Slashdot Log In
Creative GPLs X-Fi Sound Card Driver Code
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Nov 06, 2008 04:00 PM
from the intelligent-move dept.
from the intelligent-move dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that's a win for the free software community, Creative Labs has decided to release their binary Linux driver for the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi and X-Fi Titanium sound cards under the GPL license. This is coming after several failed attempts at delivering a working binary driver and years after these sound cards first hit the market."
Related Stories
Submission: Creative Releases Code To X-Fi Sound Card Driver by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cool (Score:3, Funny)
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
This is great news! With proper sound card driver support maybe 2009 will finally be the year of the Linux desktop!
Re:At last! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
While Ubuntu goes a long way to improving the user experience with Linux, even to get it to a 'standard' setup, I needed to use the console no less than 5 times.
Which "standard" issues required the console, if I may be so bold to ask?
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
The same kind that would require using REGEDIT on windows. Screw that troll, linux is as ready as any other consumer OS on the market. The consumer mass just been too much hammered into that win32 thinking shape.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.
I doubt I've opened REGEDIT four times this year or twenty times over the life of XP.
I have yet to meet anyone other than the enthusiast or the pro who is genuinely comfortable editing configuration files.
The syntax is arcane - people fear the consequences of a typo. The experience has all the
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
There's your problem you see. It should be user canal, and you sudo to get elevated privileges as and when needed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is unrelated to the parent however.
My Mum used to do data entry on punch card terminals (or something like it), she would tell me about how in the day she wrote a program to add more then one zero when she pushed the zero key because she was lazy to press the key multiple times, however even with all this she still can barely use a modern GUI machine and she used to be scared of computers.
It puzzles me to this day that she could do these difficult things before but now she can barely operate a much eas
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes,what you said is true,but you miss a subtle but very important point. That is this: often the user doesn't HAVE to fix anything in Windows. Why? Because if there isn't a cousin,uncle,brother that "works on Windows" there is a guy down the street like me with a shop that'll be happy to take their money to just make it go. Folks get a Linux machine and it is just them,Google,and a big scary CLI. And they don't like that. So they run back to Windows.
Let me give an example: I got a neighbor down the hall that is a graphic designer and engineer. Damned smart,used to work at NASA in Houston on the shuttle mockups. But he comes and pays me to come over any time he has the slighest networking problem. I told him I would be happy to show him the basics so he wouldn't HAVE to call me when he had a problem. His answer? He looked at me like I was crazy and said "Why in the WORLD would I want to do that? I'm busy doing the stuff I enjoy,like helping the rocket club design and build new instruments and doing graphic art for clients. I HATE messing with all those Windows nuts and bolts. I'd much rather just pay you,who actually like to mess with that junk,than to take time out of my busy life to deal with something I hate. Life's too short for that."
Which is why ANY CLI at all is too much. The second someone like him(which I have found is the vast majority of my clients. The really DON'T want to know, just pay me and make it go away) ran into a problem that required CLI,and he couldn't find someone to do it,the Linux machine would be returned or sat out on the curb. Hell,I've found the vast majority of Windows users don't even know what CLI or regedit are. They call someone or drop it off somewhere and then the box just works again. And that is how they like it. So while the uber geeks may like CLI,as far as Windows goes I've found that even the power users don't like delving too deep into the guts. They'd just rather pay me and make it go away. And that of course is how I like it!
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think there's much about a fairly stable distro that prevents a repair shop, help line, or techie relative from knowing the ins and outs well enough to help. And there's variation between distros but it's not *crazy*, that is, if you felt comfortable working on a Debian box, you could handle one with Ubuntu, etc. Those two would cover most of the customers.
Yeah, all the software comes from different places, but that's not unique to linux. Assuming someone sticks to a reasonable set of software and it's all from the Canonical repositories, you could easily have a setup that's capable of being worked on by someone who didn't do the actual installation.
If things seem to be FUBAR you could always wipe & reinstall whatever distro, and say they had one of those pesky linux viruses :D
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Folks get a Linux machine and it is just them,Google,and a big scary CLI."
hm.. I thought I somehow inadvertently retrieved a cached page from 1998, but that doesn't make sense 'cause you mention "Google" ...
