Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • Originally posted by artivision View Post
    I said that you said, that at the time of HD8000 and then, the open driver will be on par in development with the Catalyst.
    I really don't think anyone from AMD said this, even "years ago".

    What we did say was that (a) it would be the first generation where open source driver development started at about the same time as Catalyst development, and (b) it would be the first new GPU generation where we were planning to deliver open source driver support by launch time.

    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    Regardless if you thing that "in time" or "with status" the outcome it's the same = near equal speed + near equal support. You don't said that only they will start at the same time.
    No... if I said "in time" then I meant "in time". If I had meant something different I would have said something different.

    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    And also when you said that HD3000 has 2 times the GPGPU performance against HD2000, in what language was it? Let me guess, hmm C++, no Java, maybe @#$%.
    Again, some kind of link here would really help. The big deal with rv670 (HD3850) was the addition of double-precision support. The new process did support higher clocks but I don't remember any claim of 2x performance against HD2xxx. Maybe against r5xx ?
    Last edited by bridgman; 10-14-2012, 04:18 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Do you have a source for that statement?

      I remember him saying that he is expecting launch-time support for HD8000, but he has never said that it would have near equal speed or near equal support. For speed, he said he expects a maximum of about 70-80%, for support, he said it depends on the legal and technical review.

      I said exactly the same. They said that they wont to shorten the development gap between Catalyst and Open, from 1+year or years the todays difference, to less than a year. As I understand 1 generation behind and maximum 20-30% performance difference. We not on OGL3.3 and we have not 70-80% performance because they give as bad optimizers, on purpose. The opposite of Intel. I'm ashamed to say that with X1900 i trust them with their GPGPU lies (they will be many GPGPU apps, from encoders to everything), and i bought 40 of them for an Internet cafe that i had 25%. Then because it was my past job i shell at least 100 different Radeons (from the 8000 true-form model) and less than 20 Gforces. I didn't believe the benchmarks of the time (that a NV7800-24pixelshaders can win a X190048pixelshaders), and now you doing the same (pretending that an [email protected] is on par with a [email protected][email protected]). Liars and thieves. Is there anyone from AMD to answer all the above. I will wait for an answer.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        I really don't think anyone from AMD said this, even "years ago".

        What we did say was that (a) it would be the first generation where open source driver development started at about the same time as Catalyst development, and (b) it would be the first new GPU generation where we were planning to deliver open source driver support by launch time.



        No... if I said "in time" then I meant "in time". If I had meant something different I would have said something different.



        Again, some kind of link here would really help. The big deal with rv670 (HD3850) was the addition of double-precision support. The new process did support higher clocks but I don't remember any claim of 2x performance against HD2xxx. Maybe against r5xx ?


        For the HD3000 AMD said 2x GPGPU performance per flop against HD2000, because of the new architecture. Not 2x Shading performance (they are equal on shading). In what language you measure GPGPU performance anyway and regardless of my posts?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          Correct.

          Google did a clean-room reimplementation of Java Virtual Machine, using the same API.
          That's what they say, but google clearly copied gpl code.

          What they can't do is link proprietary code against GPL code.
          Way to miss the point, the API in question can't be considered gpl code, legally. So Alan Cox's (and your, apparently) politically motivated rage against nVidia is rather impotent.

          Oh, and define link, the gpl doesn't.

          Comment


          • [SPAM]
            Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post

            Oh, and define link, the gpl doesn't.


            [/SPAM]


            ************************************************** ************************************************** *

            Maybe add a small opensource part to the driver just for doing this communication could work legally? :/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
              Way to miss the point, the API in question can't be considered gpl code, legally. So Alan Cox's (and your, apparently) politically motivated rage against nVidia is rather impotent.
              Have you read the lwn link I posted? It explains the situation quite well.

              API is API, but if you link against a GPL implementation of it, you're in trouble. You're welcome to make your own implementation, though, and nobody can stop you from doing that.

              That's why you can't copyright a stdio.h header, but if you link against a GPL implementation of libc, you are bound by the GPL. This is why glibc does not use the GPL. The kernel does.

              Oh, and define link, the gpl doesn't.
              The GPL talks about derived code. Like I said, the legality of combinint proprietary software with GPL software depends on what this exactly means.

