Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

[TobiSGD]

Haha, the nvidia driver was also the main cause of crashes of ms windows systems a few years ago. Nowadays 64 bit ms windows 7 only loads drivers signed by microsoft. And Microsoft tests the hell out of those drivers which takes quite some time. Or I.O.W. Microsoft and Nvidia spend an enormous amount of money, time and people to make it so. I'm guessing that the nouveau developers are way way more efficient. Don't know about Apple, but I'm guessing the same.

Every driver from AMD/Nvidia for Windows is signed. Even the betas. The signing has nothing to do with stability, it is a security function.

[uid313]

Every driver from AMD/Nvidia for Windows is signed. Even the betas. The signing has nothing to do with stability, it is a security function.

But I think device drivers go through WHQL Testing (Windows Hardware Quality Labs).

Also, Windows Vista introduced Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) which I think made device drivers more stable or something.

[DeepDayze]

I remember in the early days of Linux that many hardware manufacturers were not helpful and had refused to provide documentation for their hardware. Diamond and Neomagic come to mind as those examples, but as time went on these companies eventually did provide at least some documentation for their graphics hardware and in the end Linux users bought such hardware..thus those companies had sales to some extent.

I'm sure at some point, with the right persuasion and pressure nVidia could provide some documentation where they legally can in the same vein as what AMD did to vet their code and sanitize it to be *legally* releasable. Devs can then write code to replace any missing pieces that could not be released.

Linus's bashing of nVidia (directly or indirectly) might not even help the cause at all in my opinion.

[patrik]

With all religious views aside, there is a big benefit for Nvidia to release the specs and an open driver. The next innovative consumer product that doesn't try to mimic a desktop computer will run Linux. And the hardware that requires the least amount of hassle and gives the most flexibility will be the target for that device. Lets take augmented reality glasses as an example. You have to optimize the software stack on those devices because you need performance while still having to fit everything in a very tiny space. Relying on Nvidia writing the drivers for your device is not an option. Perhaps Google can get a company like Nvidia to write custom some custom code, but for a small start-up company it's just not possible.

By selling closed technology, Nvidia (or any other GPU manufacturer) eliminates the possibility of being part of the next big thing. I'd say it's worth the trouble of sorting out any IP issues for the benefit of letting people use your products to innovate. Linux is the playing ground and Nvidia refuses to play with the other kids. Basically a poor business decision that will cost them real money. The wise thing to do would be to open up before someone else does it and grabs the market completely.

[johnc]

So now the LinuxTards are bringing down the nvnews.net site because the admin asked that the topic not be discussed on his forum? The irony is so rich... the Linux community demands "freedom" but at the same time, if a person exercises his freedom in a manner deemed heretical by the Church of FOSS then it's time to mount a crusade.

Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance? If people don't like a piece of software, then they should exercise their freedom to avoid it. But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

[entropy]

Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance?
If people don't like a piece of software, then they should exercise their freedom to avoid it. But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

The question ist too general IMHO.
Of course, using closed-source software is perfectly fine with Linux when we talk about user-space software (not using GPL stuff).
It's not that easy to tell in case of kernel-space drivers. AFAIK it's still not clear what the legal situation really is.
That thin layer of glue code might just don't work as an excuse. So all those blobs potentially violate the kernel licence.
It doesn't matter if it has been tolerated until now or that there has not been any court case so far concerning this issue.

The thing is, the Linux idea is based on some rules the developers agree on - for simplicity lets say it's what the GPL contains.
How about reversing your statement and say "If a user doesn't agree with that idea, he should user another OS".
Or use an OS with a BSD licence or Windows, whatever. There are plenty alternatives.

[XorEaxEax]

So now the LinuxTards are bringing down the nvnews.net site because the admin asked that the topic not be discussed on his forum?

How are they 'bringing down the nvnews.net site' ??

Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance?

Obviously it's not 'forbidden' as there is indeed a working proprietary driver for Linux. As for tolerance, no one is preventing NVidia from maintaining their own proprietary driver, that doesn't mean they have to like, nor does it mean they have to keep quiet about it, nor does it mean they have to aid them. NVidia is selling HARDWARE, one would find it logical that hardware manufacturers will not setup artifical barriers for running the hardware they sell on whatever system the customer prefers but that is what we have when it comes to proprietary drivers where you are at the mercy of the hardware vendor to decide if your system of choice is 'worthy'.

the Linux community demands "freedom" but at the same time, if a person exercises his freedom in a manner deemed heretical by the Church of FOSS then it's time to mount a crusade.

What crusade? Saying they don't like the situation? If a person exercises his freedom of speech in a manner deemed herectical by you then they are 'church of foss', just how hypocritical can you be?

