Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

Valso · 2026-01-25 09:52:16

I don't understand why would you push nvidia-open as default package when it's not ready for games. Or for anything else, for that matter. I kept the driver at 555.58 for a long time (I had my reasons), last night I decided to do a full system upgrade, nvidia-dkms was replaced by nvidia-open-dkms and now it turns out the new nvidia-open-dkms driver is useless on many levels - not just for gaming. The mouse cursor tends to get "sticky" when left unmoved for longer than 5 minutes and I gotta make wide moves in order to unstick it, DX12 games are out of the question (TQ2 used to work just fine with nvidia-dkms 555.58, now it won't even start and gives me "No DX12" messages), there are video playback problems that seem to be caused by nvidia-open as well.
Aside from that all rolling kernels since 6.12.x and pacman since 7.0 - all behave invasively like a microsoft product, wreaking havoc on a system and deleting files they shouldn't touch...

Lone_Wolf · 2026-01-25 12:03:51

Because nvidia decided the new stable driver 590 is only released with their open modules.

The 580 is the last version of the nvidia driver with the old proprietary modules and is now a legacy driver.
If you're ok with staying on pre-590 versions you can use the 580 pacakges in aur.

Complaints should be directed to those that made the decision to stop developing the proprietary driver aka nvidia .

Scimmia · 2026-01-25 12:06:36

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Because nvidia decided the new stable driver 590 is only released with their open modules.

No, they didn't. They are still releasing the proprietary driver, Arch is just no longer packaging it.

Valso, if you want help with your actual problem, start here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=57855
Assuming the open drivers just don't work is crap.

5hridhyan · 2026-01-25 12:13:54

Valso wrote:

all behave invasively like a microsoft product, wreaking havoc on a system and deleting files they shouldn't touch...

Look, I get the frustration, having a system update break your gaming night is the worst, and the NVIDIA 'open' transition has definitely been bumpy for a lot of us, but calling it 'invasive like Microsoft products' and comparing a community-driven distro to a closed source/corporate entity one, is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

At least here, you can actually see what’s happening under the hood, pacman isn't out to get your files; it’s a tool that does exactly what it's told, though I'll admit the 7.0 behavior changes caught a few people off guard, If stuff is actually disappearing, that sounds more like a broken hook or a mounting issue than the package manager going rogue.

Also, please post relevant logs, It’s probably just a configuration tweak or switching to the proprietary DKMS driver.

Last edited by 5hridhyan (2026-01-25 13:44:31)

seth · 2026-01-25 13:23:50

Scimmia wrote:

Valso, if you want help with your actual problem, start here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=57855

especially since

kept the driver at 555.58 for a long time (I had my reasons)

there's absolutely no reason to assume this relates to nvidia ./. nvidia-open itfp

last night I decided to do a full system upgrade

mouse cursor tends to get "sticky" when left unmoved for longer than 5 minutes

Smells like some unrelated powersaving.

gives me "No DX12" messages

Linux drivers principally don't support directx.
The driver installation might be fundamentally broken (disparity between nvidia module and nvidia-utils, failing to build the kernel module, " all rolling kernels since 6.12.x ") or vulkan is or wine are.
* journal
* glxinfo -B
* eglinfo -B
* vulkaninfo --summary
* vainfo

deleting files they shouldn't touch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RyYrs5tu60 but please name one…

Executor252 · 2026-01-25 14:03:05

I just declined the updated open package: I see Nvidia don't even recommend a 590 series driver for Linux use yet (their recommendation for a stable release is still the latest 580 series).

