View Single Post
Old 11-12-09, 11:44 AM   #19
TheBlackCat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 84
Default Re: NVIDIA Developer Talks Openly About Linux Support



Are you intentionally ignoring me? I don't care whether there is some third-party command-line tool to work around the limitations in the nVidia drivers. nVidia has said repeatedly over the last two and a half years that they were going to do something. They didn't. They said it was important. Now they say it wasn't.

From here http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NjkwMw a year ago (that is the same website that did these recent questions):
Quote:
We don't know when NVIDIA will officially introduce this feature in their Linux driver (and likely Solaris and FreeBSD too), but they classify it as a top priority feature.
Or from here, two and a half years ago http://www.abclinuxu.cz/clanky/rozho...nvidia?page=1:
Quote:
Andy Ritger: Thanks for asking. Some of the improvements that we plan for the Linux driver over the coming months include:
...
* RandR 1.2 support; this will layer on top of the NVIDIA X driver's current dynamic display configuration support.
But now they are saying it was never a priority, never important to them. Then why did they tell us it was? In these set of questions he said flat-out that they never considered it that important, that it "has suffered from hovering just below the cut-line", yet a year ago nVidia told the same website that it was a "top-priority feature". They said it would appear "in the coming months" almost 30 months ago. I've been saying it for months now: nVidia linux developers are terrible at communication. Is it really that much to ask that nVidia give us updates on features more than once a year, or to at least give us updates that accurately reflect their real plans and priorities? Rather than apologize, shouldn't he be giving us some sort of specific time-frame we can expect to see it in and then actually stick to that?

I don't care that much that it hasn't been implemented, what I care about is that they told us they were going to implement it and then didn't, told us it was a top-priority when it wasn't. If they had said it is a low-priority feature from the beginning, I wouldn't be so upset right now. It isn't that they didn't do it, it is that they didn't do it even though they said they were going to repeatedly, and then left us in the dark for a year, ignored repeated requests for information, and then told us it was never really in their plans to begin with. That is not how you build trust with your users, that is how you wreck trust with your users.
TheBlackCat is offline   Reply With Quote