Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Publishes Code For X Synchronization Fences

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
    Security profits from an open development model. Surely you are aware of how fast critical errors are patched with FLOSs and how slow proprietary providers can be. This is not to say that Free Software is always better, but I think that many will agree that the "thousand eyes make bugs shallow" and practice bears it out.

    Viruses are a direct consequence of the security.
    How does a secure and closed system such as MacOS fit in here? Either security is a function of opennes or it is not (or not in a first order manner).

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
    Flexibility you agree with.
    Of course.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
    Working out of the box is facilitated by having the access to the code and the ability to modify it, which ensures that distributions can modify the software to improve the overall system. With a closed system, you cannot modify it for the most part, and you're stuck with what you get. The licenses of open source programs also make it possible to bundle them together, which many closed source apps explicitly prohibit (see Java and many drivers).
    But this one is bogus. Working out of the box is enabled by the existence of functional device drivers, which, although some claim Linux has the widest support for general hardware out there, I can't believe it is the case for general consumer hardware. I don't think distributions do much in this front either, they play with what they have from upstream. As for software, not only there is less of it compared to Windows, but I thoght we agreed that most of Linux programs can also be used outside it. Seriously, of all things, I can't think of a worse example as saying that Linux 'works out of the box'.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
    Scalability itself is not dependent on the openness of the source but you are very well aware that the scalability of Linux came because the big boys wanted to have Linux running on big iron. The openness of Linux made it possible for companies such as IBM to improve the SMP performance.
    Big iron, uh? : D
    So, what you're saying is that because the source is open, any improvements to it are a consequence of this opennes. This is question-begging. You could make an identical argument for anything else.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
    KDE and apps all run on Windows anyway, but you would never have such great software for free if not for the license.
    I don't understand. If those apps can be run in other OSs, how is this an exclusive advantage of Linux, a direct consequence of it and its license?

    Oh, but I very much liked the vegetarian analogy ; )

    Comment


    • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
      How does a secure and closed system such as MacOS fit in here? Either security is a function of opennes or it is not (or not in a first order manner).
      MacOS is a closed graphics + widget layer running on top of a mostly open basis.

      The kernel is open source, as is the userspace, which are the most critical parts in terms of security, as they deal with the file system, privileges, etc.

      Even many parts of the higher layers of MacOSX are open source, such as Webkit.

      But this one is bogus. Working out of the box is enabled by the existence of functional device drivers, which, although some claim Linux has the widest support for general hardware out there, I can't believe it is the case for general consumer hardware.
      I don't think that he was talking about the drivers, but the general usability of the software you get out of the box. If you install Linux, you get a fully functional environment with a sea of software for doing everything, including compilers, office stuff, internet tools, etc. And they are generally tweaked so they work well together.

      Microsoft used to pull all sorts of monopolistic tricks to prevent Windows from being shipped with Firefox, OpenOffice, and the like.

      And good luck buying a Mac with Firefox preinstalled.

      Big iron, uh? : D
      So, what you're saying is that because the source is open, any improvements to it are a consequence of this opennes. This is question-begging. You could make an identical argument for anything else.
      I think that it is apparent that SOME of the improvements to open source only occur because of the license in question. Because the openness of the development model makes it possible for many people (and companies) to work on the same system. IBM, Intel, AMD and many other hardware vendors can all contribute.

      IBM provided lots of code to improve Linux performance on big iron, and a high-level filesystem in JFS. They did not improve MS Windows, and there are reasons for this -- Windows was not ported to IBM's hardware, and IBM is not likely to donate thousands of man-hours in terms of programming to Microsoft for free.

      The GPL made it easy and safe to donate code, which is the reason for many of the improvements in the kernel. And the scalability in particular came because of the work done on high-end servers. The multithreading on x86 is just a nice side product.

      If Linux hadn't been GPL and ported to IBM's hardware, the cool bits would have stayed in AIX and SunOS, and Linux would likely not have the scalability it has today.

      I don't understand. If those apps can be run in other OSs, how is this an exclusive advantage of Linux, a direct consequence of it and its license?
      I'm just saying that I don't see KDE as an advantage of Linux. You can run it on any OS, basically.

      But the openness of the KDE source code was one of the main reason for its growth and stability.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
        Yeah that is because they mean "should just work".

        I won't participate in the erhm discussion but bitching about OS drivers in such an early fase is cruel.
        Who's bitching about the drivers? There is nothing wrong with the "ati" X driver on that chip, the black screen is caused by kernel mode setting. Some Intel chips have the same issue.

        The "bitch" is valid when a relatively well supported chip suddenly doesn't work due to a new "feature."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
          MacOS is a closed graphics + widget layer running on top of a mostly open basis.