But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

How is anyone _forcing_ a decision on you in any way shape or form?

[pingufunkybeat]

So now the LinuxTards are bringing down the nvnews.net site because the admin asked that the topic not be discussed on his forum? The irony is so rich... the Linux community demands "freedom" but at the same time, if a person exercises his freedom in a manner deemed heretical by the Church of FOSS then it's time to mount a crusade.

Seriously... is closed-source and proprietary software forbidden on this platform and if not, where is the tolerance? If people don't like a piece of software, then they should exercise their freedom to avoid it. But don't try to force your decision on the rest of us.

LinuxTard fascists, boohoo, Church of FOSS gave me a free OS, don't want to use my binary blobs *whine whine* my freedom is impinged boo hoo

[patrik]

The question ist too general IMHO.
Of course, using closed-source software is perfectly fine with Linux when we talk about user-space software (not using GPL stuff).
It's not that easy to tell in case of kernel-space drivers. AFAIK it's still not clear what the legal situation really is.
That thin layer of glue code might just don't work as an excuse. So all those blobs potentially violate the kernel licence.
It doesn't matter if it has been tolerated until now or that there has not been any court case so far concerning this issue.

To support your case I can add that there are technical issues that makes kernel GPU glue drivers problematic. The kernel space to user space API works as a stability and security barrier. What most GPU kernel glue drivers does is move this barrier out to closed user space code. That makes all the hard work of stabilizing and securing the kernel useless. A chain is no stronger that it's weakest link.

The thing is, the Linux idea is based on some rules the developers agree on - for simplicity lets say it's what the GPL contains.
How about reversing your statement and say "If a user doesn't agree with that idea, he should user another OS".
Or use an OS with a BSD licence or Windows, whatever. There are plenty alternatives.

And the rules set out by developers also makes a lot of sense in a technical POV. They are required in order to make companies and enthusiasts cooperate. That is what makes Linux successful. Linus himself has clearly stated several times that the license was chosen from a technical stand point and not to save the whales. The freedom is kind of accidental, but a pretty nice bonus IMO.

Either way Nvidia will loose and I feel sorry for all their hard working engineers. Nvidia does make awesome hardware. Linus middle finger was hopefully not aimed at them.

[johnc]

The question ist too general IMHO.
Of course, using closed-source software is perfectly fine with Linux when we talk about user-space software (not using GPL stuff).
It's not that easy to tell in case of kernel-space drivers. AFAIK it's still not clear what the legal situation really is.
That thin layer of glue code might just don't work as an excuse. So all those blobs potentially violate the kernel licence.
It doesn't matter if it has been tolerated until now or that there has not been any court case so far concerning this issue.

The GPL allows GPL applications to link to non-GPL shared libraries. So from a legal perspective it seems that a kernel hardware driver isn't too much of a step from that qualification.

The thing is, the Linux idea is based on some rules the developers agree on - for simplicity lets say it's what the GPL contains.
How about reversing your statement and say "If a user doesn't agree with that idea, he should user another OS".
Or use an OS with a BSD licence or Windows, whatever. There are plenty alternatives.

And I agree with that statement. If for some reason I can't use a particular piece of hardware that I want to use on some OS, that OS gets wiped from my hard drive and I use an alternative that "just works". And the fact is, that's where the consumer's preference has been: operating systems where their hardware works out of the box.

Linux is at best a decent operating system associated with a mediocre application stack and an excellent total cost of ownership. It's precisely the latter of the three that has caused it to be popular in some markets. Linux was far, far inferior to Solaris in the server space, but its associated cost advantages (especially with commodity hardware) made it preferable. On the desktop, Linux is a failure and mediocre in every way. And if Google wanted to fess up the investment, they could easily convert Android over to a BSD or something else and have a mobile OS that is just as technologically capable as Linux if not superior. Android is largely successful because it's not beholden to GPL insanity and FOSS fanatics.

It took YEARS for many commercial entities to dip their toes into the Linux pool after being scared away by the fanatics. It's kind of getting tiring hearing all of the complaints about how hardware X isn't supported in Linux and software company Y won't support Linux and etc., etc., etc. Maybe it's time to look inside and see if there's anything inherent in the platform that makes it unattractive to a wide swath of businesses. Because if there is, then that makes Linux based around an inferior philosophy with limited potential. (Demonstrably proven in the desktop space.)

JMO of course.

There's no doubt that there are people out there that would love to kill proprietary drivers. I love Linux of course but if I couldn't use my NVIDIA video driver for whatever reason, it gets wiped from my disk and I go with the 99% of the world that actually uses their computers as a means to an end.