Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Says It Has No Plans To Support Wayland

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by Chrome View Post
    If Mesa 7.9 is first non-garbage driver for R700, then it was released with 2 years delay. R700 was released in 2008.
    Are you uninformed, or a troll?

    Building a driver from the ground up is painful. Those 2 years, the opensource development team created the foundation for future chips as well... My 3870 card is working nicely now, and things will improve. In just a few months, Evergreen support will be at almost the same level(it is already near), and 6xxx series support will come sooner than that.

    Anyway from my understanding, AMD needs opensource drivers for on die gpus mostly. I repeat: Discreet GPUS from now on are not needed in Linux. No sane gamer would try to game in Linux. There is no point. Even NVIDIA blob+Wine is not worth the trouble. So get over it. Dual boot with Windows if you need to game. Or even better: buy a console.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by drag View Post
      That's exactly why I am correct.

      Do you really think that Nvidia cares about Linux gamers when that is... oh.. about 0.30% of the potential market? There is no money it. The reason they support Linux has nothing to do with typical desktop usages.

      If Linux died tomorrow then Nvidia would be a very happy camper as I am sure dealing with X and Linux is a huge PITA for them.
      Dude, it was a joke. Never heared the song about the roof that's on fire?

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Guess you missed everything from the GF 6+ series up to the GTX 2x0 series.
        Hmm. I didn't realize anyone but NVidia was trying to claim the GTX 2x0 series as a good card that didn't get blown away by the radeon 4xxx cards.

        For gaming and general use, that is - compute was owned by nvidia but no one cared except for a tiny sliver of a minority of a fraction.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Wow, Linus wanted to fully utilize his hardware, imagine that. It's the same reason why people run nvidia blobs.
          Linus hates the nvidia blob and claims that it violates the GPL.

          But nice attempt to completely twist things around.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
            Lol, this is such non-news. If Wayland will ever become what X is now Wayland will be supported by NVIDIA.
            I'm not convinced. There appear to be some pretty major technical and legal barriers to NVidia supporting Wayland. In particular, Wayland requires KMS support from drivers, which NVidia can't implement due to it requiring GPL-only symbols in the kernel. It also assumes the use of DRI2 and GEM, meaning a major redesign of NVidia's driver would be needed and they wouldn't be share nearly as much code with the Windows driver as they currently do.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
              @deanjo

              We have a real fanboy here... What a shock. If i had the time to waste i would answer in detail your latest post, but i see no point in it. I have already said what needed to be said.

              Some quick things though:



              Being able to borrow CUDA code from Windows is simple copy-paste work. The only thing that needs modification is the part that interacts with the Xserver, which is trivial work. More work was spent on testing the thing than actually developing it...



              Sure, and i suppose you believe everything goverment and the media tells you at face value, because official statements would never lie to ya right? They are all good honest people just struggling to help humanity... You must be american...

              The reality of the matter is, AA is a neutral open technolodgy, that should be available to you regardless of ventor. Batman's developers didn't really need any help from NVIDIA to do that, countless of devs before them had accoomplished it without their help. Your iq has to be under 90 to believe otherwise...

              And Ubisoft. don't get me started please... These statements you put here are a joke. This feature worked fine, because i had used it both on Ati and NVIDIA hardware. It just provided Ati gpus with a boost, and NVIDIA couldn't have that. Even if it is true that no money were given by NVIDIA, which i don't really believe actually, a marketing deal is worth a lot of money you know...

              Anyway, you are a fanboy and arguing with one is bad practice. Have fun using poor products based on sentiments instead of logic. Unlike you, if AMD ever pulls the same crap like NVIDIA, i am switching to Intel permanently.
              LMFAO, I think your tinfoil hat needs adjustment.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                Hmm. I didn't realize anyone but NVidia was trying to claim the GTX 2x0 series as a good card that didn't get blown away by the radeon 4xxx cards.

                For gaming and general use, that is - compute was owned by nvidia but no one cared except for a tiny sliver of a minority of a fraction.
                Read and weep,

                Gamers looking to spend some $250 on a new graphics card today have two top choices with the Radeon HD 4890 and the Nvidia GeForce GTX 275.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  Linus hates the nvidia blob and claims that it violates the GPL.

