NVIDIA Wants To Be A Better Linux Patron

[XorEaxEax]

There is no Linux success outside of supercomputers, marginal server success and super-proprietary Android devices.

Linus might not want proprietary drivers, but he was sure quick to brag about those 900,000 daily Android activations.

Lol, 'marginal server success', oh and conveniently ignoring the entire embedded sector beyond that of mobile phones? And the success of Android sure as hell relies more on Linux than it having a proprietary NVidia driver, it would be far easier to replace the NVidia driver with an open source version than to replace Linux that's for sure.

It's funny that an obvious Linux hater like yourself tried to present yourself as someone who 'loves Linux', LOL WTF!? Where do people like you come from? Seriously?

[johnc]

Lol, 'marginal server success', oh and conveniently ignoring the entire embedded sector beyond that of mobile phones? And the success of Android sure as hell relies more on Linux than it having a proprietary NVidia driver, it would be far easier to replace the NVidia driver with an open source version than to replace Linux that's for sure.

It's funny that an obvious Linux hater like yourself tried to present yourself as someone who 'loves Linux', LOL WTF!? Where do people like you come from? Seriously?

Maybe I have my numbers wrong but my understanding is that Windows is top on servers. But all I have are IDC (non-revenue) numbers which showed Windows at 40%, Linux at 30%, and "other UNIX" at 30%. I'm looking for better numbers so if you have a (reliable) source, I'll definitely correct myself.

Okay, you got me on the embedded sector. It's in keyboards and routers too. Credit where credit is due.

If one were to look at the mobile market, you can see that a Linux kernel isn't necessary for success. Symbian, QNX for RIM, iOS -- just a year ago they owned the mobile space. But I don't know of too many successful Android phones that are free of proprietary binary blobs. (Again, I'm open to correction.) It seems that Android success depends on its vendors protecting their IP with closed source licenses. Why couldn't the same reasoning apply to the desktop?

There are a lot of things I love about Linux, and some that I do not. I've been exclusive Ubuntu (on two boxes) for daily work for about two years now, if that means anything. I never boot into Win7 except to play games (but haven't logged in over there in 3+ months as I don't play too many Steam games lately... unfortunately). I just refuse to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of Linux. To see people paper over the driver disaster that is on Linux just comes off as rabid fanboyism. I would love to see a Linux distro become the #1 desktop OS. But I recognize that there are certain realities that have to be respected before that accomplishment could be met.

I also think it's rather petty to dismiss or minimize the accomplishments of other operating systems, even those we don't like. The truth is, Windows is friggin' everywhere. Windows 7 has shipped 600m copies alone, and that's not even a free OS. And it's a good operating system... not my cup of tea, personally... but I'll give it respect.

Symbian, QNX and iOS are all good operating systems. Do they not deserve respect because they're closed source?

This forum is overflowing with bitching about NVIDIA, like somehow Linux is being held back by the company. If I'm a hater for calling out that distortion, that's fine.

[entropy]

This forum is overflowing with bitching about NVIDIA, like somehow Linux is being held back by the company. If I'm a hater for calling out that distortion, that's fine.

NVIDIA is exploiting Linux and doesn't play by the rules.
How is it difficult to understand that lots of FOSS people doesn't like that?

[johnc]

NVIDIA is exploiting Linux and doesn't play by the rules.
How is it difficult to understand that lots of FOSS people doesn't like that?

Could there be anything more vague than "doesn't play by the rules"?

Do all those Android vendors "play by the rules"?

[entropy]

Could there be anything more vague than "doesn't play by the rules"?

Do all those Android vendors "play by the rules"?

How does it disburden NVIDIA just because there are others problematic companies?

[johnc]

How does it disburden NVIDIA just because there are others problematic companies?

What business is it of yours if they don't want to release source or documentation? Just don't buy their products.

[entropy]

What business is it of yours if they don't want to release source or documentation? Just don't buy their products.

I don't (anymore).

Besides, what worth is any legal statement (license) and idea
if there is no one standing behind it?
So I'm free to make this my business.

[johnc]

I don't (anymore).

Besides, what worth is any legal statement (license) and idea
if there is no one standing behind it?
So I'm free to make this my business.

It sounds like your major gripe is with the kernel devs not enforcing your idea of how the license should be enforced.

[entropy]

It sounds like your major gripe is with the kernel devs not enforcing your idea of how the license should be enforced.

I've to admit there's some truth in this (grey area, yadda yadda).

To cut this story short; I just like to see NVIDIA to release documentation and they can get away with the blob.
Just like AMD does. Indeed, this doesn't solve the potential licence issues but it is a fair deal IMHO.

[johnc]

I've to admit there's some truth in this (grey area, yadda yadda).

To this story short; I just like to see NVIDIA release documentation and they can get away with the blob.
Just like AMD does. Indeed, this doesn't solve the potential license issues but it is a fair deal IMHO.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

I suspect the documentation issue is less about IP and more about money / resources. So let's see what kind of pull Valve has if there's any kind of Linux-based "Steam box" coming out. If the user base is built up, NVIDIA might be more interested in paying attention.