NVIDIA Releases Initial Signed Firmware Images For GTX 900 Series Open-Source Support

[duby229]

One of the big issues is that the proprietary drivers are code-shared across multiple OSes, where only one of those OS "vendors" is enthusiastic about publishing internal OS details. The other OSes have more concerns about securing things like protected content playback.

I know ypu think that sounds legitimate, but really it sounds so stupid. What you're saying is that the excuse is security on the least secure OSes. And its decisions exactly like this one that make them the least secure. If you give a sharpshooter a target he'll hit that target and vise-versa if you give a hacker a target he'll hack that target... You guys go right on ahead and keep painting bullseyes.

[duby229]

There's nothing about FreeSync in the closed driver...

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point. nVidia took their agenda even to the point of screwing themselves.

[duby229]

Why would they want to screw Nouveau? Nouveau is no threat, it's ages behind the binary blob.
You earn bonus points for how you went from "I suspect" to "I have no doubt" within two phrases.

I think you're wrong about that. nVidia certainly believes Nouveau is a threat, or else they wouldn't be treating them as such.

I don't need points man. Whether my suspicion that nVidia delayed the release of the blob so they could remove some functionality or to prevent the OSS devs from figuring out some functionality turns out to be true or not, I still have no doubt that whatever the reasoning was it was to screw the OSS devs.

[bridgman]

I know ypu think that sounds legitimate, but really it sounds so stupid. What you're saying is that the excuse is security on the least secure OSes. And its decisions exactly like this one that make them the least secure. If you give a sharpshooter a target he'll hit that target and vise-versa if you give a hacker a target he'll hack that target... You guys go right on ahead and keep painting bullseyes.

You might be mixing "security" (where the OS enforces the desires of the admin) and "content protection" (where the OS enforces the desires of a third party, even if that is contrary to the desires of the admin).

The fact that OSes with a strong interest in content protection also seem to be less secure is IMO coincidental not causal.

[bridgman]

You call Linux a OS "vendor" ?

I put "vendor" in double quotes because I understand the Linux community is not a vendor in the traditional sense, but I *did* need a word I could use to refer to the Linux community alongside companies like Microsoft and Apple. The point I was trying to make was that we code share between OSes with proprietary content protection implementations (wired deeply into the graphics drivers) and OSes which don't give a rat's rear end about content protection, and that makes it difficult to open source code-shared drivers for Linux without exposing things that other OS suppliers require us to keep confidential.

[duby229]

You might be mixing "security" (where the OS enforces the desires of the admin) and "content protection" (where the OS enforces the desires of a third party, even if that is contrary to the desires of the admin).

The fact that OSes with a strong interest in content protection also seem to be less secure is IMO coincidental not causal.

That depends entirely on whether you consider DRM represents Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management. And since the mechanisms involved don't "protect" anything or anyone, and serve only to restrict the end user. In the end it's definitely not termed "Content Protection Management"....

EDIT: Those folks that want to obtain content illegally are doing exactly that. The only thing DRM does is restrict legitimate users. There is no protection and there never was.

[bridgman]

Even if you call it Content Restriction (which I'm fine with) that doesn't affect the obligations to keep OS vendor's implementations confidential. Not sure what point you are making here.

[duby229]

Even if you call it Content Restriction (which I'm fine with) that doesn't affect the obligations to keep OS vendor's implementations confidential. Not sure what point you are making here.

The point is that regardless it's still wrong, and to use it as an excuse is another wrong. It doesn't work, it never did on any os. If you were told by a vendor that you had to make sure that content was deployed as unfairly as conceivably possible, across other vendors platforms then DRM would would be the perfect solution.

EDIT: I still remember before CSS got hacked. It turned out to be a really simple hack, but it took a while before someone conceived it. Even today there are still BluRays that won't playback on software players. But in every single case, I could download that same content illegally. Tel, me who does that protect? Does it protect the end user? Hell no! Does it protect the content provider? Hell no! Does it protect the illegal downloader? Again it's hell no!

DRM sets everyone back. It's done more to ensure the adoption of illegal downloads than anything else could have. That harms everyone.

[bridgman]

Still not sure what you think we should be doing differently.

If you are saying that all the major GPU vendors should collectively refuse to implement DRM that's fine, I would enthusiastically support that... but when the subject came up we were the only vendor willing to speak out against it.

If you are saying "AMD should refuse to implement DRM even if Intel and NVidia keep implementing it" then you also need to have an answer for how we would survive without being able to sell APUs or dGPUs into the OEM market. There are other markets but they're not big enough to cover the cost of developing modern GPUs.

[duby229]

Still not sure what you think we should be doing differently.

If you are saying that all the major GPU vendors should collectively refuse to implement DRM that's fine, I would enthusiastically support that... but when the subject came up we were the only vendor willing to speak out against it.

If you are saying "AMD should refuse to implement DRM even if Intel and NVidia keep implementing it" then you also need to have an answer for how we would survive without being able to sell APUs or dGPUs into the OEM market. There are other markets but they're not big enough to cover the cost of developing modern GPUs.

I don't think DRM matters one tiny little bit on linux. Most of the major DRM mechanisms have been hacked already. It would have been nice if it was never required in the first place, but it happened. At this point, as long as the DRM mongers stop their stupidity, legitimate linux users are able to use most content already. It took a hell of z lot of effort to get here, and it's not done quite yet. It's companies just like AMD, nVidia and Intel that have the power to make DRM powerless.