Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60

Thread: Benchmarks Of The Latest Nouveau Gallium3D Driver

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    How is it sane for some of the posters that frequent these forums to continuously pre-judge people who need to use the blobs?
    I can only speak for myself, but I would assume that nobody would have a problem with a binary blob AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO RUN IT.

    With Nvidia, you do not have an option. With AMD, the situation is much better, but the free driver still has plenty of room for improvement. They released the specs, are helping the development, but they are keeping their special secrets for themselves. Fine.

    What I find really difficult to comprehend is people who come on a Linux forum and keep insisting that open source is wrong and people demanding open drivers are stupid.

    No, I don't mean you, but you've read these posts too.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    58

    Default pure silliness

    Quote Originally Posted by blackshard View Post
    Wise talking.


    Anyway, does all nouveau 3D code come from reverse engineering?
    No ... allowing anything , but pure performance to color your decision is ... rainbowland action. Pure silliness. You will get a lightening-bolt up yo butt for yapping with good intentions!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I can only speak for myself, but I would assume that nobody would have a problem with a binary blob AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE OPTION NOT TO RUN IT.
    I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    With Nvidia, you do not have an option.
    While not technically true strictly speaking, practically speaking it is pretty much true, at least right now. Users of nVidia cards that want to run open drivers for demanding tasks have a bit of wait on their hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    With AMD, the situation is much better,
    Absolutely true. With regards to someone wanting to run an "open drivers only" system I can't say that I've ever come across a good reason to run nVidia over AMD other than it's an nVidia card that they happen to have in their system.

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    but the free driver still has plenty of room for improvement. They released the specs, are helping the development, but they are keeping their special secrets for themselves. Fine.
    I don't think you'll get any arguments about that here. Speaking of their special secrets, some would like AMD to release every single last drop of information but I understand why that's just not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    What I find really difficult to comprehend is people who come on a Linux forum and keep insisting that open source is wrong and people demanding open drivers are stupid.

    No, I don't mean you, but you've read these posts too.
    Yep. Not only do we have balanced and rational posts, but we also have them from both extremes. It only stands to reason that where an open driver meets the needs of a user there's no reason to add any extra steps in installing closed drivers that may not be as well integrated as the open ones are.

    To speak to those others who do insist that closed drivers are the devil incarnate, I think they have things a bit confused when comparing running them to be essentially functionally equivalent to running Microsoft Windows.

    If you have a situation where the open drivers don't have the performance you might need and you insist that closed drivers compromise the purity of the Linux experience such that they should never, ever be used then you're left with two options.

    • Run your Linux system with the open drivers but modify you're requirements to suit the resultant performance of the software/hardware config you're running no matter how impractical or sometimes impossible that might be, or
    • Switch to Microsoft Windows where you're not "polluting" the purity of the ecosystem.


    I prefer the third option which becomes available when you're prepared to make a sensible compromise which is an open, Linux based system with all of the benefits that it provides which is then further enabled by a closed driver from the same manufacturer of the graphics hardware I happen to be running.

    I get the feeling that some people think that by running a closed driver you're somehow not worthy of running Linux and should "go back to running Windows". That's an absolutely ridiculous position to take. At least I could still have some respect for them if they were to also be running fully open hardware. At least that would be consistent.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    If Linux was all out proprietary then I would be running Windows 7. The only reason one would run Linux instead of Mac OS X would be the FLOSS part.

    Now I do not see the need for replacing any functionality whatsoever with even one bit of proprietary code.

    That said Mac OS X is always behind on the latest FLOSS code. Apple uses quite a bunch of FLOSS code and so all a hacker would have to do is subsribe to the FreeBSD mailing list, find a fix to an exploit and use that as a HOWTO manual on how to remotely exploit the latest version of Mac OS X. He sure has a bit of time before the hole will be fixed. So that said Mac OS X is a complete joke, security wise...

