Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.
    Nice conspiracy theory there. No, this is NVidia learning that open source is the way Linux works. If they don't want to play by the rules, they will be left out; along with their users who don't care about software freedom. "In the long run, the utility of all non-free software approaches zero"[1].

    Originally posted by STrRedWolf View Post
    Plus, look at the future. Nobody will be able to support DMA 3 because it's too balled up in legaleze backed by developers who aren't going to bulge. So who's to blame for this?

    It ain't Linus. And it ain't Nvidia. And soon it won't be AMD nor Intel.

    Alan Cox owes me a new laptop.
    If you rely on proprietary drivers, you can't be helped anyway. You can go use Windows for all I care. Linus Torvalds has made this clear from the very beginning:
    Originally posted by https://lkml.org/lkml/1999/2/8/13
    Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules,
    it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I
    want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a
    cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules.
    There is no problem for Optimus support if NVidia starts producing open source drivers, like AMD and Intel already do. If you buy a laptop and have not informed yourself about the sword of damocles dangling above you in form of the computer only doing what you want it to do with proprietary Linux drivers, then you don't deserve any better.


    [1] Matthew Thomas, via Mark Pilgrim (archive.org links, as both sites are defunct now)

    Comment


    • #82
      Nice speech. But it misses one crucial detail: open drivers are not suitable for some tasks. This limits the usability of Linux and forces people to have dual boot Linux/Windows systems. The open source graphics stack devs have been at it for almost a decade now. Performance is still bad, so is power saving. If they can't get it right in that amount of time, they never will; graphics evolve past their ability to catch up.

      Reality doesn't match the fantasy world you have created in your head. Linux devs seem to only care about being able to run X11 with an xterm on it and do coding in Emacs and vi. They're stuck in the 1990's. Also, they behave like children. They constantly repeat the same thing, "I want the code", like a child in a candy store repeatedly shouting "I want candy." They should grow up and learn to cooperate with proprietary vendors. Even the hardcore "Free Software or Death" guys at FSF gave the world tools to create proprietary software if they so wish (like GCC and glibc). That was a sane decision. It's funny how the kernel devs distance themselves from the "Free Software zealots" and the likes of RMS, but then play the "proprietary drivers are evil" card. What a bunch of hypocrites. The only explanation that makes sense is the conspiracy theory; AMD and Intel trying to damage NVidia. It simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
      Last edited by RealNC; 10-12-2012, 08:02 AM.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by boast View Post
        How about giving people the CHOICE to decide for themselves? Or do you force your views on everyone?
        You want CHOICE? NVIDIA is a CLOSED BLOB. THEY took the choice AWAY from their users. THEY have the CHOICE to give CHOICE BACK to their users. The CHOICE YOU MAKE by using NVIDIA is to be constrained to the limitations created by a CLOSED BINARY BLOB. Why should the world bend over backwards to support a HOSTILE ADVERSARY?

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by RealNC View Post
          Yeah, that's the reason why DMABUF isn't getting non-GPL exported. Because of danger.

          I don't care if it's got security vulnerabilities. All software got those, regardless of license. There were more than enough root exploits in the Linux kernel itself over the years. If you care, then don't use it. Don't impose your security pedantry on me.
          Don't use... WHAT exactly?
          A compromised kernel? I don't use a compromised kernel. I use an EVOLVING kernel.
          Closed dangerous binary blobs? I don't use closed dangerous binary blobs.

          Yes, software has bugs. In open source code, those bugs are VISIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND FIX.
          In closed source code, those bugs are HIDDEN AND NEVER FIXED UNLESS THE OWNERS ARE CALLED OUT ON IT.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by boast View Post
            How about giving people the CHOICE to decide for themselves? Or do you force your views on everyone?
            Hmm, forgot to mention ONE THING;
            You HAVE the choice. The kernel is open source. Go ahead, modify and recompile it. Just don't distribute your modified kernel because that would be a violation of the rights of those who wrote the original code.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by TAXI View Post
              Is this how we talk these days? "I have a different opinion, so don't talk to me"?
              I mean, he does have a point: If DMA-BUF is that dangerous it shouldn't be there in the first place. If DMA-BUF can be exploited it will be. But surely not from a company like Nvidia.
              WHAT???? You drank the koolaid?
              Do you not know how dangers are exploited?

              Crafty hacker takes over the nvidia blob (which has unknown number of severe dangers waiting to be exploited), and USES IT to interface with the kernel through DMA-BUF.