Does this mean that in the future we'll have to use the AUR or Nvidia's .run files to get a the proprietary driver in the future? I've been avoiding the AUR because I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to discern which are OK packages and which might be old / poorly maintained / break things

seth · 2026-01-25 14:13:49

Status quo is that

in the future we'll have to use the AUR or Nvidia's .run files to get a the proprietary driver

Ftr, https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ - 590.48.01 is the current feature branch and neither the proprietary nor the open 590xx drivers support chips older than turing (so with such a chip you'll *have* to use the 580xx driver as was the case w/ the 470xx and 390xx series)

Executor252 · 2026-01-25 15:01:31

This seems to have caused an interesting pacman issue for me: I can't do system updates anymore because pacman just stops the update when it discovers that it can't update nvidia utils to the 590 set without breaking the 580 driver that I'm opting to keep.

Is it unwise to edit pacman.conf and use ignorepkg to skip the nvidia utils and update the rest of the system's packages?

seth · 2026-01-25 15:04:03

Is it unwise to edit pacman.conf and use ignorepkg to skip the nvidia utils and update the rest of the system's packages?

Depends, you'll at least for a while get away w/ nvidia-dkms but the prebuilt modules are tied to the exact kernel, so if you're updating linux or linux-lts but not nvidia or nvidia-lts you'll break the driver.

If this is a pre-turing chip you'll *have* to switch to the 580xx branch in the AUR eventually.

Executor252 · 2026-01-25 15:54:54

seth wrote:

Is it unwise to edit pacman.conf and use ignorepkg to skip the nvidia utils and update the rest of the system's packages?
Depends, you'll at least for a while get away w/ nvidia-dkms but the prebuilt modules are tied to the exact kernel, so if you're updating linux or linux-lts but not nvidia or nvidia-lts you'll break the driver.
If this is a pre-turing chip you'll *have* to switch to the 580xx branch in the AUR eventually.

It's a 4070, so I'm not so much worried about the compatibility of the hardware as I am the usability for actual games. The last time I used an open-source driver (nouveau) it was completely dysfunctional and couldn't even handle the Plasma DE with decent performance, let alone a game. OPs post about major issues with the open package is alarming

I guess my system is working for the moment, I'll just leave things be for now. Only issue is that I can't use Discord (tried updating that package only, but when I do pacman is saying the signature on the package is invalid so I guess I'm not updating today).

Last edited by Executor252 (2026-01-25 15:57:46)

Scimmia · 2026-01-25 15:58:59

OP likely has a misconfigured system, don't take anything they said as an actual issue. This is the driver from Nvidia, they've just offloaded the proprietary parts to the GSP instead of doing them in the driver, nothing like nouveau at all.

Last edited by Scimmia (2026-01-25 15:59:55)

Executor252 · 2026-01-25 16:08:35

Scimmia wrote:

OP likely has a misconfigured system, don't take anything they said as an actual issue. This is the driver from Nvidia, they've just offloaded the proprietary parts to the GSP instead of doing them in the driver, nothing like nouveau at all.

OK I'm going to try it, but I'll be out there asking for help reverting if it doesn't work

Edit:

Nvm I guess I will try another day-- it seems like a couple of maintainers' PGP signatures are screwed up right now and there's a ton of things that don't want to install (almost all of them are signatures from Robin Candau but there was at least one other one as well).

Last edited by Executor252 (2026-01-25 16:20:24)

Executor252 · 2026-01-27 19:03:43

The signature issue was resolved the next day: installed the open driver and it seems to work just fine-- at least for me. Runs great in Arc Raiders!

Arch Linux

#1 2026-01-25 09:52:16

Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#2 2026-01-25 12:03:51

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#3 2026-01-25 12:06:36

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#4 2026-01-25 12:13:54

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#5 2026-01-25 13:23:50

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#6 2026-01-25 14:03:05

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#7 2026-01-25 14:13:49

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#8 2026-01-25 15:01:31

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#9 2026-01-25 15:04:03

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#10 2026-01-25 15:54:54

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#11 2026-01-25 15:58:59

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#12 2026-01-25 16:08:35

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

#13 2026-01-27 19:03:43

Re: Why did you push nvidia-open when it's not ready for games?

Board footer