Open-Source NVIDIA Vulkan Driver "NVK" Merged Into Mesa 23.3

[mdedetrich]

At least the code is open and pretty much any company, if we want to be realistic, could try to fix the problem, without waiting Nvidia, since they kindly waited and finally proposed something (for that wayland issue) only after so much pressure (see: people progressively moving to wayland and switching to AMD for it)

This characterization is wrong, Nvidia didn't end up using Wayland because of pressure but rather for technical reasons. The tl;dr version is that NVidia's driver only supports explicit sync, which is a newer/more principled way of handling graphics buffers and the part of the Linux graphics stack that integrates with Wayland does not fully support explicit sync. This is not the case with X11 due to the design differences between X11 vs Wayland.

Over time the Linux tech stack is slowly getting more support for explicit sync until it reaches a point where NVidia can support it without issues.

[dragon321]

Sorry, I see an empty message, I am not joking. This is not an argument and has never been. Close to 99.9% of Linux users never build the kernel and its modules - they use whatever distro pushes. Distros happily build and patch NVIDIA modules for you. And with NVIDIA, unlike with God bestowed AMD and Intel, you're free to use any supported driver. For AMD and Intel? Use whatever driver that comes with your kernel. Or Mesa. Upgrading and downgrading Mesa? Again maybe 0.1% of Linux users do that. With NVIDIA? I can now run the six last NVIDIA driver releases no prob. Looks like no model is perfect.

You see an "empty message" because you don't get advantages of having open source driver inside of kernel. There are plenty of advantages like better Wayland support, not having to care after kernel update, not having to care for Secure Boot sign etc. You know what I'm not free to do with proprietary driver? Use old hardware with fresh kernel. I have old system with Nvidia GPU still capable of doing basics tasks. Nvidia dropped support for it years ago so if I would need to rely on their support, I would need to use years old driver that doesn't even officially supports newer kernels, not to mention things like Wayland etc. Meanwhile nouveau supports this GPU pretty nicely and I can have accelerated Wayland desktop on fresh kernel. "Superior" Nvidia driver is not able to give me that.

Also how Nvidia lets me "use any supported driver"? I can only use what they give me and only with kernel they support. In case of Intel or AMD why would I want to use different driver? The point of kernel driver is to provide the best hardware support as possible. I don't need to use any other driver. Why would I use older driver? If something is broken after update then it's a bug that needs to be fixed. Situation when I need to downgrade driver shouldn't happen so I fail to understand what advantage Nvidia gives me here.

[Delta_44]

This characterization is wrong, Nvidia didn't end up using Wayland because of pressure but rather for technical reasons. The tl;dr version is that NVidia's driver only supports explicit sync, which is a newer/more principled way of handling graphics buffers and the part of the Linux graphics stack that integrates with Wayland does not fully support explicit sync. This is not the case with X11 due to the design differences between X11 vs Wayland.

Over time the Linux tech stack is slowly getting more support for explicit sync until it reaches a point where NVidia can support it without issues.

I know the whole situation and it's the other way around: it's not a linux problem, it's nvidia that doesn't want to support implicit sync, go figure.

You could support it then create the explicit sync stack but NO, again Nvidia strikes again.

[mdedetrich]

I know the whole situation and it's the other way around: it's not a linux problem, it's nvidia that doesn't want to support implicit sync, go figure.

Yes because its a technically worse and outdated solution, even AMD and Intel agree on this. To put things into perspective on how outdated implicit sync is, NVidia removed implicit sync when they recoded their entire driver for Windows Vista, which **checks notes**, is 15 years ago.

NVidia already stated multiple times that for them to support implicit sync they would either have to recode their entire driver or it would have a detrimental performance impact.

In any case the entire point here is technical, not open vs closed source which is a scapegoat. Even if the Nvidia driver was open source, no sane person (i.e. maintainer/s of the hypothetical open source driver) would rebuild the entire driver for a technically outdated solution. The better way to approach this problem is to improve the outdated parts of Linux graphics stack so it properly supports explicit sync all the way up the chain and in the meantime use X11 which is exactly what is being done.

You could support it then create the explicit sync stack but NO, again Nvidia strikes again.

There is no supporting "it", "it" doesn't exist, implicit sync hasn't existed for more than a decade.

[Delta_44]

In any case the entire point here is technical, not open vs closed source which is a scapegoat. Even if the Nvidia driver was open source, no sane person (i.e. maintainer/s of the hypothetical open source driver) would rebuild the entire driver for a technically outdated solution.

Good point.
If the driver was open source though, anyone could try to fix the problem without waiting for "others", in this case the damn politics that surrounds this wayland problem

[mdedetrich]

Good point.
If the driver was open source though, anyone could try to fix the problem without waiting for "others", in this case the damn politics that surrounds this wayland problem

Even that wouldn't even really work because since there is no stable ABI for graphics drivers in the Linux kernel, hence you would have to deal with all of the changes from back then when implicit sync was a thing to now as well as having to deal with explicit sync.

