Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    So while many Linux desktop users are quick to bash NVIDIA over their lack of proper Optimus support, right now they are also being forced down by the Linux kernel developers not wanting to allow non-GPL drivers to use this unified buffer sharing infrastructure and reducing driver interoperability.
    Linux kernel developers doesn't disallow nVidia write open source drivers. It's nVidia decision.
    They may at least release docs.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
      2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)
      It is possible that the drivers could be adapted to support hardware from other manufacturers, which is something that Nvidia would not want. Providing the sources would also reveal all of the hacks that are done to workaround bad hardware design decisions (e.g. the Nvidia GeForce FX 5800 Ultra), which is also something that Nvidia would not want.

      On the other hand, Nvidia does not stand to lose any vital hardware design information by providing source code and programming documentation. Intel already provides a voluminous quantity of source code and programming documentation, yet we do not see them having lost secrets because of it. Anyone who knows how hardware works will know that the exact circuit designs that implement a programming API cannot be obtained by looking at the programming API and if they are good then making a good copy based on the API is hard.
      Last edited by ryao; 10-11-2012, 01:11 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Nvidia must release everything till the OGL3.3 under GPL, in a form of a unified_driver that is multilevel and can target various CPUs and various GPUs with LLVM and backends. Then they have to provide all the rest (OGL4+) with a closed extension package, that uses a specific path of the backend, made only for Nvidia GPUs. That extensions can be: extra compilers, extra programs for the synthesizer, extra FX, but not driver functionality like memory management, that should be open. I don't wont to refer to known security issue with Nvidia drivers, that the company didn't fix for 5 years. With that kind of unified_driver Nvidia can explore all the open source, and can use it for all operating systems.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          Bullshit, DRM exists to prevent end users from doing what they want, GPL exists to make sure end users can do whatever they want and have all that is necessary for them to do so. IIRC you work for Apple so I can see why this is so confusing for you.
          Actually, its DRM's flip side.... digital rights of the USER. Protect the USER's rights to do what they want with what they own. So DRM in this case would refer to PROTECTING the user from hostile adversaries (like NVIDIA) who would limit the user's rights to free open source software in favor of their proprietary crap.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by gilboa View Post
            Sorry, you are being *very* naive.
            Here's a number of other reasons:
            1. Your code includes licensed 3'rd party code that cannot be opened.
            It is your own fault for doing that. Either write your own code, or obtain that code under a free license.

            2. Your code includes patent-infringing code that will get you sued.
            It is your own fault for doing that. F**K YOU then.

            3. Your code is multi-platform (more on that later) and includes platform specific code that prevents it from being opened.
            Not sure how "platform specific code" would prevent it from being opened.... but even if it did, it only applies to those platform-specific PARTS of the code.

            4. Your code is being used by clients and you're prohibited by contract from releasing your code.
            Then you did a terrible job in reviewing those contracts. Time to shoot yourself in the head.

            On a personal note (Ignoring for a second that we've yet to hear the code owner's view on the matter), I believe the Linux devs are being right instead of being smart.
            nVidia is actually trying to play nice - I believe this behavior should be encouraged instead of being ignored. (E.g. trying to reach a gentleman's agreement that DMA-BUF will be made EXPORT_SYMBOL in-exchange to some documentation or headers)
            Nice? Are you on crack? They tried to SNEAK IT IN rather than what they SHOULD have done (to be nice), which is to ASK.
            Nothing wrong with ASKING POLITELY, however, even if they did, it should STILL be declined. Closed drivers have no business interacting with open drivers.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
              The kernel allows closed source software to run on it. DMABUF, being an API that can be used externally, should be exported to be used by anyone, regardless of license. What's next? GPLing the mmap() interface and making it illegal to run non-GPL software under Linux? You seriously think that's a good thing?

              This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.
              AMD closed source binary drivers are no more allowed to use that than nvidia. If nvidia wants to play this game, they need to open source it.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                Actually, its DRM's flip side.... digital rights of the USER. Protect the USER's rights to do what they want with what they own. So DRM in this case would refer to PROTECTING the user from hostile adversaries (like NVIDIA) who would limit the user's rights to free open source software in favor of their proprietary crap.

                Don't say crap so easily. They probably afraid to go partially open source, all the monetary companies do. I think we must take half the fault because we didn't convince them.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  Closed drivers have no business interacting with open drivers.
                  WHAT A JOKE!!!

                  Your ethernet card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE. Your "open source" ethernet driver is talking to CLOSED SOURCE CODE. The part of that "closed source" code that talks to its bus controller is called a "driver".

                  Your disk controller has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

                  Your sound card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

                  ALL of the "open source" drivers on your linux system are interacting with CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS and VICE VERSA.

                  But SOMEHOW zealots can PUT THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND and PRETEND that their computers are "open".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by gilboa View Post
                    Sorry, you are being *very* naive.
                    Here's a number of other reasons:
                    1. Your code includes licensed 3'rd party code that cannot be opened.
                    2. Your code includes patent-infringing code that will get you sued.
                    3. Your code is multi-platform (more on that later) and includes platform specific code that prevents it from being opened.
                    4. Your code is being used by clients and you're prohibited by contract from releasing your code.
                    etc, etc.