For the people I think you might be talking about, right-clicking on anything is approximately as scary as the cli.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny it doesn't with my nVidia 7900GS or my 6800GS cards in either of the boxes I just installed it on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At last! (Score:5, Informative)
Vista does, yes.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
How would someone afraid of the command line fix this kind of problem in Windows? If the user is the kind to be afraid of a command line, they are probably one of those users that need help when anything substantial goes wrong.
I bet said user would end up asking for help from someone else.
So, in light of that, how is it any different between Linux and Windows? Both have problems, and both can be a pain in the ass to fix.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo.
The year of the linux desktop will never come until "making everything work" for 80% of the population requires precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files. And that most google searches for help end with instructions telling the user how to fix their problem or get their whatever working must also use precisely zero command line interactions, and precisely zero edits of obscure text files.
This includes hardware, common to obscure applications, common customizations etc.
If you have to edit a text file, your software is not ready for (l)users.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
If you have to edit a text file, your software is not ready for (l)users.
Who wants lusers using the same OS as you? One of the reasons I use GNU/Linux (Debian) is precisely because the user communities are free of lusers, so that I know that whenever I post a message to a mailing list I will get answers from fellow power users.
Lusers tend to infect a software project with their stupidity and naivety. They tend to click on any link they see in their emails, so virus writters target whatever OS the lusers use most. The developers of a piece of software also tend to make their software more suitable for stupid users because they tend to think that accomodating more users is a good thing, thus driving power users away. Unfortunately this currently happens with some GNU/Linux distros. You just have to see that many newer GNU/Linux software projects only work with X and have no command line support, and many websites don't work with text browsers anymore.
Whatever software we use is not only determined by technical merit but also by social factors. We want to use software which is different from anyone else, particularly the lusers and the closed source world. If our OS requires interaction with a command line and editing obscure text files, then we can know for sure that we will never have to deal with a luser in our support mailing lists, etc.
Thus, user-unfriendliness is a filter that we can use intentionally to keep non-powerusers away from our communities. If GNU/Linux ever becomes the preferred OS of lusers I am going to switch to OpenBSD, and if that too gets infected by lusers I will write my own.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, you're making a false comparison: How usable Linux is is an entirely separate issue from how usable Windows is. In an ideal world, Linux would be EASIER than Windows. With your approach, you're basically saying "once you're as good as Windows, you can give up and stop improving."
Secondly:
1) You don't need to use the CLI to install antivirus software.
2) You don't need to use the CLI to install Office.
3) Registry repair hasn't been part of the Windows experience since Windows 2000 came out; do t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point there, sir.
Linux is not Windows.
Why do we have to be like Windows?
A better question would be:
Why do people argue over stupid stuff like this?
If you like Windows, use it. If you like Linux, use it. Please try to refrain from complaining because it's not the way _you_ like it.
I personally use Linux because I like it. I grew up with the ol' classic Mac. Then Windows. And moved on to Linux about 8 years ago.
I _like_ editing obscure config files. I _like_ using the command line.
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. What bothers me is that I've seen this conversation about 50,000,000 times on this site:
A: Linux isn't very good at Foobar.
B: Windows is just as bad at Foobar!1!!!
Notice how person B totally and completely changed the subject while simultaneously missing the point. The point isn't how good Windows is at it; in fact, the original poster didn't even *mention* Windows 90% of the time this conversation happens. The point is that Linux isn't very good at Foobar and should be better at Foobar.
Mac OS X users don't constantly compare themselves to Windows; I could go on "macosxhints.com" and post, "wow, the interface for Spotlight in Finder sucks ass" and I won't get 47 replies that all read, "yeah, well, Windows search is worse!!11!." For some reason, the Linux community does that constantly. It's annoying, it should stop.
It's logically impossible to build an OS better than Windows if you only work on problems until you're "as good as Windows" at them. If the Linux cared about making a usable, supported, real alternative OS, they wouldn't do this constant penis-measuring about Windows and they'd start working on it.
End rant, sorry.
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, being a casual Linux user, sound card support is not the defining factor holding back Linux adoption. While Ubuntu goes a long way to improving the user experience with Linux, even to get it to a 'standard' setup, I needed to use the console no less than 5 times. That's *needed* to, there was no GUI way to do what I was trying to do.
