivery and support, including the drivers. This is the primary reason why NVIDIA has decided to retain source code control for our 3D graphics engine.

That is one of the lamest excuses I've heard in a long time :P Really spin for 'proprietary rules'...

jimf: > There is nothing more important to the Linux desktop than the basic video system, Without that we're back to greenscreen and text based.

What? You mean you don't like the EMACS virtualization technology running on a Linux or Hurd kernel with the glitzy new 3D interface? You are soooo GUI-fied! :-p

You are soooo GUI-fied! :-p

You are soooo right :D

You kids dunno nuthin. Framebuffer all the way.

> You kids dunno nuthin. Framebuffer all the way.

LikeTom Selleck says in 'Quigley Down Under', "Just said I didn't like pistols, Didn't say I couldn't use one' ;-).

Can we say vindicated?

http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/enduser/st...

Vindication for a two-year old security hole that was reported for weeks before Nvidia acknowledged it? I'll give them a point for finally owning up to it, and I'm deducting ten points for posting it in obscure location. If you can show me an obvious link to "security bulletins" or something similar, rather than having to know exactly what to search for and where to find it, I'll up their score.

And it still ain't open source, so next time they'll probably do the same.

Quoting:Like Tom Selleck says in 'Quigley Down Under', "Just said I didn't like pistols, Didn't say I couldn't use one' ;-).

One of my favorite movies of all time. Good choice of words Jim.

Quoting: tuxchick: Vindication for a two-year old security hole that was reported for weeks before Nvidia acknowledged it?

As it turns out, this was *not* a two-year old security hole. That was a false charge. The theoretical vulnerability, which was never exploited in any case, was fairly short lived, but was confused with an old xorg security hole by those eager to sling mud.

I have to confess, I'm a bit puzzled by all the eagerness to slam nvidia. The security record of their drivers is as good or better than any of the other linux drivers, they have some very savvy linux coders on their payroll and they've been quick to keep their linux drivers up to date.

Are the extremists in the community really so willing to eliminate the best linux drivers available, and force linux users back to the stone age, all in the name of demanding that everything be open source? .

> Are the extremists in the community really so willing to eliminate the best linux drivers available, and force linux users back to the stone age, all in the name of demanding that everything be open source?

Lol, what a great piece of FUD herzeleidm...

jimf: It was an honest question. Will anyone step up and answer it?

This is going in circles. I'm not advocating the demise of NVidia, nor is anyone else. I want the same two fundamental things that I always want: free/open source software, especially drivers because they represent heightened security risks, and responsible security habits, like timely security bulletins and fixes that are not hidden away deep in the bowels of the vendor's site, and that are not released grudgingly when they're forced to, but quickly and openly.

How are these things bad?

Quoting: tuxchick: This is going in circles. I'm not advocating the demise of NVidia, nor is anyone else.

tc, there are those who want to keep other linux users from using the proprietary nvidia drivers. If that group doesn't include you, that's great. - but those people do exist, and some of us take a lot of flak from that crowd for using the nvidia drivers. They say we're "giving up our freedom" simply because we are using linux plus an "opaque" video driver.

Well, call me silly, but if I am given a choice between using:

# 1. video card A, with an open source driver, the code of which I've inspected and completely understand, but which gives crappy performance, and for some reason locks up the computer when I try to play doom3 -

# 2. video card B, which is about the same price as card A, and has an opaque driver core, but which gives fantastic performance, and has never been involved in a crash -

I'll pick #2 every time - but tc, you are free to pick #1, if having access to the source code is the most important thing to you. For me, it's more important that the software be of good quality, and fully support linux, than that I have the source code available.

Oh good heavens, I hope I haven't given the impression that I want to control what other people do with their computers. That's not my business. I do consider it a sacred right and duty to pester vendors to offer the services and products that I, as their paying customer, want. How else will they know, if I don't speak up? Is that not the essence of a free market? (cue heroic music)

It's not always easy to choose, and that's something everyone has to figure out on their own.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with speaking up for high quality FOSS drivers. I think everyone should do it. :-)

> there are those who want to keep other Linux users from using the proprietary nvidia drivers.

Of course there are, as there are those who want to keep you from doing a lot of things you are entitled to do. That's what ':P' is for. It's entirely your choice.

What you should realize is that NVidia (or any other OEM's) proprietary drivers are far from the technical best, or most ethical solution. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with such crap, but obviously, we don't live there. I find it difficult to blame people for choosing the best solution in any situation, even if that solution really sucks.

The solution is going to be a continuation of pressure on the OEM's to use open source and open standards. Remember that a couple of years ago none of these guys even produced a decent driver for Linux, now we have proprietary drivers from NVidia, and ATI and a open source driver from Intel. The battle to attain open source drivers for Linux will be much the same as it is for Linux itself, slow and steady.