Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by benjamin545 View Post
    its funny how in about 2-3 years public oppinion of nvidiaa has turned from "best hardware vendor support" (i dont think anyone really thought it was the best since it was proprietary, but the graphics driver is a very noticible and important componant of the desktop and therefore stuck to the front of your mind rather than say a wifi driver) to "omg they SUUUUCK burn them with a chemical fire"
    .....
    we now have more options, and we are lucky we do because open source devs now have control over what hardware will be suppported and what driver capabilities we will have. a lot of work went into our current linux gpu support and it has come from both the open source and closed source sides. just a few years ago everyone would praise nvidia because of their wonderful linux support and now people have huge rants and raves about them even though they still provide the best opengl support for linux. you can get up on stage and say "fuck you nvidia" but you are not really helping the situation, i really doubt that will fix anything, what incentives do they as a company have to change their current policy's? its still just as easy for them to continue their current binary support, and their is no major advantage for supporting the opensource driver.
    Good one!

    (char limit)

    Comment


    • #77
      Even if you're not aware of the problem, you will still suffer the consequences. I'd say it's our obligation as computer-literate people to bring these issues to the surface.
      Agreed. I did this with DRM. Of course, I'd mention "If the company you get it from turns off a server.. like if they go out of business or just lose interest... then your files will not work." In one ear and out the other, until exactly that happened to them, then it dawned on them what I was saying.

      Well, I figure it'll be similar for this, some people "won't care" until inevitably some closed-source-driver bit of hardware they have goes out of support and won't work with any newer linux distro (in other words, newer kernel and so on.)

      All this said... I wouldn't flip them off personally. I don't like the continuing lack of specifications for video cards. But the fact of the matter is they provide excellently performing Linux drivers that support a wide range of kernels and Xorg servers. I don't give them a fuck you for that.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
        what i don't understand is how it comes to that radeon and noveau drivers are on par (at least from my point of view) why isn't radeon driver much better than noveau?
        They both are running instructions dispatched from mesa, which may be part of the problem. I'm sure the proprietary drivers are very aggressive with optimization, whereas mesa has to worry about a lot more than dispatching instruction to on type of card.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by johnc View Post
          It amazes me that Windows and OS X are able to make these proprietary drivers work without a hitch.

          The way people talk here, it's simply an impossibly horrible way of doing things.
          some people choose a gnu/linux system because of the freedom it offers - a big nasty blob that replaces half of X flies in the face of this

          Comment


          • #80
            Well maybe understand that this driver only works well with desktop systems and a very small part of laptops where you can disable other gfx chips completely. Then it comes to Optimus support then nvidia is really VERY bad. It is impossible to recommend that hardware and say it will 100% work. There are hacks like bumblebee but thats not an official solution. I do not consider amds dual gfx solution so much better however, so you should go for intel only hardware in case of laptops. In theory the systems with amd apu might work as well, but there the binary driver has got a much worse video accelleration and faces often problems with new xservers/kernels. The oss driver stack does not work good for those systems as well. I also remember a curious reboot instead of shutdown problem with such kind of hardware - but that looks more like a bios problem.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              It amazes me that Windows and OS X are able to make these proprietary drivers work without a hitch.

              The way people talk here, it's simply an impossibly horrible way of doing things.
              Haha, the nvidia driver was also the main cause of crashes of ms windows systems a few years ago. Nowadays 64 bit ms windows 7 only loads drivers signed by microsoft. And Microsoft tests the hell out of those drivers which takes quite some time. Or I.O.W. Microsoft and Nvidia spend an enormous amount of money, time and people to make it so. I'm guessing that the nouveau developers are way way more efficient. Don't know about Apple, but I'm guessing the same.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                For their IP yes, for the IP that they license they do not.
                Hm, did they still pays to 3dfx ?? ))))

                Comment


                • #83
                  What he calls organic, is ofcourse what the religious calls metaphysical. Let natural roles form around a project. Which is also religiously surrender to natural behaviour and Gods will.

                  Praised Be God.
                  Peace Be With You.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by grantek View Post
                    Can anyone comment about how big/invasive the Nvidia graphics driver is to the rest of the stack? Last time I used an Nvidia card (about 4 years ago) the Nvidia blob replaced a large amount of Mesa/X and the rest of the system, which is why eg. RandR support took so long to be implemented.

