Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Documentation Around NVIDIA's Push For A GBM Alternative To Memory Allocation

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

  • #51
    Are they really proposing an objectively better solution? What do think the experts about this? I really hope they do purpose something eBay finally benefits the tests, not only wanting to become relevant on a ecosystem where they don't participate and are really nocive subjects.

    NVidia drivers don't work exceptionally on Linux, that's a subjective view. They suck ass and benefit from software excessively optimized for them with monopolistic ways that should be ILLEGAL, in fact.

    I strongly think a proprietary driver is something that ought to be not tolerated because of security, technical and fairness reasons. One of the big problems are the mafia/Microsoft/Oracle tactics done by NVidia of favoring their hardware by paying developers to optimize for their hardware, that not should be only illegal but extremely strongly penalised by the entire FOSS community.

    The reason to perceive NVidia hardware and drivers to be best is because the alternatives are a total and ridicule clusterfuck. Outdated OpenGL, slow and incomplete adoption of new standards like Vulkan, new and really relevant releases are something that still need a lot more work to make it happen.

    Things are improving, but there's still a very long road to even surpass NVidia's Shitsperience.

    - MESA is starting to move in the correct direction, but there's a LOT to be done than most people think. They not only need to implement latest OpenGL and Vulkan, but to find ways to surpass and circumventing (if possible) NVidia optimizations and performance.

    - ARM SoCs are a shit with their proprietary GPU.

    - More access to low level and say goodbye to binary blobs. I consider there ought to be an organized initiative to reverse engineer them and seek for financing to someday have 1500+ skilled full time well paid workers to provide really good results in a very fast way in this aspect. I know it's insane, but the kind of really good one and very much needed to make things suck a lot less than c current creepy and sorry status of FOSS hardware drivers.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post

      Call the Wambulance! Someone doesn't get sarcasm.
      Yeah, I'm sorry, but how should I know it was sarcastic?

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by liam View Post

        For some definition of working, yeah, it absolutely does.
        Frankly, I don't think the issue is "capitalism" as the market is MOSTLY supply/demand, and that's not something most people really have an issue with. The problem is higher up the chain. It's both the regulations in place, and how they are enforced that is the real issue, and that's what the real arguments are about.
        However, perhaps this was all obvious and I simply didn't understand you.
        Capitalism is not the market. The market is the primary mode of *distribution* within capitalism. Capitalism is the mode of production. It's a system where a small number of capitalists who own property buy the labor time of everyone else. Workers are paid some wage which is less than the value of the commodity they produce. The products produced by the workers do not become the property of the workers, instead they become the property of the capitalist, who may do what they please with them.

        There's nothing natural or immutable about this arrangement. Even if you like the "supply and demand" logic of the market, production within workplaces could be organized democratically. Workers could make managerial decisions democratically, or elect managers. If production was organized this way, I doubt you'd see the runaway wealth inequality we experience under capitalism.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by thebishop View Post

          Capitalism is not the market. The market is the primary mode of *distribution* within capitalism. Capitalism is the mode of production. It's a system where a small number of capitalists who own property buy the labor time of everyone else. Workers are paid some wage which is less than the value of the commodity they produce. The products produced by the workers do not become the property of the workers, instead they become the property of the capitalist, who may do what they please with them.
          Workers don't produce. They are part of a production process the same way a machine is. They sell their skill to anyone that needs it and this is valued according to supply and demand. Like it or not this is how it works.

          Originally posted by thebishop View Post
          There's nothing natural or immutable about this arrangement. Even if you like the "supply and demand" logic of the market, production within workplaces could be organized democratically. Workers could make managerial decisions democratically, or elect managers. If production was organized this way, I doubt you'd see the runaway wealth inequality we experience under capitalism.
          Since workers are so skillfull why haven't they started making products the way you describe on their own and remove the "bad" capitalist from the equation? Simply because they can't.

          People are rich or poor (whatever that means) for a simple reason (exceptions apply but you'll get the point). Because what they sell -be it skills/ideas/knowledge/services etc- has a big or small value to X amount of people.

          So quit your bullshit and accept reality.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by c117152 View Post

            Oh that's actually desired? It's precisely what I thought you'd want to avoid... Well, nm mind.
            It seems inconceivable to me that a display can be rotated 90 and 270 degrees at the same time (unless it's a quantum display). I was being facetious - that's what the was for, but maybe I should have put /s instead...

            However, I really don't know. It might be possible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by thebishop View Post

              Capitalism is not the market. The market is the primary mode of *distribution* within capitalism. Capitalism is the mode of production. It's a system where a small number of capitalists who own property buy the labor time of everyone else. Workers are paid some wage which is less than the value of the commodity they produce. The products produced by the workers do not become the property of the workers, instead they become the property of the capitalist, who may do what they please with them.

              There's nothing natural or immutable about this arrangement. Even if you like the "supply and demand" logic of the market, production within workplaces could be organized democratically. Workers could make managerial decisions democratically, or elect managers. If production was organized this way, I doubt you'd see the runaway wealth inequality we experience under capitalism.
              Ugh.
              I wasn't making a complicated point.
              I didn't say the "Capitalism is the market"... I'm honestly not sure what that means.
              I'm not sure that you are actually engaging with my comment other than by collision of a few words.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                Yeah, I'm sorry, but how should I know it was sarcastic?
                Read the post he was answering to. (and also my answer to him)

                But really guys, we need to add more "/sarcasm" tags.

                Comment


                • #58
                  capitalism vs. communism, this is so americentric!
                  and they are definitely not a type of memory allocation

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by thebishop View Post

                    Capitalism is not the market. The market is the primary mode of *distribution* within capitalism. Capitalism is the mode of production. It's a system where a small number of capitalists who own property buy the labor time of everyone else. Workers are paid some wage which is less than the value of the commodity they produce. The products produced by the workers do not become the property of the workers, instead they become the property of the capitalist, who may do what they please with them.

                    There's nothing natural or immutable about this arrangement. Even if you like the "supply and demand" logic of the market, production within workplaces could be organized democratically. Workers could make managerial decisions democratically, or elect managers. If production was organized this way, I doubt you'd see the runaway wealth inequality we experience under capitalism.
                    There is another bishop talking about politics in a thread about memory allocation? The hell...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X