While I personally have no problem doing that, I shudder at the idea of talking someone like my father through it. The day that I can combine Linux stability with ease of use... that will be the year of the Linux desktop. Driver integration and support goes a long way to doing that, and a flushed out menu system will put it over the top.
I have come to disbelieve in the mystical power of the GUI. The GUI does not solve all problems. It can not provide radio buttons and check-marks for every situation. And it does not invoke a state of bliss for helping the wayward neophyte in a state of confusion. I accept that some will see this as heresy.
Granted - I've long been a heretic. The command line is what ultimately turned me from Windows to Unix. But I understand that I am not a "normal user" and so I was willing to accept that GUIs are generally Good Ideas. And I still think they are; I used them in my Linux environment all the time for a lot of tasks. But there are times when it just doesn't work as well as a command line.
This isn't a Linux concept. Various proprietary Unix environments have long straddled the fence between GUI and command line. And that includes today's most celebrated consumer Unix environment: MacOS X. Even Microsoft has given the command line increasing attention. And that's not even covering such dark arts as registry hacking.
But wait! Most users never see a registry hack! Yet Linux must always resort to the command line. Right? Not in my experience.
It's probably due to my particular interests - but I've always found a reason to dig in to the guts of a system. Either I'm doing something unique for my own use, cleaning up after having broken something, or cleaning up after someone else having broken something. And that's always required a registry editor or a command line (and sometimes a command line even when a GUI option was available as I just found it easier). And when I'm not doing something too out-of-the-ordinary, I've found the base Unbuntu install gives me a perfectly suitable environment. The clicky-clicky magic is baked right in. Here. Today.
And when it doesn't? Its often a cruddy driver involved that trips up Ubuntu's autoconfig magic. That "driver integration" goes further than given credit for.
That doesn't mean "Linux" can't use improvement. There's plenty of room for it. Cruddy drivers included.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't understand how your post can get modded up with so complete lack of arguable points.
I tend to use the console a lot, but when I do it's usually because:
1. I'm trying to do something others wouldn't, like say bridge a virtualbox to the network
2. I'm trying to bludgeon half-supported hardware into working, like my laptop's ACPI support
3. In a forum it's 100x easier to type up three lines of console text than make a GUI guide
I have had problems with sounds. I've also not had problems with sound
Re:At last! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm hoping that Creative, along with ATI, Nvidia and others are beginning to realize that many home users who tinker with Linux are not just poor students looking for cheap solutions. Many Linux users are well-off somewhat technical professionals with the patience and the disposal income >
Fucking awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this even closed source in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what possible financial/business gain is there to have creative hide these things? Are they really worried about other companies stealing their driver ideas for their hardware? I know graphics drivers can potentially (or used to anyways) have a large amount of optimized code that could _maybe_ be beneficial to competitors, but sound cards?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creative is probably one of those companies that chargers a grip for access to their API. Open sourcing the drivers means nobody will pay for any API access anymore. On linux.
Re:Why is this even closed source in the first pla (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Releasing driver source code reveals most of the same information that is included in detailed technical specifications. It almost always includes enough info to make a compatible, competing product, and often has enough info to greatly simplify the process of reverse-engineering the device.
A hardware company like Creative should be wary of doing this - it could really hurt their monopoly on gaming-oriented sound cards.
Re:Why is this even closed source in the first pla (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, I believe it was that they had licensed some functionality for XP but not for Vista, so they were no longer enabled in the Vista driver. Someone posted hacks to reenable the functionality under Vista, which required Creative to do some legal bitching as they probably feared those they were licensing from. In any case, maybe their lawyers realized that even if the open source community implemented something patented or whatever it's not going to make Creative liable.
Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can play all those great games that got built on top of the open-source ID engines!
Soundcards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this is a sign that Creative are fearing for their existence. I mean, with high quality onboard audio (7.1, dolby etc) now pretty much standard on even budget motherboards, aren't the days of buying a separate soundcard history now?
Other than musicians perhaps, I can't think that anyone, even gamers/power users would still consider a separate soundcard as a 'required' upgrade, or even necessary at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soundcards? (Score:5, Informative)
Musicians (like me) will buy better-quality hardware than Creative. :3
Parent
Re:Soundcards? (Score:4, Informative)
One popular card is the good old M-Audio Audiophile 2496, which costs around $100.
