Originally posted by WorBlux
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostDoesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.
Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.
Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostLinux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).
Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
Comment
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostLinux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).
Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
Maybe nvidia should consider this as a solution... shouldn't be any kind of licensing issue, since they own what is left of 3dfx....
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostThis is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostDoesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.
Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.
Binary blobs are free to talk to each other if they wish. No special internal kernel structures are required.
OSS drivers are free to talk to each other with the special internal kernel structure.
Binary blobs and OSS drivers are free to talk to each other through interfaces implemented in the binary blob.
On top of that... how many Android devices are you aware of that have discrete GPUs?
You see, here is the thing about phones, tablets, and things of that nature.... the GPU is integrated into the SoC. That goes for TEGRA (nvidia), SNAPDRAGON (qualcomm), and MALI (arm). Seems that nvidia isn't so worried about this interface on their TEGRA SoC's, you know why? Its because ***THEY*** are the ones with the primary GPU on those units!!!!
This "optimus" nonsense is a temporary fad. Its because Intel is integrating their GPUs with their CPUs, and AMD is integrating their GPUs with THEIR CPUs. NVidia doesn't HAVE a CPU for the desktop/laptop segment of the market, so their product must be some kind of discrete unit in order for them to continue to HAVE a product.
Laptops with dual-AMD (IGP+GPU) only exist to compete with the PERCEPTUAL advantages of dual GPU systems. It sure SOUNDS cool to have a low power + high performance chips in one machine, but when it really comes down to it, it is FAR FAR better to take the scalable graphics approach. Eventually, its going to be GPU components integrated with the CPU in multiple segments that can be scaled and/or powered down independently of each other. That will go for server chips as well as laptop chips, because server chips are going to benefit from the parallel performance benefits of GPGPU and heterogeneous computing. At some point, you won't even be able to distinguish the "GPU" components from the "CPU". The whole concept of "GPU" will become obsolete, and we will be back entirely to SOFTWARE rendering on CPUs that are much better suited for this type of workload than what we've become used to.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostNo no no.
If you modify GPL software, you don't have to redistribute anything. But if you CHOOSE to redistribute, then the resulting code must also be GPL.
You can combine GPL software and proprietary software to your heart's content, as long as you don't distribute the result to others. GPL is a distribution license.
No, GPL is used to ensure that if you receive software, you keep the right to modify and redistribute it under GPL terms. It doesn't say anything about the case where you keep the code for yourself and don't pass it on.
This is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnc View Postlol... ok. you win teh internets for the day.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostUhm, but that's a given. Does a license that governs what you can do with anything in private exist to begin with? I don't know any. As far as I know, you can reverse-engineer and decompile anything you wish, as long as it's private and not distributed, there are no problems. And if you don't distribute what you do, it is pretty much as good as not existing. Sure, you can ignore all licenses when making something to run on a private server, but that's pretty much as far as you can go with that. So there are no false premises here, it's already implied as such.
Comment
-
Some people here are saying that NVIDIA has right to do whatever they want with their IP but they dont let Linux devs to have the same priviledge
The very same people which are so protective about NVIDIAs IP rights are telling Linux devs that they must do whatever other company tells them to do even if it infringes on their own license
Comment
Comment