Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Look At The Latest Nouveau Gallium3D Driver

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I don't think that switching to the deb way has any advantages. The FHS has been around for a long time and if anything it is deb that should come back to the standard.
    Did RPM has dependency hell corrected? And even like with OpenSuse vs RHEL, although both RPM, they wont be compatible. Different compiler versions, different kernels, different configure options, different naming. I adhere more to exherbo way - standardization where standardization makes sense.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
      Did RPM has dependency hell corrected? And even like with OpenSuse vs RHEL, although both RPM, they wont be compatible. Different compiler versions, different kernels, different configure options, different naming. I adhere more to exherbo way - standardization where standardization makes sense.
      What the hell does rpm's have to do with FHS? I think you are confusing FHS with LSB.

      Comment


      • #48
        Here is what FHS is:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesys...archy_Standard

        and btw, RPM has it's advantages over deb as well.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Here is what FHS is:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesys...archy_Standard

          and btw, RPM has it's advantages over deb as well.
          I use neither now, but RPM made much more headache for me.

          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          What the hell does rpm's have to do with FHS? I think you are confusing FHS with LSB.
          Yep, sorry. I have same attitude towards FHS. If you modify, be sure to correct the breakage. If it has sense use $VARS to define where which folder should go. Some distributions as Gobo or Exherbo were made exactly to break things(and invent better this way).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
            I use neither now, but RPM made much more headache for me.
            Modern package management (zypper being the perfect example) has pretty much killed the old RPM hell issues of yore.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
              why do you waste your time with me?
              that question did come me also while I read your last comment. I donīt get even the point of your sentences you seem to not come to a point?

              Ok you want that amd tries to track the sellings for linux-guys. But like its said thats virtually impossible, but you cannot force people to tell amd this. And if they think as good as nobody uses linux you cannot force them to make better drivers. Thats free market. If linux has really a bigger impact (espacialy with the opensource drivers) and they track that, the concurrents should be doing more for linux because they are behind and would sell much less cards/chips because of this. So normaly if not microsoft pays them and its a good oportunity for them they should battle who has the best open linux drivers, to get more market share, if thats not the case and if much users sell nvidia cards for their blobs, why should they invest more money in something that nobody or less people care about, they made the hardware working on the biggest os (windows) so you cannot say that they have to make a driver for 1000 operation systems, but they can profide the material, maybe you are not a native english speaker and your english is not the best but I donīt understand your points. So if I donīt get it and you have good points I am sorry.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                that question did come me also while I read your last comment. I donīt get even the point of your sentences you seem to not come to a point?

                Ok you want that amd tries to track the sellings for linux-guys. But like its said thats virtually impossible, but you cannot force people to tell amd this. And if they think as good as nobody uses linux you cannot force them to make better drivers. Thats free market. If linux has really a bigger impact (espacialy with the opensource drivers) and they track that, the concurrents should be doing more for linux because they are behind and would sell much less cards/chips because of this. So normaly if not microsoft pays them and its a good oportunity for them they should battle who has the best open linux drivers, to get more market share, if thats not the case and if much users sell nvidia cards for their blobs, why should they invest more money in something that nobody or less people care about, they made the hardware working on the biggest os (windows) so you cannot say that they have to make a driver for 1000 operation systems, but they can profide the material, maybe you are not a native english speaker and your english is not the best but I donīt understand your points. So if I donīt get it and you have good points I am sorry.
                Yeah, my englisch sucks, but instead of spending time on sofa, I prefer to suggest, how we may push hardware presence on linux further by sharpening the money distribution path.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Not gonna happen

                  It sounds as though crazycheeze has 2 main ideas here, neither of which is ever going to happen:

                  1. AMD should stick 50% of their developers on linux support even though most of their users run windows, because linux rocks and windows sucks. And because that's what I'm using. Sorry, it's not going to happen.