AMD has actually stated that (paraphrasing here) they are kinda pissed about having to maintain implicit sync, its actually causing issues especially with Vulkan (Vulkan is fundamentally explicit sync in design and so a lot of workarounds are needed for it to work in Linux) and they would have liked to move to explicit sync ages ago. In this case the main people maintaining implicit sync is AMD company, not individual open source contributors and AMD would have hypothetically also done this if it was closed source.

The entire open vs closed source thing is a red herring, I would drop this stance. As I mentioned before, realistically speaking GPU drivers are so complex/niche that the main determining factor here is the decisions of the company behind the GPU's (and a bit of Valve in AMD's case). We aren't talking about keyboard drivers here that people with basic C knowledge can hack on.

And anyways, its not like you can't use the NVidia GPU's now. You can, you just have to use X11. Wayland support is being slowly added, and its functionality is directly correlated to necessary improvements to the Linux tech stack. This wouldn't be any different if NVidia's driver would hypothetically be open source, in fact that is whats happening currently with the AMD/Intel drivers with the critical difference being that those drivers were built with implicit sync in mind where as NVidia's weren't, so those drivers are more progressed but its not like there aren't other problems with Wayland.

[C8292]

Having said that, what's wrong with closed source NVIDIA drivers?

Or better yet tell me what's special about open source AMD/Intel drivers? The community does not contribute to them in any shape or form, they are so extremely complex. Intel driver commits: 100% by Intel employees. AMD driver commits: 100% by AMD and few bits and pieces by Valve.

(...)

And I'm saying this as a person who's been using Linux for over 25 years. Only you won't find hateful posts by me. I accept all models of development as long as the net result is good. NVIDIA closed drivers are actually really really good (sans few bugs here and there).

What's worse, you actively deny people their choice of business model because you believe your PoV is the only correct in the world. That reeks of despotism. So much for inclusivity.

What's wrong with closed source NVIDIA drivers is that if you don't sacrifice anything for your change, than your change will be your sacrifice.

in this case, having more opensource development. not less.

If you don't vote with your wallet, there is absolutely zero reasons for Nvidia to change or others to be the change.

[mdedetrich]

If you don't vote with your wallet, there is absolutely zero reasons for Nvidia to change or others to be the change.

If your hope is that in voting with your wallet you will change NVidia's stance about open sourcing their driver, then its a delusional one. Not saying that you shouldn't be voting with your wallet out of principle, just that it won't change NVidia's mind on this specific point.

NVidia has so much IP that they see as part of their business in the driver that it will likely rain cats and dogs before they open source it. Furthermore there are plenty of legal problems which have been raised ad-nauseum before, i.e. their drivers have external company IP (think SG i.e. silicon graphics) which means if they wanted to they probably couldn't open source it unless they decide to make a completely fresh clean room implementation which they are not going to do since they see it as pointless for their bottom line

And if you are wondering how AMD managed to open source their drivers, its because it was last ditch desperate decision they made when they were almost bankrupt and moving to a new architecture. I wouldn't count on that happening to NVidia any time soon, and even if it did unlike AMD, NVidia sees commercial value in their driver (as stated before).

[C8292]

If your hope is that in voting with your wallet you will change NVidia's stance about open sourcing their driver, then its a delusional one. Not saying that you shouldn't be voting with your wallet out of principle, just that it won't change NVidia's mind on this specific point.

NVidia has so much IP that they see as part of their business in the driver that it will likely rain cats and dogs before they open source it. Furthermore there are plenty of legal problems which have been raised ad-nauseum before, i.e. their drivers have external company IP (think SG i.e. silicon graphics) which means if they wanted to they probably couldn't open source it unless they decide to make a completely fresh clean room implementation which they are not going to do since they see it as pointless for their bottom line

And if you are wondering how AMD managed to open source their drivers, its because it was last ditch desperate decision they made when they were almost bankrupt and moving to a new architecture. I wouldn't count on that happening to NVidia any time soon, and even if it did unlike AMD, NVidia sees commercial value in their driver (as stated before).

I literately avoid NVIDIA when buying because of their drivers. If me, you and everyone that is somehow related to linux and opensource make this call, I don't think it is such a small impact. (ignoring the cases where NVIDIA is 100% unavoidable, like CUDA)

And how does Intel fit in your logic? Because their drivers are also opensource since the beginning, and they are not or weren't in the verge of being bankrupt

[avis]

Good point.
If the driver was open source though, anyone could try to fix the problem without waiting for "others", in this case the damn politics that surrounds this wayland problem

That's an absolute overstatement. Probably a few dozen people in the entire world can do that and only if they get paid handsomely for that.