    So I guess I would be running Windows 7 instead.

    Just putting it out there. But that's just my personal opinion and my own standpoint. There are ofcourse people who need blobs for their Disney Pixar Linux rendering farms and so they will have to have nVidia blobs because Ati doesn't make FireGL cards for which the drivers are crap. That is why AMD is not making any profit in that sector and that is also why AMD keeps selling FireGL cards, because nobody buys them.

    Also: nonconstructive replies to this post containing nothinbg but "You are wrong because you are wrong" simply will not be answered by me.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    If Linux was all out proprietary then I would be running Windows 7.
    Luckily installing a binary driver doesn't make Linux "all out proprietary" eh.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    To speak to those others who do insist that closed drivers are the devil incarnate, I think they have things a bit confused when comparing running them to be essentially functionally equivalent to running Microsoft Windows.
    "Essentially functionally equivalent to running Microsoft Windows" is obviously not correct, but it is also not correct to compare running binary graphics drivers to running a closed-source app on top of a fully open operating system. Managing hardware is simply a very different thing from running a userspace application.

    People talk of "just a driver", but the nvidia driver is larger than the linux kernel itself. It replaces large portions of the X server, all of Mesa, kernel DRM/DRI stuff and many other open source parts of the system. My Nvidia laptop died, so I can't check (you probably can), but I seem to remember that the binary module was around 9MB in size (the compressed archive on Nvidia.com is 23 MB, but that includes other things). The compressed linux image is around 4MB in size.

    The frustration with the blob comes from the fact that Linux cannot function as a desktop system without it. So, while this is not equivalent to MS Windows, you can not speak of a "Free" operating system anymore, even though much of your kernel and userspace is Free. In fact, this is similar to running Cygwin + Emacs + KDE apps on a Windows system. Not quite the same, but located on the same continuum. And, since there is no viable Free option available, Nvidia has the power to kill Linux desktop on Nvidia hardware whenever they wish.

    If you have a situation where the open drivers don't have the performance you might need and you insist that closed drivers compromise the purity of the Linux experience such that they should never, ever be used then you're left with two options.
    I am practical in the sense that while I choose to run as Free a system as I can, I don't have a problem with people running other things. Even binary drivers, if their specific application requires them and there is no alternative (performance reasons, DRM stuff, OpenCL...)

    But there HAS to be the option of running without them.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    My Nvidia laptop died, so I can't check (you probably can), but I seem to remember that the binary module was around 9MB in size (the compressed archive on Nvidia.com is 23 MB, but that includes other things). The compressed linux image is around 4MB in size.
    nvidia.ko: 13M
    fglrx.ko: 3.3M
    my vmlinuz (compressed): 2.3M (server), 2.6M (notebook), 3.0M (desktop)

    (those kernels are home-built gentoo kernels, everything needed is built-in, everything else disabled.)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz
    To speak to those others who do insist that closed drivers are the devil incarnate, I think they have things a bit confused when comparing running them to be essentially functionally equivalent to running Microsoft Windows.
    "Essentially functionally equivalent to running Microsoft Windows" is obviously not correct, but it is also not correct to compare running binary graphics drivers to running a closed-source app on top of a fully open operating system. Managing hardware is simply a very different thing from running a userspace application.
    Either way you've compromised though. Whether using open software on top of a open kernel/closed driver hybrid, or a closed appicaltion on top of a completely open source OS, neither is a pure open source solution to provide some sort of a solution to a real world problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    People talk of "just a driver", but the nvidia driver is larger than the linux kernel itself. It replaces large portions of the X server, all of Mesa, kernel DRM/DRI stuff and many other open source parts of the system. My Nvidia laptop died, so I can't check (you probably can), but I seem to remember that the binary module was around 9MB in size (the compressed archive on Nvidia.com is 23 MB, but that includes other things). The compressed linux image is around 4MB in size.
    I'm currently running a 5870 so can't check the nVidia blob's foorprint, but lsmod shows

    Code:
    fglrx                2432887  127
    so yes, fglrx is fairly big. I don't think code size in isolation provides a good reason to not use it though. If code size was a main determinant that would rule out various open solutions where their closed counterparts, even where less disirable for other reasons, had smaller memory footprints. I for one am prepared to run open code even where it's closed euqivelent is smaller unless there are other more compelling reasons to choose the closed package.