              Many important kernel devs, starting with Linus, have a very clear opinion on this, and Nvidia is ignoring them because they have lots of legal muscle.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                Many important kernel devs, starting with Linus, have a very clear opinion on this, and Nvidia is ignoring them because they have lots of legal muscle.
                Thats how you see it? I see it as two linux engineers at nvidia who were able to convince their boss to work on optimus. With any legal trouble, I bet their managers would tell them to drop it in a heart beat.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by boast View Post
                  Thats how you see it? I see it as two linux engineers at nvidia who were able to convince their boss to work on optimus. With any legal trouble, I bet their managers would tell them to drop it in a heart beat.
                  I pity those linux engineers. The problems with Nvidia drivers are not their fault.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
                    I know exactly what fps is. You missed the point.
                    No actually you missed the point, I wrote that it doesn't matter if you get 110 fps with open source drivers or 190 with proprietary drivers when the game still only needs to run at 30-60fps. In other words, as long as the open drivers can provide 30-60fps (depending on game) with acceptable levels of graphics then that's all that's needed to cater for the wider audience. Obviously there will be the hardcore gamers who want everything at maximum but really they won't switch to Linux anyway, heck they are probably not even on PC anymore as they've migrated to dedicated gaming consoles.

                    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
                    And I'll say it again, it DOESN'T MATTER if the performance is adequate, when it's significantly less than what the hardware has been proven to be able to give.
                    Of course it does, that is what adequate means. If it is adequate for playing a game at full speed with a adequate level of graphics then that is perfectly acceptable for the majority of people playing games out there. Again the hardcore gamers are not what I'm talking about here. A good gaming experience goes far beyond the ability to crank up the graphics to 'MAXIMUM LEVEL! OVER 9000!'. The runaway success of things like the Humble Bundle where the majority of games doesn't come close to taxing even the open source drivers is a prime example of this.

                    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
                    So you "might be tempted" to use the software that will make that performance be adequate, and it's perfectly logical to use the right tool for the job.
                    If you want to use the proprietary driver because you don't find the performance to be adequate then that's up to you, who is stopping you? If you are talking about 'optimus' then that's because NVidia has not seen it fit to release a proprietary driver for this hardware on Linux, which is not something that not being able to use DMABUF prevents, they are fully capable of implementing that functionality in their proprietary driver themselves, as they've done with all other kernel functionality they can't use due to being proprietary. The reason you don't have a proprietary optimus driver for Linux is that NVidia doesn't care about supporting optimus on Linux.

                    And this will ALWAYS be the case with a company like NVidia which only supports proprietary drivers, you will be at their begging, they will CHOOSE which platforms you can or cannot run the hardware you BUY from them. It doesn't end with optimus, this will always be a problem. FreeBSD allows proprietary drivers to interact directly with kernel interfaces, yet it does not have optimus support, what gives?

                    Again it has nothing to do with that, if NVidia _wants_ to support a platform they will. They want to support Linux on the professional level for HPC and 3D/SFX so they provide proprietary drivers for their cards which are used in those areas, they have no interest in Linux on the end user desktop so technologies like optimus is not on their agenda.

                    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
                    I'll go back to learning some C programming now ..
                    (No, serisouly .. :P)
                    As someone who has been programming in C (amongst other languages though) for 12 years that makes me happy to hear If you want a nice kickstart/learn-through-practical-examples experience I would suggest 'learn c the hard way', I wish I'd had something like this back when I started out: http://c.learncodethehardway.org/book/

                    As the name implies there is very little hand-holding and depending on how new you are to programming you might want something more 'basic'.

                    Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
                    **Btw, should I add, I don't know what you define as great visual quality, but my experience says you need pretty high end hardware to have it with open drivers.
                    Yes this is indeed a subjective thing, but I'd wager as long as people think graphics look 'good' they will (in general) fully enjoy the game even though it doesn't reach the maximum level of detail it can muster on their hardware/drivers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                      That's what they say, but google clearly copied gpl code.
                      Yes and they were convicted of doing so, however those 9(!) lines of code was of such a generic nature that the judge said their (oracle's) claims where ridicoulus.

                      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                      Way to miss the point, the API in question can't be considered gpl code, legally.
                      The API is not copyrightable, NVidia can implement this API a hundred times and no kernel dev wil raise an eyebrow. NVidia wants to link to AND USE the kernel developers GPL licenced CODE which makes NVidia's driver a derived work thus it is illegal for NVidia to do so from a proprietary driver.

                      You should try and understand the difference between an API and actual CODE. NVidia wants to use kernel CODE from their PROPRIETARY driver, this code has been marked as only legally linkable from GPL compatible code (EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL) which means you cannot legally call it from PROPRIETARY code. NVidia is allowed to copy the API verbatim as many times they want, but they have to write THEIR OWN CODE.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X