Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA PR Responds To Torvalds' Harsh Words

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

  • Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
    you can maybe install 1000 photoshops (if they would be there) nobody would say against adobe anything. but its stupid, and they fail you bring examples where they do no vdpau etc
    I'm not so sure this is true... As even here (on this forum) you'll have people lined up complaining about how they refuse to buy a $5 play-once, throw-it-away-afterwards game if it isn't open source. There are a lot of people like that still in the community.

    Regarding VDPAU... all I have to ask is... how many years did it take before the AMD open source driver could do hardware-accelerated video decoding on a level comparable to VDPAU? If open-spec'ing and open-doc'ing these video cards is so beneficial and results in features being implemented and fixed before the vendors can... where is the proof? AMD has done it... now is the open source driver anywhere near as good as NVIDIA's proprietary driver?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      It's a FUCKING MICROPROCESSOR.

      What do YOU expect to do with a microprocessor?

      Facepalm.
      And what's stopping you from interacting with it? Because they don't provide the documents that save you from having to investigate and learn HOW to program it? Again, where did Nvidia say "When you buy our products, we'll give you the documentation to make it easier for you to write a driver?"

      Nvidia owes nothing to you. You paid for a piece of silicon and Windows drivers. If you don't like that, don't buy the hardware.

      Comment


      • I will always be on the side with the end user, not the companies nor developers who likes to lick companies' butt.
        so... FUCK U NVIDIA!!! oIo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by locovaca View Post
          Again, where did Nvidia say "When you buy our products, we'll give you the documentation to make it easier for you to write a driver?"
          They didn't.

          That's why they suck and why Linus told them to fuck themselves

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            They didn't.

            That's why they suck and why Linus told them to fuck themselves
            That seems to be a bit of a ridiculous requirement to hold a company to. Why should Nvidia do such a thing for the sake of a fraction of the 1% of desktop users who run Linux?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kotakotakota View Post
              That seems to be a bit of a ridiculous requirement to hold a company to. Why should Nvidia do such a thing for the sake of a fraction of the 1% of desktop users who run Linux?
              What about servers and development?
              http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...s-1619092.html

              What about to just providing a decent API instead of providing a "java" driver binary.?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                This is such an awful analogy. Every car today is loaded up with closed-source, proprietary software used to drive the engine, powertrain and emission systems. And, at least in the freedom-loving USA, it is illegal for anything but the manufacturer to re-program this module.

                Without this software you can't even start your damn car.
                It is the perfect analogy; a car is a transport vehicle, not a computer. A parallel microprocessor, is not just a graphics accelerator anymore; it's also meant to be programmeable (CUDA, hello?) guess what? It can't be programmed. The DRIVER needs to be programmed. And THAT is as useless as programming a car.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                  It is the perfect analogy; a car is a transport vehicle, not a computer. A parallel microprocessor, is not just a graphics accelerator anymore; it's also meant to be programmeable (CUDA, hello?) guess what? It can't be programmed. The DRIVER needs to be programmed. And THAT is as useless as programming a car.
                  Seriously... what are you talking about?

                  The function of the GPU is what the manufacturer advertises and sells, and nothing more. That means if you want to do CUDA programming then you have to do it through the means that the manufacturer provided.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by kotakotakota View Post
                    Isn't clean room reverse engineering legal?
                    Hey we sell a product for you to compute with! How? No we're not selling you this so you can compute with it... Documentation, you say? No we're to busy SUCKING to give you that! You didn't expect us to let you know how? Figure it out yourself by "clean room reverse engineering", which should take you about two years, while you could just buy AMD and Intel instead. Great deal, no?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      Seriously... what are you talking about?

                      The function of the GPU is what the manufacturer advertises and sells, and nothing more. That means if you want to do CUDA programming then you have to do it through the means that the manufacturer provided.
                      Hey we sell this car, but you can only drive routes we provided you clearance for. You want to use this Jeep on the highway? No realy, you can only take it ofroading because we advertise it to be usefull for ofroading. Oh you don't like that? But it's so good for ofroading! No realy, why should we tell you how to put it in eco mode, while it's so great for ofroading! Yes you could use it to drive on roads, but we're not goi to tell you where the controlls are for that. Why? Because we're too busy SUCKING, ofcourse!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X