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The frustration with the blob comes from the fact that Linux cannot function as a desktop system without it.

    But here's the kicker. If a Linux solution with purely open drivers can't provide the required functionality then a purely open solution effectively doesn't exist. It then becomes a question of what is the best, most open solution to the problem for those seeking an open solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    So, while this is not equivalent to MS Windows, you can not speak of a "Free" operating system anymore, even though much of your kernel and userspace is Free. In fact, this is similar to running Cygwin + Emacs + KDE apps on a Windows system. Not quite the same, but located on the same continuum.
    But you can speak of a mostly open operating system, and of course one that isn't MS Windows to boot.


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And, since there is no viable Free option available, Nvidia has the power to kill Linux desktop on Nvidia hardware whenever they wish.
    This is absolutely true. If for a moment you consider that a truely high performance graphics solution is one that's provided by either nVidia or AMD via closed drivers and only closed drivers, then it could be said that there is actually no fully open high performance graphics solution for the desktop available anywhere on the planet. If you're prepared to re-define your definition of a true high performance grahics solution then, and only then can you argue this is not so.

    So given that the only truely high performance solutions are provided by AMD/ATI and nVidia, the entirety of Linux high performance graphics is held in trust by those two companies. But considering that they also provide the hardware, either way without them we are effectively stuffed!


    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I am practical in the sense that while I choose to run as Free a system as I can, I don't have a problem with people running other things. Even binary drivers, if their specific application requires them and there is no alternative (performance reasons, DRM stuff, OpenCL...)

    But there HAS to be the option of running without them.
    I completely agree. It would be a sad day indeed if the open drivers were to disapear. I also don't think that day will ever come. We need both solutions. I would think that the default position on a Linux destop should be open drivers unless there's actually a reason for this not to be the case. Unfortunately sometimes there's a need for closed ones and when there is, I'm glad they're there. It means that you don't have to resort to MS Windows in those situations. I'm very glad that I don't have to myself.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The frustration with the blob comes from the fact that Linux cannot function as a desktop system without it.
    That's right. I cannot browse the internet to send/recieve mail. I can not read the time by means of a clock widget. KDE and Gnome do not run with the FLOSS drivers. I cannot browse/manage my files, play audio discs and listen to the radio. I cannot print. Scanners do not work and display correct images on the screen with FLOSS drivers. VOIP apps do not work without the blobs. Financial software doesn't work and especialy personal information management require a proprietary plugin that enables displaying apointment information. Calculators do not work. Sticky notes are crap without it either. No wallpapers, no trashbin, no note block. Even project management doesn't work without the blobs. Banking, stock exchange, TV tuners... it's all not possible.

    Seriously, verything that resembles a physical desk, works with with the FLOSS drivers. Linux even beats Mac OS X and Windows to it. The only thing that does not work is 3D graphics which has never been part of a desktop. When was the last time anybody took his superman piyama out of the closet and jumped on his/her desk to pretent being a super hero?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The frustration with the blob comes from the fact that Linux cannot function as a desktop system without it.
    That's right. I cannot browse the internet to send/recieve mail................

    Seriously, verything that resembles a physical desk, works with with the FLOSS drivers. Linux even beats Mac OS X and Windows to it. The only thing that does not work is 3D graphics which has never been part of a desktop. When was the last time anybody took his superman piyama out of the closet and jumped on his/her desk to pretent being a super hero?
    I think you misunderstood what he was getting at. You should consider his statement in context.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •