Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

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

  • 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, 06:57 PM. Reason: typo

    Comment


    • 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.

      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?

      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?

      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.

      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.

      Comment


      • 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!!!

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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?

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      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?
                      But still, opening stuff has a cost, you need a legal team to review the whole stuff, possibly redo internally (with clean room) some bits that you bough to a third party, or even possibly, some technology of a startup you bought that you don't own fully, etc...
                      Against that, you have gains: you can use open source tools for your driver, other corporations and individuals will be working for you, you can influence the whole platform if it's open too, the kernel/OS developers can work with your stuff more easily, etc..

                      For the windows platform, most of these gains don't exist: there are no open source tools or kernel to build upon, and development is centralized. And if you want OS devs to work/debug with you, they all will be professional Microsoft employee, so you can give them NDA + sources or debug dlls, that won't have all the hurdles of public distribution.

                      So it's quite possible that costs/benefits balance in one direction on Linux and the other on Windows... If their code base is small enough of "non-legacy" enough, it makes sense for them to develop two drivers, each best adapted to its environment.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X