Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    How do we know and trust that the nvidia driver doesn't do something horribly dangerous?
    Yeah, that's the reason why DMABUF isn't getting non-GPL exported. Because of danger.

    I don't care if it's got security vulnerabilities. All software got those, regardless of license. There were more than enough root exploits in the Linux kernel itself over the years. If you care, then don't use it. Don't impose your security pedantry on me.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      Yeah, that's the reason why DMABUF isn't getting non-GPL exported. Because of danger.

      I don't care if it's got security vulnerabilities. All software got those, regardless of license. There were more than enough root exploits in the Linux kernel itself over the years. If you care, then don't use it. Don't impose your security pedantry on me.

      Then use Windows and don't force your opinion to Linux developers. They may have different opinion.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by artivision View Post
        Then use Windows and don't force your opinion to Linux developers. They may have different opinion.
        Is this how we talk these days? "I have a different opinion, so don't talk to me"?
        I mean, he does have a point: If DMA-BUF is that dangerous it shouldn't be there in the first place. If DMA-BUF can be exploited it will be. But surely not from a company like Nvidia.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
          Lol, well cry have a heartattack, do some cottaging and kill yourself I guess.
          Qaridarium? is it you? you are back? are you not banned life time?

          I found some funny quotes from you:



          V!NCENT: "maybe Qaridarium saying it, knowing you'd think about it, which resulting in mentioning it, making other people think about something the projectbleader said and finaly resulting in naking it happen... Casualty of nature "
          V!NCENT: "Qaridarium, do you believe in... time travel? "

          d2kx: "You better listen when Qaridarium announces"

          Welsh Dwarf: "Qs psychic abilities never cease to amaze me :P"

          Qaridarium: "Whats wrong with my dices? My cubes told me more than that can be."

          crazycheese:"Q, give me your dices please. Just one roll... "

          found here: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...no-APU-Support

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            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?
            Oh please, enough with the strawman. This is the same as always, NVidia wants their proprietary drivers to be able to directly interact with the kernel subsystems to make life easier for them. Now they are using the possibility of optimus support as a carrot to try and leverage ways for them to do so.

            It's their typical BS, the reason Linux has such an incredible amount of hardware support out-of-the-box is because they haven't budged on this issue. One by one hardware companies have seen the advantages of this, or atleast have come to terms with the idea, except NVidia which still holds out. So let them, they will have to reimplement the necessary functionality for optimus support inside their proprietary driver if they want it under Linux.

            Meanwhile fully open source gpgpu solutions from the likes of Intel and to a lesser extent AMD is rendering NVidia obsolete on the desktop for all but those with extreme performance needs so it's not as if this is a problem we'll keep on having in the future.

            NVidia will continue to cater for Linux with their proprietary driver in sectors where Linux is huge or totally dominant like HPC and 3D/SFX while the end user desktop needs will be met by the aforementioned Intel and AMD gpgpu solutions.

            Originally posted by ryao View Post
            When will we be able to see optimus support on other operating systems like Illumos, Solaris, FreeBSD, Haiku, Darwin, etcetera?
            Good point, here are operating systems which allow proprietary drivers to interact directly with the kernel interface and yet the only chance they will see optimus support is if an open source reverse-engineered driver emerges, like Bumblebee. This again highlights the shortcomings of relying on proprietary drivers, it's simply another form of vendor lock-in.

            Originally posted by johnc View Post
            What, from a business perspective, does the Linux desktop bring to the table?
            Prior to the announcement of Steam on Linux, nothing for the likes of NVidia. Post-announcement (or pehaps rather post-release), I guess we'll have to wait and see.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by entropy View Post
              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?
              Hardly when it comes to driver blobs in the kernel, as for his overall thought on licences there was a very recent slashdot interview where he stated his position:

              Originally posted by linus
              So I'm a huge believer in the GPLv2, and I really do believe the license matters. And what - to me - is important for an open-source license is not whether you can fork (which the BSD's allow), but whether the license encourages merging things back.

              And btw, before people go all "license flamewar" on me, I would like to really emphasize the "to me" part. Licensing is a personal choice, and there is no "wrong" choice. For projects *I* care about, and that I started and can make the licensing decision for, I think the GPLv2 is the right thing to do for various reasons. But that does *not* mean that if somebody else makes another choice for his or her code, that wouldn't be the right choice for *that* person.

              For example, I'd use a BSD-like license for code that I simply didn't care about, and wanted to just "push out there in case somebody else wants to use it". And I don't think proprietary licenses are evil either. It's all fine, it's up to the original author to decide what direction you want to do in.

              Anyway, to just get back to the question - I really do think that encouraging merging is the most important part for a license for me. And having a license like the GPLv2 that basically *requires* everybody to have the right to merge back useful code is a great thing, and avoids the worry of forking.

              ...