                  But nice attempt to completely twist things around.
                  He might not ike it but he is more about technology then licenses.

                  On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: >

                  > Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
                  > kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
                  > of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
                  > compatible modules has been set.

                  Btw, I really think this is shortsighted.
                  It will only result in _exactly_ the crap we were just trying to avoid, namely stupid "shell game" drivers that don't actually help anything at all, and move code into user space instead.
                  What was the point again?
                  Was the point to alienate people by showing how we're less about the technology than about licenses?
                  Was the point to show that we think we can extend our reach past derived work boundaries by just saying so?
                  The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law.
                  Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?
                  So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked two-facedness about this.
                  The fact is, the reason I don't think we should force the issue is very simple: copyright law is simply _better_off_ when you honor the admittedly gray issue of "derived work". It's gray. It's not black-and-white. But being gray is _good_. Putting artificial black-and-white technical counter-measures is actually bad. It's bad when the RIAA does it, it's bad when anybody else does it.
                  If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say that its authors have to conform to our worldview.
                  We should make decisions on TECHNICAL MERIT. And this one is clearly being pushed on anything but.
                  I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn well please. Fair use, man. But it should go the other way too: we should not try to assert _our_ copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't derived from ours, or assert _our_ technical measures that keep people from combining things their way.
                  If people take our code, they'd better behave according to our rules. But we shouldn't have to behave according to the RIAA rules just because we _listen_ to their music. Similarly, nobody should be forced to behave according to our rules just because they _use_ our system.
                  There's a big difference between "copy" and "use". It's exactly the same issue whether it's music or code. You can't re-distribute other peoples music (becuase it's _their_ copyright), but they shouldn't put limits on how you personally _use_ it (because it's _your_ life).
                  Same goes for code. Copyright is about _distribution_, not about use. We shouldn't limit how people use the code.
                  Oh, well. I realize nobody is likely going to listen to me, and everybody has their opinion set in stone.
                  That said, I'm going to suggest that you people talk to your COMPANY LAWYERS on this, and I'm personally not going to merge that particular code unless you can convince the people you work for to merge it first.
                  In other words, you guys know my stance. I'll not fight the combined opinion of other kernel developers, but I sure as hell won't be the first to merge this, and I sure as hell won't have _my_ tree be the one that causes this to happen.
                  So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the other direction.
                  Because I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your political agendas, please.
                  Linus

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Reading all of Linus' thoughts on the matter helps:



                    Specifically:

                    Alessandro: What is your position about the availability of Linux modules in binary-only form?
                    Linus: I kind of accept them, but I never support them and I don't like them.
                    I will re-iterate my stance on the GPL and kernel modules:
                    There is nothing in the kernel license that allows modules to be non-GPLd.
                    The only thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and in particular the "derived work" issue. A vendor who distributes non-GPL modules is not protected by the module interface per se, and should feel very confident that they can show in a court of law that the code is not derived.
                    The module interface has never been documented or meant to be a GPL barrier. The COPYING clearly states that the system call layer is such a barrier, so if you do your work in user land you're not in any way beholden to the GPL. The module interfaces are not system calls: there are system calls used to install them, but the actual interfaces are not.
                    The original binary-only modules were for things that were pre-existing works of code, i.e., drivers and filesystems ported from other operating systems, which thus could clearly be argued to not be derived works, and the original limited export table also acted somewhat as a barrier to show a level of distance.
                    Your post made it sound like the binary-only driver from nvidia was somehow in line with Linus' plans for Linux, while nothing could be further from the truth.

                    This doesn't mean that the nvidia driver doesn't work well technically for the most part, just that it's alien to Linux, and always will be. It's essentially a repackaged windows driver that duplicates large parts of the open source stack instead of helping to improve it (like other graphics companies are doing).

                    Nvidia drivers are a closed-source competitor of the kernel, X and Mesa. If you support them, you're working against the kernel and X, in a way.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      The fact that Linus is not going to sue Ubuntu or some other distribution for distributing nvidia drivers with the kernel (which he calls a gray area, and personally considers to be GPL violation), doesn't mean that he likes it, or considers it a superior solution to the open stack.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X