Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

[RealNC]

Whether someone cares for Linux is a misleading question to begin with. The whole issue doesn't have to do anything with Linux per se. A more meaningful question would be whether the general public should consider it an acceptable practice for a company to sell computing devices without providing information on how to operate (read: program) them. And then it will become obvious immediately that they shouldn't. It's simply a bad bargain.

I disagree. It's their right not to tell me. It's their hardware, they can keep it as secret as they want.

If you disagree, don't buy from them. Lots of people buy from then, which is proof that the secrecy around the hardware is not something that concerns users. They (and me) want it to work, not to tell me how it works. (Contrast this with AMD, which tells you how it works, but doesn't work well.)

[scottishduck]

Unfortunately as long as AMD crank out poor hardware and drivers, I won't be buying.

[linux5850]

I agree with Linus. There's another issue which doesn't come up with Nvidia blobs (or AMD/ATI blobs for that matter) and that is security. Nvidia (the fuck the customers company) requires you to have writable/executable memory segments meaning their drivers have the possibility of introducing malicious code into your pc, whether by accident or on purpose. The RWX required of their drivers make you need to have all of X and anything running through X to also have RWX settings thereby totally negating any security mechanisms you think you have.

[patrik]

I disagree. It's their right not to tell me. It's their hardware, they can keep it as secret as they want.

Wrong, if I buy it, it's my hardware. It's like selling a car but refuse to give up the keys.

If you disagree, don't buy from them. Lots of people buy from then, which is proof that the secrecy around the hardware is not something that concerns users.

Unfortunately you cannot always pick and choose what hardware components you want. Look at tablets, laptops and cellphones for instance. And many of us users do care. We need full transparency in order to make our hardware work optimally. There are also security conserns, but you seems to argue that: What you don't know about cannot hurt you.

They (and me) want it to work, not to tell me how it works. (Contrast this with AMD, which tells you how it works, but doesn't work well.)

This is the catch. In order for it to "work" for me, I need to know how it works.

Let's say Intel never told anyone how their CPUs work. That would have given them monopoly on computer software (sounds like a real nice business decision) but you (as a consumer) would be stuck in the stone age.

[jrdls]

An nVidia guy among the audience!

The funniest thing was the fact that there was an nvidia engineer in the audience and thanked him even though linus told him to F himself. For those interested, he's the guy who asked the last question.
Oh and BTW apparently nvidia will upstream the tegra driver (although it might be similar to the exynos drm driver)

[edmon]

Did anyone knows what is so secret in NVIDIA graphic card driver and/or hardware which they keep so hard?????

[TobiSGD]

Did anyone knows what is so secret in NVIDIA graphic card driver and/or hardware which they keep so hard?????

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ineers-253027/

LQ) At times, NVIDIA has taken a bit of flak for the Linux drivers not being Open Source. Can you tell us a little bit about why they aren't? Do you have any plans for a full open source driver, or is the long term plan to stick with one Open Source driver (nv) and one closed source driver (nvidia).
NV) We have lots of IP in our supported closed source Linux driver some of which is licensed and cannot be open sourced. While we did our best to ensure that there was open source driver (nv) for our chips available, we got lots of feedback from our professional partners as well as end users that wanted a driver that had the same quality and performance characteristics of our supported drivers for platforms such as Windows and Apple. By taking on the commitment to providing great Linux drivers for our GPUs, networking adapters/storage/audio devices we have given our end users the same Compatibility, Reliability & Stability that NVIDIA Software has become known for. We will maintain the strategy of providing both. Due to the UDA architecture, there is too much IP in the driver source to make open sourcing the driver a practicality.

[89c51]

Unfortunately you cannot always pick and choose what hardware components you want. Look at tablets, laptops and cellphones for instance. And many of us users do care. We need full transparency in order to make our hardware work optimally. There are also security conserns, but you seems to argue that: What you don't know about cannot hurt you.

There is no such thing as many that care about freedom. There is many that want to get their job done and not have to deal with installations, missing features sub par performance etc. Sales even on things that run on linux (ie android) prove that.

[edmon]

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ineers-253027/

They have patents for their IP, what is the problem???

[RealNC]

Wrong, if I buy it, it's my hardware. It's like selling a car but refuse to give up the keys.

The keys are the drivers, and they are given to you. Also, you know in advance that you will not get specs.

Car companies also do not disclose the proprietary technologies they develop for their cars. The car you drive has closed, proprietary tech in it. You still drive it, don't you? Your own argument works against you, because you have a very wrong idea about what your rights are. You have the right to *request* specs, but they have the right to deny that request.

Also, don't forget that unlike car manufacturers, NVidia does not actively hinder other people from manufacturing custom keys (Nouveau).