              Comment


              • #87
                Being fanatic about GPL won't make your laptops run faster. Be reasonable. Nvidia is not a single person you can blame with bad attitude towards OSS community. Besides engineers it is hoard of lawyers and salesmen who simply count their money. If kernel devs say no-way you get those symbols to Nvidia, then we ? end users ? won't see Optimus working in any near future, because GPLing the blob is absolutely unreal. One option for Nvidia is to implement Optimus in their driver but leave patching the kernel to distribution. Another solution for security sick ones would be digital signature mechanism so only trusted vendors would be able to use this kernel interface, but devs won't go this way for sure.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by droidhacker
                  WHAT???? You drank the koolaid?
                  Go ahead, modify and recompile it. Just don't distribute your modified kernel because that would be a violation of the rights of those who wrote the original code.

                  Crafty hacker takes over the nvidia blob (which has unknown number of severe dangers waiting to be exploited), and USES IT to interface with the kernel through DMA-BUF.
                  Stop spreading that nonsense, droidhacker! It won't be a license violation and Nvidia blob already has a kernel module. Go and hack it !

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                    Nice conspiracy theory there. No, this is NVidia learning that open source is the way Linux works. If they don't want to play by the rules, they will be left out; along with their users who don't care about software freedom. "In the long run, the utility of all non-free software approaches zero"[1].

                    If you rely on proprietary drivers, you can't be helped anyway. You can go use Windows for all I care. Linus Torvalds has made this clear from the very beginning: There is no problem for Optimus support if NVidia starts producing open source drivers, like AMD and Intel already do. If you buy a laptop and have not informed yourself about the sword of damocles dangling above you in form of the computer only doing what you want it to do with proprietary Linux drivers, then you don't deserve any better.


                    [1] Matthew Thomas, via Mark Pilgrim (archive.org links, as both sites are defunct now)
                    *** It is worth pointing out that dual-GPU desktop machines don't so much need the power savings of the low power GPU doing the "light" work so much as a laptop would, and that a laptop really doesn't need the high power consumption of a high-performance GPU.

                    Nvidia's goal here is to keep people from switching their chip off from the BIOS in laptops where having it switched on will have a severe negative effect on battery life --- basically, they don't want people to do what I did with my dual GPU AMD system (both AMD GPUs). I switched off the high performance chip because all it does is suck on the battery. Of course in a dual-AMD system, there is no issue with GPL-only restrictions on the interfaces.

                    Nvidia GPUs on laptops are pretty much always combined with INTEL primary low power GPUs. Switch off the nvidia and it might as well not be there. Without being able to interface with the intel chip, all it will do is eat battery. It would really suck for them if people REALIZED that the nvidia chip is just a waste.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      Nice speech. But it misses one crucial detail: open drivers are not suitable for some tasks. This limits the usability of Linux and forces people to have dual boot Linux/Windows systems. The open source graphics stack devs have been at it for almost a decade now. Performance is still bad, so is power saving. If they can't get it right in that amount of time, they never will; graphics evolve past their ability to catch up.
                      Dude, you must be smoking something REALLY strong.
                      I can't think of even ONE task that can't be handled by open source drivers.
                      Performance is MORE than adequate -- high enough in fact, that I disabled my discrete GPU from the BIOS.
                      Power consumption... is lower (for my laptop) on Linux than it is on winsuckers. No, I don't dual boot, I erased that crap. Spec says 2.5 hours battery, reality is about 4.
                      To what amount of time are you referring? My chip is an AMD NI. That makes it about 1.5 years out the gate NOW (less than 1 year out when I purchased it). NOT TEN.

                      Reality doesn't match the fantasy world you have created in your head. Linux devs seem to only care about being able to run X11 with an xterm on it and do coding in Emacs and vi. They're stuck in the 1990's. Also, they behave like children. They constantly repeat the same thing, "I want the code", like a child in a candy store repeatedly shouting "I want candy." They should grow up and learn to cooperate with proprietary vendors. Even the hardcore "Free Software or Death" guys at FSF gave the world tools to create proprietary software if they so wish (like GCC and glibc). That was a sane decision. It's funny how the kernel devs distance themselves from the "Free Software zealots" and the likes of RMS, but then play the "proprietary drivers are evil" card. What a bunch of hypocrites. The only explanation that makes sense is the conspiracy theory; AMD and Intel trying to damage NVidia. It simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
                      And you are so thoroughly blinded by your misconceptions that you can't accept that your arguments only apply to a VERY small subset of "zealots", not even a significant portion of the open source development community.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X