> For obvious reasons this was never going to happen.

Well, I guess this is the crux of the problem, and for open-source enthusiasts like me this is not obvious at all. What we can surmise is that Nvidia refused to collaborate, therefore they were the party to blame for the status of their video cards not being supported as well as others' vendors on linux.

▲

charcircuit 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>What we can surmise is that Nvidia refused to collaborate

I saw more effort on Nvidia's side trying to collaborate than on the Wayland side. I think it's unfair to not call out the people who had a hardline stance of only caring about open source drivers and didn't want to do the work to onboard Nvidia.

	▲	dagmx 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you’re significantly retconning what happened. Mesa did discuss EGL but felt it wasn’t the right choice. https://mesa-dev.freedesktop.narkive.com/qq4iQ7RR/egl-stream... In much the same way that NVIDIA may have felt that EGL was the better choice. However none of your description of the way things are explains why NVIDIA couldn’t have made their own libgbm that matched the symbols of mesa and worked on standardizing the api by de facto.

▲

josefx 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It may not just be NVIDIA. From what I understand any open source solution is stuck with second rate graphics support on Linux, simply because the groups behind HDMI and other graphics related standards have overly restrictive licensing agreements. Valve ran directly into that while working on its newest console, the AMD drivers for its GPU cannot legally provide full support HDMI 2.1 .