                  2. AMD should allow me to dictate where my money that i spend goes to fund inside their company. This isn't going to happen, either, and no other company does that. Maybe you could buy the open hardware graphics card, if that's important to you. Probably 95% of the money you spend doesn't even go to drivers, it goes to the hardware designers, the CPU development team, the manufacturers creating the hardware, the CEOs, the secretaries, the office rent, etc. You can't simply dictate how AMD decides to spend their own money - you either think their product is worth buying or not, and make the decision from there.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Congrats, guys. You've turned a perfectly good topic in a total off-topic troll nonsense flame thread.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by not.sure View Post
                      Congrats, guys. You've turned a perfectly good topic in a total off-topic troll nonsense flame thread.
                      I second that...why this went way off topic is beyond me. Now why talk about AMD when this is about the Nouveau driver?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        so at least I learned that fedora is the biggest? force behind the nouvou driver and that they only want to get the 3d-desktop running on this nvidia cards so maybe thats and hopefully they stopp invest more money and manpower to get this cards better support and maybe move there effort to get amd free drivers at a top level to proof that free drivers can even be faster than closed ones and with gpu-accelerated hd movie acceleration.
                        But ok thats only a wish from me And in my opinion the way we should (not) work with companys that do (not) work together with the community.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                          so at least I learned that fedora is the biggest? force behind the nouvou driver
                          Yes. They're the largest force behind the OSS radeon drivers as well, except for AMD.

                          maybe move there effort to get amd free drivers at a top level to proof that free drivers can even be faster than closed ones
                          They've already stated they have no interest in doing that.

                          and with gpu-accelerated hd movie acceleration.
                          Or that.

                          It would be nice if a more desktop-linux oriented distro (like Ubuntu, for example) would take the lead on those sorts of things, but that doesn't seem very likely to happen either. Until something changes, it's going to be up to community volunteers to work on that.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                            It would be nice if a more desktop-linux oriented distro (like Ubuntu, for example) would take the lead on those sorts of things, but that doesn't seem very likely to happen either. Until something changes, it's going to be up to community volunteers to work on that.
                            if a company would give me money for doing that I would try it, I have a diploma in computer science learned how to use C, c++ and java, python, I also did the biggest part in a opensource game... but I am unemployed because I dont want make .net stuff or java. but I think nobody would pay me for such work, but ok working with low-level c is also not directly my dream of a job. But instead I am trying to get now a stupid job as ruby on rails developer but thats today also not easy to get. At least here in germany ^^

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                              When I respond to posts like this I'm never sure how much to repeat from previous posts, but I think one thing is worth repeating.

                              We are neither claiming to nor attempting to provide enough development resources to fully implement the open source drivers ourselves. That was not the plan in the past, is not the plan today, and I don't expect it to be the plan in the future.

                              We *are*, however, trying to make sure that we get enough information, support and sample code out to the driver development community to let the community make good use of the hardware (other than specific blocks like UVD, which we said up front would probably not be exposed), and I believe we are doing that today.

                              In some cases that means we write the initial driver code for new hardware enablement; in others we provide documentation. Over time, we try to provide both (typically working code first, then documentation later, since we need to write the code in order to know what to put in the documentation).

                              How about full programming disclosure "minus UVD" and a compiler and hardware simulation tool.

                              If you give us that, we will do the heavy lifting even without the sample code. Sample code always appreciated however. but seriously. the hard specs and such on my hardware should be 100% available to me regardless. I paid for it. The same way my engine specs on my car are fully available to me.

                              I will let you in on a secret. Whats eventually going to happen is that some consumer group combined with a opensource advocacy group is going to file a lawsuit against computer hardware manufacturers. The outcome of this will be that the court will likely rule under fiar use and force nvidia,ati,amd,via to open the info "not the code" but the hardware info.

                              It is similar to the right to repair act which went through congress for the automotive industry.

                              Its going to happen. Better to avert the suit you can't win then to continue to hold back info that your competitors can easily decipher in the first place with relative ease.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Thatguy View Post
                                How about full programming disclosure "minus UVD" and a compiler and hardware simulation tool.
                                If you can find a way to provide an accurate hardware simulation tool that doesn't (a) expose enough of the internal implementation via simple reverse engineering to make it significantly easier for a competitor to duplicate the design or (b) require us to write an "external programming model only" simulator after the fact which would be a lot more work than writing initial driver support we'll look into it. How about that ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X