          The kernel is open source, as is the userspace, which are the most critical parts in terms of security, as they deal with the file system, privileges, etc.

          Even many parts of the higher layers of MacOSX are open source, such as Webkit.
          OK, take any of the commercial UNIX. Perhaps I'm terribly wrong here, but I'd say they can be labeled as secure systems. If this is so, you can't equate security with openness. The point is this: is Linux secure because of the many eyes theory or because it's founded on solid engineering principles?

          Originally posted by fingupunkybeat
          I don't think that he was talking about the drivers, but the general usability of the software you get out of the box. If you install Linux, you get a fully functional environment with a sea of software for doing everything, including compilers, office stuff, internet tools, etc. And they are generally tweaked so they work well together.

          Microsoft used to pull all sorts of monopolistic tricks to prevent Windows from being shipped with Firefox, OpenOffice, and the like.

          And good luck buying a Mac with Firefox preinstalled.
          I've already complained in the past about this 'working out-of-the-box' concept. Everybody have their personal definition. It's hopeless to argue about it.

          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
          I think that it is apparent that SOME of the improvements to open source only occur because of the license in question. Because the openness of the development model makes it possible for many people (and companies) to work on the same system. IBM, Intel, AMD and many other hardware vendors can all contribute.

          IBM provided lots of code to improve Linux performance on big iron, and a high-level filesystem in JFS. They did not improve MS Windows, and there are reasons for this -- Windows was not ported to IBM's hardware, and IBM is not likely to donate thousands of man-hours in terms of programming to Microsoft for free.

          The GPL made it easy and safe to donate code, which is the reason for many of the improvements in the kernel. And the scalability in particular came because of the work done on high-end servers. The multithreading on x86 is just a nice side product.

          If Linux hadn't been GPL and ported to IBM's hardware, the cool bits would have stayed in AIX and SunOS, and Linux would likely not have the scalability it has today.
          If the ideas behind those improvements you talk about were implemented (or got implemented later) in closed source OSs, how can it be said that it is a Linux advantage, let alone because of the GPL? After all, every OS have its cool bits here and there, regardless of its license. The GPL imposes its own set of constrains which some companies, for their own reasons, find acceptable or even desirable, while others don't. Getting back to what this thread has been about, see Nvidia's case. Obviously they have interest in the Linux market, but for one reason or another they are not developing or helping to develop an OSS driver. AMD, whose position in principle I presume to be similar to Nvidia's, sits at the other end of the spectrum, releasing documents and paying developers to bring forward an open driver. Is the GPL enabling outside contributions? As I see it, it depends on who you look at, and the ultimate reasons for the contributions are to be found in the strategy of each company, rather than simply on the license.

          Originally posted by fingupunkybeat
          I'm just saying that I don't see KDE as an advantage of Linux. You can run it on any OS, basically.

          But the openness of the KDE source code was one of the main reason for its growth and stability.
          But is it? Does a text file ensure that the code it's attached to runs stable and in growing numbers of computers, developed by a healthy community of developers? Because I'm sure we can find a lot of dead open source projects as well as bad quality ones. This is the same point I made about security: is KDE solid and functional because it is open or because it is coded by people who are reasonably good at it?

          The problem is that you are linking license issues with technological ones, establishing a causality relationship between them. While I don't think they are isolated, I don't see the straightforward link you are making. It can well be argued that some of the contributions to open source projects are partly motivated by the ideology behind free software. To what extent this is an important motivation I don't know.

          Comment


          • I think that you're generalising my statements to mean more than I wanted to say.

            I said that the scalability of Linux in particular came about because Linux was open.

            I didn't say that openness will always result in this and that and the closed source software will always be like this and that, I'm saying that if Linux wasn't open, it wouldn't be as scalable. It can't be argued that the openness helped Linux in this particular case.

            And you have to agree that having the source open helps people contribute patches, something that is very difficult with closed source software. This doesn't mean that closed source software cannot be stable and secure, I've never claimed that. And it is a fact that many bugs in the FLOSS world are found and fixed because the code is open and anyone can submit patches.

            Comment


            • OK, then take everything that doesn't apply apart. But then, I'm still left with the feeling that your argument is begging the question. This is, Linux is open, therefore any contribution to it comes about because its openness. I know you didn't say any, but I guess you have to justify what makes your example so particular. How do we know that it is indeed the case that were the license of Linux a different one it would have never seen the sort of scalability improvements you talk about? I believe that some other closed source OSs are scalable, so it can't be down to the license, can it? In any case, perhaps I don't know enough about the details of the case you are mentioning.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                I believe that some other closed source OSs are scalable, so it can't be down to the license, can it? In any case, perhaps I don't know enough about the details of the case you are mentioning.
                Yet it is. Linux is free of charge and freely redistributable without a single catch.

