Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 166

Thread: Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    I don't agree with the open source driver fetish here. AMD and NV drivers do what I want, and no, I don't care about the edge cases the fanatics will bring up.
    I don't really have a fetish about the open drivers, just a preference for it because in most cases it shows quality (And security assurance.) we can count on. The nvidia binary blob is what I usually use because while Nouveau is nice, it falls short in a few suble but eventually deal-breaking ways, such as missing the mark on gaming and, in recent kernels it happily freezes up my system. Mos anyone I talk to reveals that the Nouveau people are not always the best at being motivated to hunt down bugs, as apparently this has been an issue since kernel 3.6.

    I also pointed out that drivers being open source usually makes it easier for programmers OUTSIDE of the development of the driver to be able to identify problems. The problem with blobs on the kernel level is that the only ones who can "guarantee" that the blob won't eat your kernelspace are the people who develop it. You can't submit bug fixes, nor can anyone downstream fix it to work properly if it's broken. In this case it's not just a fetish nor is it about "edge case."

    I actually go by what Linus says is "use what works. It just so happens most the time it's open source." (Paraphrasing.) Unfortunately for now at least on nVidia cards the best option seems to be the binary blob if you want a high quality driver.

    As for "edge cases" I'm not going to agree that KMS *or* a framebuffer console are edge cases whatsoever. To even use the native Linux graphics stack now the driver has to use KMS in some way to be fully compatible (Catalyst and the nVidia blob, since they are proprietary, cannot use kernel DRM and provide their own.) *Everyone* who has an Intel chipset uses KMS since Intel only ever provided open source drivers.

    Worse still for binary blobs: When Wayland replaces Xorg, at least on the desktop, KMS will be the absolutely mandatory to get a desktop at all on Linux. Catalyst and the nVidia blob won't be able to get us there, it has to be open source drivers unless they finally allow non-GPL symbols to use the kernel DRM stack.

    And you'd be surprised how many "desktop" Linux users don't use Xorg at all but instead use things like tmux in conjunction with a high resolution framebuffer. KMS is the only reliable way to make sure the framebuffer sets itself to the native mode of your monitor on the framebuffer (uvesafb and vesafb both can only rely on your card's video BIOS, which for most cards doesn't support a very inspiring number of resolutions, rarely any in the neighborhood of 1920x1080.)

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    AMD & NV are not going to disclose everything needed to open source the stuff that is currently available as blobs because that would expose too much IP.
    I seem to recall pointing that out in my post. AMD is doing their best, but have not exposed enough of their spec to make designing the open radeon driver a simple matter. It's better than nothing and it's probably the reason why that driver went from supporting next to nothing to having almost universally better support than Catalyst under Linux.

    nVidia's released nothing, probably for more IP problems than AMD. It's actually remarkable Nouveau is as high quality (But not as high as the blob, in my experience.) as it is. From what I've seen they lack manpower, organization, and basically any sort of cooperation from nVidia or they'd be pretty successful.

    I stand by my assessment of the Intel situation. If they simply made more powerful hardware we'd have fully functional, high performing, completely open video that works and delivers all we'd actually want in Linux graphics:

    1. Because it's part of the kernel tree it'll be loaded by udev and thus "just work" without any setup. Catalyst and the nVidia blob can't do that.

    2. KMS means no more ugly switch between the console and Xorg, but a smooth instant change. No more monitors going dark for a couple seconds. This is perhaps a small benefit, but it's nice.

    3. Probably the best driver to run Wayland on between feature completeness and KMS support, two "features" you rarely see in Linux video drivers together at the same time (Either you have great OpenGL support on your card or you have KMS, at least that's the story with AMD and nVidia for now, Intel gets you both but lacks the hardware capability to really back it up.).

    4. Driver both upstream and downstream can fix and adapt.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    Get used to it.
    I'm used to it, believe me. This doesn't mean we should abandon developing open source drivers, especially when it means avoiding kernel taint and supporting things like Wayland which require KMS and will therefor not be supported at all by Catalyst or the nVidia blob.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    101

    Default U're just plain wrong

    "...Was Linus Torvalds right in his approach to nVidia? No. I honestly think the "fuck you, nVidia" attitude helps nothing...."

    @Yaro: You are COMPLETELY wrong here.
    You see, it's NOT about "nvidia", or "amd", or whoever sleazy proprietary graphics card maker's exist.

    It's, in reality, ALL about ALL Linux/Unix User's,..., big and/or small.
    Actually, what is really sad, is that not enough "manufacturers" have the "BALLS" to try to build hardware just for Linux.
    Let's face it, Windooze is just another completely proprietary "Tablet", along with Apple, Google, ..., that you'll have to buy again, and again, and again,..., whenever "THEY" see fit.

