Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

    Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

    Phoronix: Linus Torvalds Calls NVIDIA The Worst Company Ever

    Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, has called out NVIDIA for their poor graphics drivers in a public presentation. In the talk he called NVIDIA "the single worst company we have ever dealt with" and ended his green comments with "NVIDIA: FUCK YOU!"..

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEyMTc

  • johnc
    replied
    Ok so it's basically what I said.

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    What did I say that angered you so much?


    Intel's Open_Linux_Driver has match code and technology shared with the Closed_Win_Driver. Intel can't be forced to open the Win_Driver because the shared code is already open as a Linux_Driver. Win_Driver has DirectX code and Linux_Driver doesn't, but the OpenGL part is 70+% the same. When something goes to Win_Driver some months later appears to the Linux_Driver_(MESA) to.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    God, please give me the ability to punch people in face over TCP/IP.
    What did I say that angered you so much?

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    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?
    God, please give me the ability to punch people in face over TCP/IP.

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Yaro View Post
    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?


    Is actually more simple than that. They just don't want MESA to succeed because a Driver Is half the GPU. MESA_accelerator = Competition. They want monopoly and control over as, so they co-develop DirectX with MS and MS granted them monopoly for many years.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Yaro
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X