Page 9 of 26 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 259

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote 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:

    Quote 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.

    ...

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Nvidia is infringing.

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

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    825

    Default

    Quote 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].

    Quote 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:
    Quote 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)

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,796

    Default

    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 at 08:02 AM.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote 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?

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

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