Don't get the newer Audiophile 192 unless you need 192 kHz or balanced outputs. It is dumbed down, with reduced duplex, and you can't route the SPDIF input from, say, a TV at the same time as you route analog sound from, say, the GUI. You get one or the other, but not both independently.
There are many other popular choices, but the M-Audio is one of the more rock solid ones for Linux use.
Parent
Re:Soundcards? (Score:5, Informative)
Headphones.
No one else gives a damn about headphones. The quality issues with on-board sound become quite apparent with a good set of headphones, and even most other consumer sound cards treat it as an afterthought, doing whatever they would do with a set of stereo speakers. The X-Fi (at least under Windows) has an absolutely excellent headphone spatialization algorithm for general listening, it completely resolves the fatigue issue that results from hearing only a single audio channel in each ear without naturally occurring crossfeed. As for gaming, Creative (or rather Aureal's) head related transfer function tech for 3D audio is second to none; it's better than 5.1 speakers and is the only thing on the market right now worth a damn for 3D audio on headphones.
Unfortunately I'm not sure how much of this would be usable under Linux. The spatialization issue in particular drives me nuts.
Parent
GPL... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL. So BSD coders will have to rewrite it from scratch.
This is better than nothing, but worse than good documentation and worse than a BSD driver (that could be merged to BSD and GPL licensed operating systems).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Figure out how to talk to the hardware.
3. Write the BSD driver.
Step 2 is made much easier by step 1. Without step 1 you have to talk to the hardware without any kind of reference.
Sound cards are irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Not even gamers buy sound cards anymore [steampowered.com]. I bet Creative's sound card business is small fries compared to their consumer electronics business.
Re:Sound cards are irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Not even gamers buy sound cards anymore.
It does make you wonder what the 30% "other" is though.
They've got Creative Labs represented at about 3.5% between Audigy 2 ZS, Audigy, and X-Fi. But is that accurately counting all the X-Fi variants? What about the multitude of Audigy 2's that aren't "ZS". Ditto for the diverse original Audigy line. The venerable SoundBlaster "Live" series that preceded the Audigy isn't represented at all. I wouldn't really be raising the question, except that we've got that giant 30% "other" sitting there. I could easily see another 5 or 6 or more percent being various creative labs cards.
In any case, I agree with you that that even gamers aren't buying sound cards the way they used to.
That said, some of those steam numbers look WAY out of whack.
Take a look at 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio monitors, which they claim make up 26% of all monitors. And within widescreen 34% claim 24" or larger (24" @ 15%+ over 24" @ 19%).
That equates to 9% of all users using a 24"+ screen. Yet if you compare that to the primary display resolution table, a mere 2.29% are running 1920x1200 or larger. 1920x1200 is the native resolution on 24"-26" screens, with 30" being 2560x1600 (and not represented at all in the chart).
I call bullshit.
Parent
Why not BSD-license? (Score:4, Insightful)
This would've allowed for easier inclusion of the driver in BSD systems, without any threat to Creative — whatever extra freedoms are granted by the BSD-license compared to GPL, they are useless in the case of a vendor releasing a driver for their own hardware.
Obligatory bash reference (Score:5, Funny)
Too little to late (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not going to bother dusting off what were my state of the art X-Fi soundcards out of the garage. As with the copies of Windows I get bundled with the computers I buy, I won't bother giving them away or selling them as I refuse to inflict the damned things on anybody else. I'm not going to buy Creative again.
Phillip.
Re:Win? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary is misleading. TFA says that the source is available on their web site.
FWIW, you can't use the GPL if you don't make the source available.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not wanting to get into another flame fest thread over GPLv2 vs GPLv3, but I'm curious as to their reasoning for choosing v2. Did they say?
Not that I've heard, but one reason is patents. If Creative hold any patents over the driver, or even the hardware, they may be at risk when using the GPLv3 (the risk doesn't have to be real, only perceived). There's also the licenses of ALSA and OSS. I checked both, and they're GPLv2-only. GPLv3-only source code would be useless unless they relicensed their entire projects, and I don't think they'd be in any hurry to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are free to tag any way they want.
People are idiots.
Put one and two together.