                That said the more companies use it come to rely on it. All these companies with different interests and markets made Linux so versitile that it runs on literaly everything from watches to super computers.

                Sure Windows can 'scale'/waste resources on super computers, but can Windows 7 run on your watch? There you go...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                  Did you try Nouveau?
                  Nope it is not ready yet. I'll be sure to try it in the future though as I will have no choice and have to upgrade due to other software...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                    How does a secure and closed system such as MacOS fit in here? Either security is a function of opennes or it is not (or not in a first order manner).
                    OS X is not a secure system in any way... (mainly thanks to its closed parts like Safari). Where did you hear such thing? :P Being open helps in catching and fixing bugs and vulnerabilities.

                    But this one is bogus. Working out of the box is enabled by the existence of functional device drivers, which, although some claim Linux has the widest support for general hardware out there, I can't believe it is the case for general consumer hardware.
                    I think they're talking about 'own made support', so excluding third party drivers.

                    As for software, not only there is less of it compared to Windows, but I thoght we agreed that most of Linux programs can also be used outside it. Seriously, of all things, I can't think of a worse example as saying that Linux 'works out of the box'.
                    It usually does (Linux+'own made support') while Windows usually does not (Windows - third party drivers doesn't run as much hardware as Linux).


                    Big iron, uh? : D
                    Yummy. So, what you're saying is that because the source is open, any improvements to it are a consequence of this opennes. This is question-begging. You could make an identical argument for anything else.
                    Yummy. Openess, license and development model can have some influence on this, but same openess guarantee nothing in this case.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                      Yet it is. Linux is free of charge and freely redistributable without a single catch.

                      That said the more companies use it come to rely on it. All these companies with different interests and markets made Linux so versitile that it runs on literaly everything from watches to super computers.

                      Sure Windows can 'scale'/waste resources on super computers, but can Windows 7 run on your watch? There you go...
                      Just a note. I was talking about different scallability. And you're probably right about this.

                      Btw. Windows and OS X doesn't scale. Notice when some new hardware (multicore CPU) appears there are benchmars made on Linux and Windows, but the result is higher on Linux.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        Big iron, uh? : D
                        Yummy. So, what you're saying is that because the source is open, any improvements to it are a consequence of this opennes. This is question-begging. You could make an identical argument for anything else.

                        Yummy. Openess, license and development model can have some influence on this, but same openess guarantee nothing in this case.
                        Wait a second, where did you take that yummy from? What are you quoting? Just curious.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                          Wait a second, where did you take that yummy from? What are you quoting? Just curious.
                          You said "Big iron, uh : D" and I was flaming with somebody for quite a long about this, so yummy means here something like - this taste great.

                          Comment


                          • All right, it's just that I never wrote that, and you quoted it as if I did. It doesn't matter, but for a moment I was confused and had to actually check whether I have a personality disorder when I type stuff.

                            Anyway, if we trust Wikipedia, there are over a million computer viruses out there, and by 2006 there were about 63 of them for MacOS. I didn't find any updated figures, but I think that's very, very good, even if you take into account the ratio between market share numbers.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
                              Nope it is not ready yet. I'll be sure to try it in the future though as I will have no choice and have to upgrade due to other software...
                              I tried my PCI TNT2 but it was dead so had to go looking for my AGP one which I finally found.

                              Installed it into a PIII based 1.2GHz Celeron with 512M. Installed Ubuntu 10.04 and updated it. I left it running the card with Nouveau and ran some stuff.

                              Desktop was @ 1024x768

                              Web browsing is fine. Flash based advertisements are displayed correctly and at a descent rate.

                              Flash based Youtube was watchable when windows but not when fullscreen. Even my 5870 in a quad core box is far from perfect with Flash video playback though.

                              Some Flash games were OK and some sucked.

                              Video playback was surprisingly good in some cases.
                              DVD type video was completely find both windowed and fullscreen as was ogg-theora. mp4 video at 1280x566 was painfully slow. Probably more to do with the CPU than anything else though.

                              Open Arena even at 640x480 was too slow to play but you could kind of get the idea what was going on.
                              Some of the OpenGL Screen savers were fine like GLMatrix and such but others were a bit choppy.

                              Graphically simpler games were fine.

                              As far as word-processing and general desktop stuff goes it was completely usable. I'd rate Nouveau as good to go for a productivity desktop but not ready for GL games, at least not with a TNT2.

                              What was it you were wanting to run with your card?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X