It’s no surprise that NVIDIA is gradually dropping support for older videocards, with the Pascal (GTX 10xx) GPUs most recently getting axed. What’s more surprising is the terrible way t…
Not sure if you’re on Windows or Linux but, on Linux, we have to actively take explicit actions not to upgrade something when we are upgrading the rest of our system. It takes more or less significant effort to prevent upgrading a specific package, especially when it comes in a sneaky way like this that is hard to judge by the version number alone.
On Windows you’d be in a situation like “oh, I forgot to update the drivers for three years, well that was lucky.”
It makes me wonder why the package still auto updates if it detects you’re using the driver that would be removed, surely it could do some checks first?
Would be vastly preferable to it just breaking the system.
It would be a very out-of-scope feature for a Linux package manager to do a GPU hardware check and kernel module use check to compare whether you’re using the installed driver, and then somehow detect in the downloaded, about-to-be-installed binary that this will indeed remove support for your hardware.
It just seems very difficult to begin with, but especially not the responsibility of a general package manager as found on Linux.
On Windows, surely the Nvidia software should perform this detection and prevent the upgrade. That would be its responsibility. But it’s just not how it is done on Linux.
It’s not the package itself that “auto updates”. The package manager just updates all the packages that have updates available, that’s it.
But still, the system doesn’t really “break”, all you have to do is downgrade the package, then add a rule preventing it from being updated until Nvidia/Arch package maintainers add a new package that has only that legacy driver’# latest version, which won’t be upgraded again.
I believe the same SW version is packaged. Nvidia said they’d drop support in the 580 release, but they shifted it to 590 now.
The arch issues are another layer of headache by the maintainers changing the package names and people breaking their systems on update when a non-compatible version is pulled replacing the one with still pascal support in it.
Not really a problem of Arch, but of the driver release model, then, IMO. You’d have this issue on Windows too if you just upgraded blindly, right? It’s Nvidia’s fault for not naming their drivers, or versioning/naming them in a way that indicates support for a set of architectures. Not just an incrementing number willy nilly.
But yeah, I agree, if package maintainers were astute there, a warning would’ve probably been good somehow. Not sure pacman supports pre-install warnings. Maybe? It does support warning about installing a renamed/moved package. But the naming would’ve had to be really weird for everyone involved if the warning would be clear in that case.
Apparently? Title only mentions dropping the support on Linux. 🤷♂️
You don’t have to updare your drivers though, isn’t this normal with older hardware?
Not sure if you’re on Windows or Linux but, on Linux, we have to actively take explicit actions not to upgrade something when we are upgrading the rest of our system. It takes more or less significant effort to prevent upgrading a specific package, especially when it comes in a sneaky way like this that is hard to judge by the version number alone.
On Windows you’d be in a situation like “oh, I forgot to update the drivers for three years, well that was lucky.”
It makes me wonder why the package still auto updates if it detects you’re using the driver that would be removed, surely it could do some checks first?
Would be vastly preferable to it just breaking the system.
It would be a very out-of-scope feature for a Linux package manager to do a GPU hardware check and kernel module use check to compare whether you’re using the installed driver, and then somehow detect in the downloaded, about-to-be-installed binary that this will indeed remove support for your hardware.
It just seems very difficult to begin with, but especially not the responsibility of a general package manager as found on Linux.
On Windows, surely the Nvidia software should perform this detection and prevent the upgrade. That would be its responsibility. But it’s just not how it is done on Linux.
It’s not the package itself that “auto updates”. The package manager just updates all the packages that have updates available, that’s it.
But still, the system doesn’t really “break”, all you have to do is downgrade the package, then add a rule preventing it from being updated until Nvidia/Arch package maintainers add a new package that has only that legacy driver’# latest version, which won’t be upgraded again.
I believe the same SW version is packaged. Nvidia said they’d drop support in the 580 release, but they shifted it to 590 now.
The arch issues are another layer of headache by the maintainers changing the package names and people breaking their systems on update when a non-compatible version is pulled replacing the one with still pascal support in it.
Not really a problem of Arch, but of the driver release model, then, IMO. You’d have this issue on Windows too if you just upgraded blindly, right? It’s Nvidia’s fault for not naming their drivers, or versioning/naming them in a way that indicates support for a set of architectures. Not just an incrementing number willy nilly.
It’s 2025, can we not display a warning message in pacman? Or letting it switch from nvidia-590 to nvidia-legacy?
I’m not an arch user, I admit, I don’t like footguns.
TIL Arch is a footgun. 🤡 cope. 😉
But yeah, I agree, if package maintainers were astute there, a warning would’ve probably been good somehow. Not sure pacman supports pre-install warnings. Maybe? It does support warning about installing a renamed/moved package. But the naming would’ve had to be really weird for everyone involved if the warning would be clear in that case.
I admit, all distros are a different degree of footguns, I’m saying this as a nix user. lol
Just as with anything you do in life, take action with a healthy side of precaution.
This is a life lesson. I’ve learned to be careful around the oven. I’ve also learned to be careful running volatile commands. 😅
Windows doesnt drop to CLI and break if the graphics driver is missing. But also GPU driver updates are not forced on you just by updating the system.
Okay. Kind of a matter of definition of “breaking” but sure.
Right. But on Linux they happen automatically when upgrading the rest of your system, is what I was saying.