    Soooooo, you're absolutely wrong, and Torvalds and me, are absoltely RIGHT, in telling nvidia, ... ,: "fuck you". !

    Wake up, man !
    Last edited by scjet; 05-30-2013 at 06:57 PM. Reason: typo

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    "...Was Linus Torvalds right in his approach to nVidia? No. I honestly think the "fuck you, nVidia" attitude helps nothing...."

    @Yaro: You are COMPLETELY wrong here.
    You see, it's NOT about "nvidia", or "amd", or whoever sleazy proprietary graphics card maker's exist.
    Why not? How we are able to use graphics on Linux is almost entirely up to them. nVidia provides no documentation, so Nouveau has to reverse engineer their drivers. AMD provides some documentation and cooperates with radeon developers, that open driver is comign along.

    Intel provides official, completely open source drivers. Our "support" such as it is is entirely reliant on what the manufacturers of our hardware offer us. Acting like a bunch of idiots because they don't cooperate isn't going to convince them to increase support, it's only going to scare off potential users and hardware vendors from Linux.

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    It's, in reality, ALL about ALL Linux/Unix User's,..., big and/or small.
    I'm sorry, was there grammar in that sentence?

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    Actually, what is really sad, is that not enough "manufacturers" have the "BALLS" to try to build hardware just for Linux.
    "Balls" has nothing to do with it. It's entirely about whether such a thing is even remotely cost effective. You expect designing hardware and drivers as well as mass production, marketting, and even licensing is cheap? On the desktop, Linux is not anywhere near prevalent enough for such an investment for hardware companies to even consider it. Building hardware "just for Linux" on the desktop is a waste of money, especially given that operating systems, by design, should not require hardware to be custom fit for them. Why do we need hardware "just for Linux" when the hardware we have is perfectly usable and just needs support?

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    Let's face it, Windooze is just another completely proprietary "Tablet", along with Apple, Google, ..., that you'll have to buy again, and again, and again,..., whenever "THEY" see fit.
    First off, using "quotes" for "emphasis" is just plain incorrect usage. Learn how to use them or don't use them "at all."

    Next, Windows is an operating system, Apple and Google are companies. None of them are tablets. Your entire sentence makes absolutely no sense.

    Further, I don't see Microsoft, Google, *or* Apple forcing *anybody* to do anything. You're perfectly fine using the hardware or devices you want. I don't have to buy anything again and again whenever they see fit. That entire argument is incorrect.

    Finally, Microsoft, Google, and Apple are entirely IRRELEVANT to what hardware we use under Linux, that's on hardware manufacturers, most of whom, including nVidia, are supporting Linux. Make a logical argument please or go back to middle school.

    Quote Originally Posted by scjet View Post
    Soooooo, you're absolutely wrong, and Torvalds and me, are absoltely RIGHT, in telling nvidia, ... ,: "fuck you". !

    Wake up, man !
    I'm wide awake. That's why I don't blindly agree with Linus Torvalds on everything or assume just because a company isn't fully embracing open source they're suddenly evil.

    Nor am I making entirely irrelevant rants or throwing out utter nonsense to try and justify something a PROFESSIONAL never would have done (I should note Linus IS a professional software engineer and if he had worked for any other organization or been any other software engineer he'd have been fired for the "fuck you" alone.).

    You made no logical, condusive argument why you or Linus should tell nVidia "fuck you." And my point still stands, it doesn't motivate ANYONE to actually fix any existing problem and it makes the Linux community look hostile to any hardware manufacturers who may consider supporting Linux in the future if they choose to exercize their LEGAL RIGHT not to share.

    I'd have rather actually opened up channels of communication with nVidia. Negotiated with them. Talked to them. Do something vastly more productive and open than a "fuck you." Instead I would have at least tried to form a coherent argument to convince nVidia to cooperate. If anything Linus just gave them one more reason not to help them out.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Things are very simple. Wine has two ways to work with D3D games. 1)An OpenGL based D3D-10 Compiler (WineD3D) that also works on Windowz. This is CPU light but Graphical not efficient (between 50-80%), and that's because D3D and OGL are different. 2)A to-GLSL Shader Re-constructor. This has 90% Graphical efficiency but uses 2-3 times more CPU, and that's because you represent a Shader to GLSL-source and then you compile it again to GLSL-bytecode. Today there is not merge of those two techs, so best of both is not able. Also those two programs there aren't Multi-threded, so opening two Compiler (rendering) threads is impossible. You can only open one, two threads are possible if the Game can do separate Game+Rendering. So Games like Guild_Wars_2 are nearly not playable (less than 30 FPS) with any system setup and GLSL=enabled (Wine default). CPU bottlenecks and GPU does never fill. There is only a way to survive in this difficult situation and that is "winetrics glsl=disabled" in order to use WineD3D, that doubles your FPS. The bad thing is that only run with Nvidia Cuda GPUs and Nvidia closed_driver. So its up to Wine to correct the CPU problem in order to play everywhere good, or vendor drivers must care about WineD3D to play good with their driver, so far only Nvidia works. Intel is in a good situation because we can do things on their open_driver, because its Open!!!