                    1. is recursive to my arguments
                    2. software patents are stupid and should be removed anyway. If one person had an idea there is sure as hell another person that has the same idea. tbh, the whole patent thing is just considered the "2nd most stupid thing ever 'invented'" by me. Right after weapons.
                    3. recursive to my arguments
                    4. in case you really signed a contract about something like that, you should be abandoned in the desert and even if you manage to get out alive, you should be banned from using a computer EVER again. There is not a single good reason why something should be kept secret. If something needs to be kept secret, it's something that shouldn't be done in the first place, since you don't want the public to know about it and if you don't want the public to know about something it must be considered 'bad' by moral implications of society, thus it must not be done.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by artivision View Post
                      Don't say crap so easily. They probably afraid to go partially open source, all the monetary companies do. I think we must take half the fault because we didn't convince them.
                      It isn't our business to "convince" them. Its our business to support organizations who "get it" without being convinced. If nvidia (hostile) wants to be stuck in the dark ages with drivers that don't work properly, that's their CHOICE. They are not being compelled to do so. If they CHOOSE to be hostile, that MAKES them hostile.

                      Fear is irrelevant. They can either choose to play the game according to the rule book, or they can fu*k off. I couldn't care less either way, nvidia is PERMANENTLY off my list of possible hardware suppliers. I doubt that even releasing a FULLY functional open source driver set would change my mind about them. Too hostile for too long.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                        They can either choose to play the game according to the rule book, or they can fu*k off.
                        What, from a business perspective, does the Linux desktop bring to the table?

                        I don't get the entitlement mentality of a group that amounts to less than 1% of the market.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                          WHAT A JOKE!!!

                          Your ethernet card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE. Your "open source" ethernet driver is talking to CLOSED SOURCE CODE. The part of that "closed source" code that talks to its bus controller is called a "driver".

                          Your disk controller has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

                          Your sound card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

                          ALL of the "open source" drivers on your linux system are interacting with CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS and VICE VERSA.

                          But SOMEHOW zealots can PUT THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND and PRETEND that their computers are "open".
                          And you clearly don't understand anything at all about how hardware works and interacts with the kernel. Yes, there are closed crap running on *some* hardware (not all...), and absolutely NONE of your retarded accusations apply IN THE LEAST to my position.


                          How it has to work:
                          (KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -)- HARDWARE1
                          (KERNEL -- DRIVER2 -)- HARDWARE2

                          How nvidia thinks it should work:
                          (KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -)- HARDWARE1
                          (KERNEL -- NVIDIADRIVER -- NVIDIAHARDWARE)
                          (KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -- NVIDIADRIVER -- HARDWARE1)
                          (KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -- NVIDIADRIVER -- NVIDIAHARDWARE)

                          Think of the brackets as a security barrier.

                          In a properly segmented system, the interaction between the kernel and the hardware is determined by the driver for that hardware. A driver that is open to external audit and generally safe. What nvidia is offering, is to have THEIR CLOSED DANGEROUS driver and hardware DIRECTLY MANIPULATING the kernel itself.

                          The driver is part of the security that is protecting the kernel from the hardware. How do we know and trust that the nvidia driver doesn't do something horribly dangerous? In fact, we know from past observations that their driver has a TERRIBLE track record when it comes to security. You seriously advocating that we open up the kernel to EVEN MORE potential exploit from a known danger?


                          BTW: That closed source code running on those pieces of hardware you mention.... are not kernel drivers. They're just running on that hardware themselves. If they want to do something REALLY FREAKING STUPID, that's their business. Part of the driver's job, as I've mentioned, is to make sense of some of that stupid crap rather than allowing it to wreak havoc.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by johnc View Post
                            What, from a business perspective, does the Linux desktop bring to the table?

                            I don't get the entitlement mentality of a group that amounts to less than 1% of the market.
                            According to the ONLY entity that is actually in a position to count the Linux user base (that would be microsoft, strangely enough), the Linux user base is LARGER THAN APPLE, which is about 10%. So we are really looking at over 10% of the desktop/laptop market. And of course, that is ONLY counting the desktop/laptop market. There is more to it than that, since when you actually consider the rest of the market (tablets, phones, routers, televisions, refrigerators), Linux ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** outsells MS.

                            As far as entitlement goes, I AM entitled to control MY WORK. I AM entitled to choose where to spend MY MONEY. So yes, I AM entitled to tell nvidia to FU*K OFF, as is EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who has contributed to a part of the Linux Kernel related to this nvidia attack.

                            Now if the Linux desktop isn't big enough to be worth it for nvidia to play in by the rules, they are WELCOME to LEAVE. Play by the rules, or don't play at all. That isn't entitlement, its an ultimatum.
                            Last edited by droidhacker; 10-11-2012, 02:46 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                              According to the ONLY entity that is actually in a position to count the Linux user base (that would be microsoft, strangely enough), the Linux user base is LARGER THAN APPLE, which is about 10%. So we are really looking at over 10% of the desktop/laptop market. And of course, that is ONLY counting the desktop/laptop market. There is more to it than that, since when you actually consider the rest of the market (tablets, phones, routers, televisions, refrigerators), Linux ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** outsells MS.

                              As far as entitlement goes, I AM entitled to control MY WORK. I AM entitled to choose where to spend MY MONEY. So yes, I AM entitled to tell nvidia to FU*K OFF, as is EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who has contributed to a part of the Linux Kernel related to this nvidia attack.

                              Now if the Linux desktop isn't big enough to be worth it for nvidia to play in by the rules, they are WELCOME to LEAVE. Play by the rules, or don't play at all. That isn't entitlement, its an ultimatum.
                              Frankly, you sound like a 7-y/o crybaby.

                              Thankfully Linus isn't this ridiculous.

                              At the end of the day, it appears Optimus will remain a Windows-only feature for the immediate future. (Not sure if it's available under OS X.) Chalk up yet another thing in the long list of items that Windows does better than Linux.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                What do you think, can we expect a comment of Torvalds on that matter?

                                Not sure what he would say. Isn't he more on the liberal side concerning the blobs?
                                Last edited by entropy; 10-11-2012, 02:58 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X