Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 149 of 149

Thread: Another Look At The Latest Nouveau Gallium3D Driver

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Not that i'm necessarily agreeing with ThatGuy, but i do have to disagree with some of the things you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Again streaming online video is not the majority of what people watch video on.
    Proof? I'd be shocked if that wasn't what the majority of video watched on a PC was.

    If it isn't there ask your self why is it that a majority of TV's and monitors are 1080p nowdays?
    They aren't. Steam survey says < 30% of monitors are 1080p or higher. Most popular resolution is 1680x1050, with 1920x1080 and 1280x1024 just behind. And that's a survey of gamers, which is almost certainly going to be biased towards people with nicer than average hardware.

    I know all of your hardware is 1080p, and that you do all sorts of fancy DVR stuff on your machines, but you shouldn't then assume that everyone else must be doing the same thing.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Proof? I'd be shocked if that wasn't what the majority of video watched on a PC was.
    I didn't say on a PC, video as a whole

    They aren't. Steam survey says < 30% of monitors are 1080p or higher. Most popular resolution is 1680x1050, with 1920x1080 and 1280x1024 just behind. And that's a survey of gamers, which is almost certainly going to be biased towards people with nicer than average hardware.
    I am referring to items being sold in the present market. Just 3 years ago steam said 1024x768 and a monitor < 16" was the most popular with 2% being capable of running 1080p. The other thing is that steam reports what they are running their desktop at for gaming, not what their monitor is capable of.

    I know all of your hardware is 1080p, and that you do all sorts of fancy DVR stuff on your machines, but you shouldn't then assume that everyone else must be doing the same thing.
    I don't assume that, I'm looking at what is presently being marketed.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Is it worth even bothering with these any time soon (unless you're a dev) when there's still an excellent binary driver?

  4. #144
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
    Is it worth even bothering with these any time soon (unless you're a dev) when there's still an excellent binary driver?
    For practical end user needs there is no real reason to consider anything but using the binary driver.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Thanks for substantiating my suspicions Dean!
    If you've got a minute or two, I don't suppose you could help me out here too?

    Discrete GT_430 Vs i3-530's Intel HD

    Thanks if you can, all the best.

  6. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Linux is not 500 oses. It is one os with open specs. If BSD people want and have manpower they too, can port it to BSD. If they pay money to AMD and achieve specific amount, AMD will do this job for them. But AMD should start counting, market - aware, not blind. This is not different from clones, respins, etc. People want - people pay, time or money. The thing is I pay for AMD hardware and get nothing to use it efficiently. Except it works efficiently in Windows(tada!).
    I would like to point out that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. It is used in roughly 500 different operating systems, many of which are largely binary compatible due to the use of a GNU userland.

    Furthermore, BSD died 16 years ago. A few forks occurred at that point and each one is a separate OS developed with its own tree. The mission of developers of BSD forks is to make source code to anyone for any purpose, including situations where improvements cannot be contributed back. Your suggestion that the developers of BSD forks can port GPL-licensed drivers to their platform is a poor one at best. Licensing wise, the BSD fork developers cannot touch GPL-licensed drivers anymore than the Linux developers can touch Windows drivers.


    Quote 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.
    You should try Gentoo Linux. It resolved dependency hell years ago.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Your suggestion that the developers of BSD forks can port GPL-licensed drivers to their platform is a poor one at best. Licensing wise, the BSD fork developers cannot touch GPL-licensed drivers anymore than the Linux developers can touch Windows drivers.
    It's probably worth mentioning here that Linux graphics drivers are generally X11-licensed (compatible with both BSD and GPL) not GPL-licensed. There may be exceptions but (for example) the ATI/AMD drivers are all X11 AFAIK.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    I would like to point out that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. It is used in roughly 500 different operating systems, many of which are largely binary compatible due to the use of a GNU userland.
    There is linux kernel (name owned by Linus Torvalds) and linux kernel based operating systems which are both very flexible, very transparent and either compatible or can be made compatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Furthermore, BSD died 16 years ago. A few forks occurred at that point and each one is a separate OS developed with its own tree. The mission of developers of BSD forks is to make source code to anyone for any purpose, including situations where improvements cannot be contributed back. Your suggestion that the developers of BSD forks can port GPL-licensed drivers to their platform is a poor one at best. Licensing wise, the BSD fork developers cannot touch GPL-licensed drivers anymore than the Linux developers can touch Windows drivers.
    BSD can use GPL license for anything they want. They have blobs in kernel, whats the problem with GPL? Legally it is absolutely correct and possible, unless they want pure BSD kernel. In this case they are left with trivia
    - either to rewrite the component and allow it to be stolen into prorietary(which may mean legal prosecution from original GPL author, especially if it is a corporate entity);
    - accept GPL license and disallow this subsystem to be closed down (stolen) into any proprietary code.

    Look, they have choices and no one prevents them an access to the code.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    You should try Gentoo Linux. It resolved dependency hell years ago.
    Oh, I use Gentoo for nearly 3 years now. It has many many shortcomings. But this does not relate the original idea I mentioned - standardization where standardization makes sense - Exherbo way. If they want binary compatibility because it makes sence - they should alliance, if it is not beneficial they should not. If BSD wants BSD-only gfx subsystem they should rewrite it, if it does not make sense for them - they will be just FINE with copyleft.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    There is linux kernel (name owned by Linus Torvalds) and linux kernel based operating systems which are both very flexible, very transparent and either compatible or can be made compatible.


    BSD can use GPL license for anything they want. They have blobs in kernel,
    I feel a distinction between the different BSDs is necessary here. The OpenBSD people hate blobs and won't have any of it, whereas the FreeBSD people modified the OS specifically just so it could run the NVidia blob.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    whats the problem with GPL? Legally it is absolutely correct and possible, unless they want pure BSD kernel. In this case they are left with trivia
    - either to rewrite the component and allow it to be stolen into prorietary(which may mean legal prosecution from original GPL author, especially if it is a corporate entity);
    - accept GPL license and disallow this subsystem to be closed down (stolen) into any proprietary code.

    Look, they have choices and no one prevents them an access to the code.
    Agreed.

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
  •