Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA, Mentor Graphics May Harm GCC

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

  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    I don't see any anger in my posts, nor did I call anyone names. You are the one talking about "retards" and you see anger where there is none. I simply have a different opinion which you obviously don't like.
    k that proofs it, you are a kid <10 years old, because children don't understand ironie, like you. As if I would have called them retards, thats ironie rofl. but ok its not your fault that a kid dont understand ironie is just a thing that is normal not his fault. Maybe your parents should protect you from yourself posting such stuff on random websites with fanatics on it. (thats ironie too, I try to write that explizitly now as long as you kiddo write here)

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Its not a dependency to create the output but its pretty useless on its own. A dependency is required in order to use the output.
    And a proprietary application compiled with GCC can have a dependency on external proprietary libraries (probably even the same CUDA libraries), without which the program won't run. Again it's of no concern to GCC.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Frett View Post
    One thing is for certain that I personally learned, you can't use both. Windows constantly locks you in and makes you come back, only when you fully break free of Windows can you truly use a different OS. Same thing applies to any addiction.
    Actually, many people dual-boot, myself included. There are some rare programs that you absolutely need and that don't run on Wine or even in a virtual machine (in my case it's UnrealEd). I haven't started Windows for a few months now, and when I do it's for a very short amount of time, but it's still there.

    I also have a tablet which has PowerVR graphics and a proprietary screen implementation, which causes it to fail to turn off the screen and thus also go to sleep. I have Linux installed on it, but I mostly use Windows, since I absolutely need the battery life.

    So there are cases where you can use both and not be bound to Windows.

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    I don't see how it's a dependency. GCC receives source code as an input, processes it, and outputs a file. It's none of GCC's concern what the file is used for. You're free to compile proprietary software with GCC, for instance. So I don't see any difference between the two cases here. Besides, you can't be sure that in the future there won't be open PTX parsers.
    "Besides, you can't be sure that in the future there won't be open PTX parsers." So your a glass half full kinda guy


    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Unless GCC does have to actually rely on proprietary software to produce the output? I don't know enough about this issue to comment on that, but at least the information you provided so far doesn't prove that it really is a dependency.
    Its not a dependency to create the output but its pretty useless on its own. A dependency is required in order to use the output.

    Leave a comment:


  • tarceri
    replied
    Ok cant help myself one more post.

    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    Well, Michael offers a forum and invites anyone for discussions. It seems however that some people on this forum are not interested in an open discussion but rather circle jerk with their own kind and call anyone with a different opinion a troll.
    Funny that its a bit like those who call people with different opinions fan boys, and while calling everything FUD. Its also funny how once questioned those same people go from self proclaimed sarcasm in there opening post line
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    And? I also need a Nvidia card to use it in the first place. Oh my god, they are taking my freedom away to use any card I want!!1!11
    (often a calling card of a good troll) to suddenly wanting to engage in an open discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Parallel Thread Execution (PTX) is a pseudo-assembly language. The graphics driver contains a compiler which translates the PTX into a binary code which can be run on the processing cores.

    So yes the PTX compiler is a closed source implementation. Sure GCC would have the open source code to generate PTX but then it has a dependency on the closed source driver to compiler it.
    I don't see how it's a dependency. GCC receives source code as an input, processes it, and outputs a file. It's none of GCC's concern what the file is used for. You're free to compile proprietary software with GCC, for instance. So I don't see any difference between the two cases here. Besides, you can't be sure that in the future there won't be open PTX parsers.

    Unless GCC does have to actually rely on proprietary software to produce the output? I don't know enough about this issue to comment on that, but at least the information you provided so far doesn't prove that it really is a dependency.

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    Are you kidding me? Just read the article. Do you really think this article could not have been written without spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?
    I have read the article, thanks. And I have actually checked the info about Mentor Graphics instead of calling it "plain FUD"...

    Their OpenACC implementation is using PTX and CUDA as target. No FUD here. Go check it yourself if you want.

    All those quotes like...


    ...which are not even true (as someone pointed out here), could have been paraphrased in a way which still show the concerns of the informant but keep a bit of objectivity. That's the difference between journalism and sensationalism.
    Oh, so you feel somehow hurt about the article not beeing nice to nvidia, fscking rofl. Don't feel sad, nvidia will most certainly survive this malicious attack on their closed source efforts.

    Btw nvidia is in fact only exposing PTX to implementors. See no FUD here either. Again feel free to check it yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Temar
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    show how "plain FUD" the article is.
    Are you kidding me? Just read the article. Do you really think this article could not have been written without spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?

    All those quotes like...
    NVIDIA refuses to publicly disclose their instruction set. They force any company targeting their hardware to use PTX. They claim it's for portability, but that's a lie. AMD's GPU instruction set changes, but they and *EVERYONE* else in the industry publishes their details no problem. The arguments about protecting their IP is just bs.. How can *everyone* else publish the details and open source drivers, but stay in business?"
    ...which are not even true (as someone pointed out here), could have been paraphrased in a way which still show the concerns of the informant but keep a bit of objectivity. That's the difference between journalism and sensationalism.

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by Temar View Post
    Also this is not about hiding information. Michael's article is just plain FUD, he could have very well presented the same article as a real news article. Instead he chose to use click-bait but in the end he should no complain about vendors not sending any cards for testing.
    So you have other information, feel free to share it, and show how "plain FUD" the article is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Temar
    replied
    Originally posted by tarceri View Post
    Its no secret people here are strong vocal supporters of open source. The surprising thing is how many people feel the need to troll here criticising people (including Michael) for their views.

    Sure that explains why you use Linux but it doesn't explain why you visit a site created by a free software advocate and feel the need to criticise him for posting his views on his own website.
    Well, Michael offers a forum and invites anyone for discussions. It seems however that some people on this forum are not interested in an open discussion but rather circle jerk with their own kind and call anyone with a different opinion a troll.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X