That is a "should" based on your feelings about Nvidia, not about what is the correct decision for users. They are falling back to software rendering when the GPU driver does not properly support the hardware acceleration. That's not uncommon, and it's certainly not the outrage you are trying to make it out to be here. Everybody gets it, you disagree with Nvidia's decision to not have open-source drivers. Not everyone else shares your views there, and it is not their obligation to support your views.
>That is a "should" based on your feelings about Nvidia, not about what is the correct decision for users.
No, it's not. If you encounter a bug in a piece of software, you should report it to the maintainers of that software. That's true even for, say, bugs found in the Nvidia proprietary driver. Expecting Chromium to fix it is expecting them to do more work, which is the exact thing others have railed on me for "expecting" from them (which I haven't, to be clear once again).
> If you encounter a bug in a piece of software, you should report it to the maintainers of that software.
I mean, sure. But that's not really the whole of it here. Chromium has encountered multiple bugs in a piece of software, and they decided they don't want to expend the resources to reproduce those bugs and deal with them. In the meantime, those bugs mean that the driver is not properly implementing the functionality for all users, and so Chromium has decided to simply not use that part of the driver. They aren't doing anything to the OS, they aren't bypassing the OS, they're just rendering on the CPU because the driver doesn't properly implement the hardware acceleration features. There is no obligation whatsoever to use software that you know doesn't work just because the OS ships it.
