| Graphic Hardware |
|
|
|
Most of the graphic hardware is compatible with ArtistX. Anyway, remember that for better perfornmances you should install a non-live version of GNU/Linux (Ubuntu if you are new or Debian if you are a gentleman). For ATI cards please go to: http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html
For Nvidia cards please go to: http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html
For Wacom tablets please go to: http://www.wacom.com/productsupport/linux.cfm
And straight from Wikipedia:
Graphics hardware and FOSSFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Free and open source software (FOSS) can be used with a variety of graphics hardware, largely via the X.Org project. There are varying levels of support, ranging from completely working drivers to unsupported hardware. Some manufacturers do not provide open source drivers or technical documentation suitable for independent developers to write accelerated 3D device drivers; support for products from these companies can be limited: they may provide only binary drivers (knows as binary blobs) or lack of documentation may force developers of open source drivers to reverse engineer their products. In the case of binary drivers there are also objections due to free software philosophy, software quality and security concerns.[1] There is little information on performance of graphics hardware with FOSS drivers. The only widely-known source is the free3d.org site,[2] which collects 3D performance information—specifically glxgears frame rates—submitted by users. On the basis of what it concedes is an inadequate benchmark,[3] the site currently lists ATI's Radeon X800/X850 as recommended for "best 3D performance."
Manufacturer support
Problems with binary driversThere are a number of objections to binary-only drivers. These may be philosophical, with some feeling that drivers distributed without source code are against the beliefs of the free software movement, or pragmatic copyright, security or reliability concerns. As part of a wider campaign against binary blobs, OpenBSD lead developer Theo de Raadt has pointed out that with a binary driver there is "no way to fix it when it breaks (and it will break)" and that once a product which relies on binary drivers is end-of-lifed by the manufacturer, it is effectively "broken."[14] The project has also asserted that binary drivers "hide bugs and workarounds for bugs,"[15] a comment that has been somewhat vindicated by flaws found in binary drivers, including in October 2006 an exploitable bug in NVIDIA's 3D drivers.[16] It is speculated that this bug has existed since 2004, although NVIDIA have denied this, asserting that the issue was only communicated to them in July 2006 and that the 2004 bug was a bug in X.Org, not in NVIDIA's driver.[17] In the Linux kernel development community, Linus Torvalds has made strong statements on the issue of binary-only modules, asserting: "I refuse to even consider tying my hands over some binary-only module", and continuing: "I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem".[18] Another kernel developer, Greg Kroah-Hartman, has commented that a binary-only kernel module does not comply with the kernel's license—the GNU General Public License—it "just violates the GPL due to fun things like derivative works and linking and other stuff."[19] Writer and computer scientist Peter Gutmann has expressed concerns that the Digital Rights Management copy prevention scheme in Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system may limit the availability of the documentation required to write open drivers as it "requires that the operational details of the device be kept confidential."[20] |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|