                    If it's still being maintained that way then Nvidia definitely is being hostile to Linux development, it's taking the "we can't support a tainted kernel" argument and extending it to say "you're not actually running Linux any more once you install the Nvidia blob" - all for a graphics/parallel compute device
                    well nvidia blob replace libGL.so from mesa and few other files. it makes backup thouth. but you cant update mesa/kernel otherwise you end up with broken driver. catalyst have IMHO better integration as it let you build deb/rpm package and doesn't overwrite any files. it keeps own libGL.so in /usr/lib/fglrx and point at it with entry in /etc/ld.conf.d

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Wilfred View Post
                      Haha, the nvidia driver was also the main cause of crashes of ms windows systems a few years ago. Nowadays 64 bit ms windows 7 only loads drivers signed by microsoft. And Microsoft tests the hell out of those drivers which takes quite some time. Or I.O.W. Microsoft and Nvidia spend an enormous amount of money, time and people to make it so. I'm guessing that the nouveau developers are way way more efficient. Don't know about Apple, but I'm guessing the same.
                      Every driver from AMD/Nvidia for Windows is signed. Even the betas. The signing has nothing to do with stability, it is a security function.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                        Every driver from AMD/Nvidia for Windows is signed. Even the betas. The signing has nothing to do with stability, it is a security function.
                        But I think device drivers go through WHQL Testing (Windows Hardware Quality Labs).

                        Also, Windows Vista introduced Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) which I think made device drivers more stable or something.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I remember in the early days of Linux that many hardware manufacturers were not helpful and had refused to provide documentation for their hardware. Diamond and Neomagic come to mind as those examples, but as time went on these companies eventually did provide at least some documentation for their graphics hardware and in the end Linux users bought such hardware..thus those companies had sales to some extent.

                          I'm sure at some point, with the right persuasion and pressure nVidia could provide some documentation where they legally can in the same vein as what AMD did to vet their code and sanitize it to be *legally* releasable. Devs can then write code to replace any missing pieces that could not be released.

                          Linus's bashing of nVidia (directly or indirectly) might not even help the cause at all in my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            With all religious views aside, there is a big benefit for Nvidia to release the specs and an open driver. The next innovative consumer product that doesn't try to mimic a desktop computer will run Linux. And the hardware that requires the least amount of hassle and gives the most flexibility will be the target for that device. Lets take augmented reality glasses as an example. You have to optimize the software stack on those devices because you need performance while still having to fit everything in a very tiny space. Relying on Nvidia writing the drivers for your device is not an option. Perhaps Google can get a company like Nvidia to write custom some custom code, but for a small start-up company it's just not possible.

                            By selling closed technology, Nvidia (or any other GPU manufacturer) eliminates the possibility of being part of the next big thing. I'd say it's worth the trouble of sorting out any IP issues for the benefit of letting people use your products to innovate. Linux is the playing ground and Nvidia refuses to play with the other kids. Basically a poor business decision that will cost them real money. The wise thing to do would be to open up before someone else does it and grabs the market completely.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              So now the LinuxTards are bringing down the nvnews.net site because the admin asked that the topic not be discussed on his forum? The irony is so rich... the Linux community demands "freedom" but at the same time, if a person exercises his freedom in a manner deemed heretical by the Church of FOSS then it's time to mount a crusade.

                              Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance? If people don't like a piece of software, then they should exercise their freedom to avoid it. But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by johnc View Post
                                Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance?
                                If people don't like a piece of software, then they should exercise their freedom to avoid it. But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.
                                The question ist too general IMHO.
                                Of course, using closed-source software is perfectly fine with Linux when we talk about user-space software (not using GPL stuff).
                                It's not that easy to tell in case of kernel-space drivers. AFAIK it's still not clear what the legal situation really is.
                                That thin layer of glue code might just don't work as an excuse. So all those blobs potentially violate the kernel licence.
                                It doesn't matter if it has been tolerated until now or that there has not been any court case so far concerning this issue.

                                The thing is, the Linux idea is based on some rules the developers agree on - for simplicity lets say it's what the GPL contains.
                                How about reversing your statement and say "If a user doesn't agree with that idea, he should user another OS".
                                Or use an OS with a BSD licence or Windows, whatever. There are plenty alternatives.
                                Last edited by entropy; 06-18-2012, 11:22 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X