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    Things are very simple. Wine has two ways to work with D3D games. 1)An OpenGL based D3D-10 Compiler (WineD3D) that also works on Windowz. This is CPU light but Graphical not efficient (between 50-80%), and that's because D3D and OGL are different. 2)A to-GLSL Shader Re-constructor. This has 90% Graphical efficiency but uses 2-3 times more CPU, and that's because you represent a Shader to GLSL-source and then you compile it again to GLSL-bytecode. Today there is not merge of those two techs, so best of both is not able. Also those two programs there aren't Multi-threded, so opening two Compiler (rendering) threads is impossible. You can only open one, two threads are possible if the Game can do separate Game+Rendering. So Games like Guild_Wars_2 are nearly not playable (less than 30 FPS) with any system setup and GLSL=enabled (Wine default). CPU bottlenecks and GPU does never fill. There is only a way to survive in this difficult situation and that is "winetrics glsl=disabled" in order to use WineD3D, that doubles your FPS. The bad thing is that only run with Nvidia Cuda GPUs and Nvidia closed_driver. So its up to Wine to correct the CPU problem in order to play everywhere good, or vendor drivers must care about WineD3D to play good with their driver, so far only Nvidia works. Intel is in a good situation because we can do things on their open_driver, because its Open!!!
    There's a fix that improves thread support see: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11674#c263

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    There's a fix that improves thread support see: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11674#c263


    Yeah, but that doesn't have any impact on Wine. WineGLSL will not be multithreaded after this patch nor WineD3D will be. Wine takes HLSL_bytecode and constructs a GLSL_source (singlethreaded), then gives that to the GPU driver (vendor GLSL compilers) and then they give machinery code (multithreaded at least for Nvidia). That will only give you +20-30% FPS because the big eater is WineGLSL.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    (snip)

    Intel is in a good situation because we can do things on their open_driver, because its Open!!!
    This is why I say if Intel were to put out one or two high-end GPUs, they'd probably have Linux user loyalty for all eternity for producing a powerful GPU + open source driver that can support Mesa/KMS/fbcon/kernel DRM + being a full driver with complete support for all the GPU's features/speed combination.

    I personally think it wouldn't be too hard for them to do, either, given what their standing is as a microprocessor designer/manufacturer. If they can make powerful x86_64 CPUs they can certainly make powerful GPUs.

    One concern I didn't voice in my original post, though. What if it takes proprietary third party IP to actually make that kind of GPU? It might explain AMD's unwillingness to release complete documentation on their GPUs and nVidia's unwillingness to release any documentation at all. Could this be why Intel has not put forward a "gaming" GPU to compete directly with nVidia or AMD in that market? They want to make damned sure they can keep their driver open source?

  8. #158
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaro View Post
    One concern I didn't voice in my original post, though. What if it takes proprietary third party IP to actually make that kind of GPU? It might explain AMD's unwillingness to release complete documentation on their GPUs and nVidia's unwillingness to release any documentation at all. Could this be why Intel has not put forward a "gaming" GPU to compete directly with nVidia or AMD in that market? They want to make damned sure they can keep their driver open source?
    Intel must have some reason for keeping their Windows driver closed-source.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Intel must have some reason for keeping their Windows driver closed-source.
    I'll go out on a limb here.

    Maybe it's closed source on Windows because Windows, unlike Linux, is an environment that's predominantly proprietary and no one is really expecting source? I wouldn't read too much into why it's closed source on a closed system but open source on an open system. Just saying.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaro View Post
    I'll go out on a limb here.

    Maybe it's closed source on Windows because Windows, unlike Linux, is an environment that's predominantly proprietary and no one is really expecting source? I wouldn't read too much into why it's closed source on a closed system but open source on an open system. Just saying.
    There is a lot of open source software on Windows.

    The fact that Intel seems to have two separate drivers and two separate driver teams that probably don't communicate is indicative of some other reasoning. Why not just have a unified driver like NVIDIA and AMD?

Posting Permissions

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