              Comment


              • #82
                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".
                Modern Graphics cards pretty much are running their own OS on the card. Open hardware models aren't even competitive with the worst POS card you can buy new, But the GPL doesn't care about this. There is no linking, no merging of program memory between the two.

                From a practical standpoint having the black boxes separated (and generally tuned to provides a standard documented interface) make is easier to know/predict/sanitize inputs and outputs. When you drop three black boxes in the middle of the kernel capable of modifying 20-30 memory address within the kernel space without any apparent scheme, then you've got a problem orders of magnitude more complex.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Nvidia is infringing.

                  Per the xorg-devel list and irc, they've been testing their blob with dma-buf internally.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by LLStarks View Post
                    Nvidia is infringing.

                    Per the xorg-devel list and irc, they've been testing their blob with dma-buf internally.
                    GPL only kicks in when distributing.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by LLStarks View Post
                      Nvidia is infringing.

                      Per the xorg-devel list and irc, they've been testing their blob with dma-buf internally.
                      That's not infringing.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        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.
                        Nice conspiracy theory there. No, this is NVidia learning that open source is the way Linux works. If they don't want to play by the rules, they will be left out; along with their users who don't care about software freedom. "In the long run, the utility of all non-free software approaches zero"[1].

                        Originally posted by STrRedWolf View Post
                        Plus, look at the future. Nobody will be able to support DMA 3 because it's too balled up in legaleze backed by developers who aren't going to bulge. So who's to blame for this?

                        It ain't Linus. And it ain't Nvidia. And soon it won't be AMD nor Intel.

                        Alan Cox owes me a new laptop.
                        If you rely on proprietary drivers, you can't be helped anyway. You can go use Windows for all I care. Linus Torvalds has made this clear from the very beginning:
                        Originally posted by https://lkml.org/lkml/1999/2/8/13
                        Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules,
                        it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I
                        want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a
                        cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules.
                        There is no problem for Optimus support if NVidia starts producing open source drivers, like AMD and Intel already do. If you buy a laptop and have not informed yourself about the sword of damocles dangling above you in form of the computer only doing what you want it to do with proprietary Linux drivers, then you don't deserve any better.


                        [1] Matthew Thomas, via Mark Pilgrim (archive.org links, as both sites are defunct now)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Nice speech. But it misses one crucial detail: open drivers are not suitable for some tasks. This limits the usability of Linux and forces people to have dual boot Linux/Windows systems. The open source graphics stack devs have been at it for almost a decade now. Performance is still bad, so is power saving. If they can't get it right in that amount of time, they never will; graphics evolve past their ability to catch up.

                          Reality doesn't match the fantasy world you have created in your head. Linux devs seem to only care about being able to run X11 with an xterm on it and do coding in Emacs and vi. They're stuck in the 1990's. Also, they behave like children. They constantly repeat the same thing, "I want the code", like a child in a candy store repeatedly shouting "I want candy." They should grow up and learn to cooperate with proprietary vendors. Even the hardcore "Free Software or Death" guys at FSF gave the world tools to create proprietary software if they so wish (like GCC and glibc). That was a sane decision. It's funny how the kernel devs distance themselves from the "Free Software zealots" and the likes of RMS, but then play the "proprietary drivers are evil" card. What a bunch of hypocrites. The only explanation that makes sense is the conspiracy theory; AMD and Intel trying to damage NVidia. It simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
                          Last edited by RealNC; 10-12-2012, 08:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by boast View Post
                            How about giving people the CHOICE to decide for themselves? Or do you force your views on everyone?
                            You want CHOICE? NVIDIA is a CLOSED BLOB. THEY took the choice AWAY from their users. THEY have the CHOICE to give CHOICE BACK to their users. The CHOICE YOU MAKE by using NVIDIA is to be constrained to the limitations created by a CLOSED BINARY BLOB. Why should the world bend over backwards to support a HOSTILE ADVERSARY?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                              Yeah, that's the reason why DMABUF isn't getting non-GPL exported. Because of danger.

                              I don't care if it's got security vulnerabilities. All software got those, regardless of license. There were more than enough root exploits in the Linux kernel itself over the years. If you care, then don't use it. Don't impose your security pedantry on me.
                              Don't use... WHAT exactly?
                              A compromised kernel? I don't use a compromised kernel. I use an EVOLVING kernel.
                              Closed dangerous binary blobs? I don't use closed dangerous binary blobs.

                              Yes, software has bugs. In open source code, those bugs are VISIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND FIX.
                              In closed source code, those bugs are HIDDEN AND NEVER FIXED UNLESS THE OWNERS ARE CALLED OUT ON IT.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by boast View Post
                                How about giving people the CHOICE to decide for themselves? Or do you force your views on everyone?
                                Hmm, forgot to mention ONE THING;
                                You HAVE the choice. The kernel is open source. Go ahead, modify and recompile it. Just don't distribute your modified kernel because that would be a violation of the rights of those who wrote the original code.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X