Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by dargllun View Post
    I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
    Lol I knew someone would say something. I have an AMD APU I have HDMI audio support and video acceleration (whatever xbva can afford, for instance use with VLC).

    I agree that there should be a common API for all video drivers to simply simplify however I guess. As to OS'ing drivers Linux has enough problems with patents and whatnot I think since it's free it should be exempt =).

    Comment


    • #22
      Add this to another list of reasons why Steam on linux is a bad idea. Linux is only for running on servers and the OSS religion.

      Comment


      • #23
        @Paradox Uncreated

        Please do us all a favor and get out of here.
        Your homophobic and insulting way to other users is absolutely a shame.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
          So why are Nvidia so afraid of opening up their drivers? I mean plenty of worldclass stuff in linux, my own plugins included. They are a hardware seller right? So the drivers that come with are open-source, what harm would it do? And sharing that, does that make anyone more competitive? Think about optimizations from the users aswell. Probably to the point of optimal. And generalized for any driver. So everyone contributes. How can that be negative?

          Peace Be With You.
          in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

          1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
          2. you want to make money with your program.

          While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

          *edit
          and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
          Last edited by Detructor; 10-11-2012, 10:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by dargllun View Post
            I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
            I know that and I never denied it (although OSS drivers are improving). But the truth is, that there's no reason to use Linux except for the fact that it's open source. If all I cared about was functionality delivered, then I'd use Windows: NVIDIA makes good drivers for Windows, too. Instead, I choose Linux because of its unique features, which stem from it being open source.

            NVIDIA don't care about the open source community (which is no longer, if it ever was, made up of enthusiasts and free software philosophers, but instead it comprises very successful commercial companies and millions of average Joes who don't even know that the products they use and love couldn't exist without open source software), and they are the last computer company behaving this way. Well, they and Microsoft.

            One second after NVIDIA (or ATI or whoever) release a new batch of graphics cards, they stop giving a damn about the older generation of cards and the millions of people who bought them. This means that as soon as a new OS release is out, the functionality delivered for people using binary drivers with "old" hardware drops to zero.
            The only ones who assure that users are able to continue upgrading their OS without losing the functionality of their hardware are the kernel's developers, and they can do it only as long as the drivers are open source. The same thing can be said about their ability to fix bugs.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              It's the FSF's version of digital rights management.
              Bullshit, DRM exists to prevent end users from doing what they want, GPL exists to make sure end users can do whatever they want and have all that is necessary for them to do so. IIRC you work for Apple so I can see why this is so confusing for you.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by boast View Post
                Add this to another list of reasons why Steam on linux is a bad idea. Linux is only for running on servers and the OSS religion.
                You don't have to use Linux for steam, so why are you here complaining?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by peppepz View Post
                  I know that and I never denied it (although OSS drivers are improving). But the truth is, that there's no reason to use Linux except for the fact that it's open source.
                  If all I cared about was functionality delivered, then I'd use Windows: NVIDIA makes good drivers for Windows, too. Instead, I choose Linux because of its unique features, which stem from it being open source.
                  I couldn't agree more. That's just to the point IMHO.

                  Many times I read about the "great" Linux support by NVidia.
                  But actually, NVidia doesn't support Linux at all - they "just" provide more or less well functional drivers.
                  That's a difference which matters.
                  If NVidia would really "support" Linux, this would include respecting the open philosophy behind Linux.

                  Now, my personal opinion about the blobs is that *I* am fine with the "AMD way".
                  They have their proprietary crap but they also provide documentation of the hardware.

                  That's a deal I'd say.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                    What is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and why is it so important it is GPL only?
                    Not everything in the kernel is covered under the GPL completely, there are exceptions made. Export_Symbols tells the developers what is and isn't under the GPL. If something isn't under the GPL then closed source programs can link to it and its no problem, if they ARE under the GPL (like DMA-BUF currently is) then closed source cant link to it without becoming a "Derivitive work" under the GPL and being forced to open up the code.

                    The article does make an interestingg point though... DRI-3 depends on DMA-BUF for a lot of stuff. DMA-BUF really is at the core of DRi-3. So its interesting that the developers would choose to not allow it to be exported NON-GPLed because that means AMD and Nvidia cant officially support DRI-3 without some nasty hacks. (See the video from the Suse convention about DRI-3 to learn why DRI-3 is good)

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Its not that you can reverse engineer GPUs by analyzing software drivers. You can can not do that. GPUs are MASSIF pieces of architecture. Its almost like claiming that you can reverse engineer car engine by having all docs about steering car ...

                      However gpu drivers are also complex, and require time and money and HR to make them good.

                      So one can learn how to write GOOD DRIVERS by looking at source code of such. And good drivers add huge amount of value to your GPU!

                      There are also issues of IP that can be property of 3rd party companies.

                      There is also this little company that is called MicroSoft, who put requirements for GPU drivers, who will not certify any drivers that do not meat those requirements. And which by accident contain clauses of scrambling source code, not compromising DRM by documenting stuff, supporting heavy encryption for TP, etc.

                      Nvidia just can not ignore that market you know.

                      AMD is not that bad. They release documentation, code, have folks working on OSS drivers, etc.

                      Intel is so far best, BUT they also do not release full docs.



                      But this story is not about FLOSS but about copyright and simple courtesy.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X