Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft Reworks The "DXGKRNL" Driver It Wants To Get Into The Linux Kernel

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

  • #31
    The amount of corporate keyboard warriors in this kind of articles is amazing. Always makes me laugh. Just ignore them guys fanboys like sonadow should be ignored they bring nothing useful with their braindead comments anyway.

    Comment


    • #32
      Funny as hell.

      Everybody wants to a little something into the kernel...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JPFSanders View Post

        Sir, that gelatinous mass you lost this morning on the bathroom floor... please take it with you, I believe it to be your brain.
        No, that is the collective lump of brains of most Linux users which quite frankly, deserve a better home because their owners have proven to be utterly incapable of using them.

        Name any major software technology or API in widespread commercial use today that was ever created out of nothing but community FOSS developers without big corporations donating their code.

        OpenGL? Created by Silicon Graphics
        OpenCL? Created by Apple. And much of the implementation in Mesa today wouldn't even have existed if not for Intel.
        Vulkan? Originally existed as Mantle from AMD. Hell, you won't even have Vulkan today if not for AMD.
        Docker? Created by cloudControl.
        Kubernetes? Created by Google.
        Qt? Created by Trolltech
        Libreoffice? Original StarOffice code came from Sun Microsystems.
        exFAT kernel code? From Microsoft and Samsung.

        If it wasn't for all these multimiliion dollar companies and THEIR engineers giving away their code, Linux will be nothing today. The so-called FOSS community couldn't create jack shit by themselves.
        Sonadow
        Senior Member
        Last edited by Sonadow; 13 January 2022, 01:55 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post

          Until there is, these changes should not be mainlined. Simply put, does not contribute anything any of us need or want, and does nothing but encouraging migrating OFF linux.
          ”We can’t give people a reason to use Linux so let’s make it worse for everyone”

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by GI_Jack View Post
            Until there is, these changes should not be mainlined. Simply put, does not contribute anything any of us need or want, and does nothing but encouraging migrating OFF linux.
            Not everyone that uses Linux uses it in a desktop computer as the driving OS, there are many more use cases and while I don't use WSL2, I don't mind that this contribution. Sure, it's not useful to me at the moment and it's probably oriented to make things go smoother on their side, but so are many other things that are mainlined too, like drivers to make things work under Linux (and prebuilt binaries).

            As long as their contribution meets the standards the kernel developers expect regarding code quality, inner workings, etc. and there are no reservations about it (if I recall correctly there were talks about the possibility of this bein included in Hyper-V drivers instead of DRM as it was to be used only there), it's good enough for me. I think it'd be wrong to center Linus development in desktop users alone.
            KaoDome
            Junior Member
            Last edited by KaoDome; 13 January 2022, 01:57 PM. Reason: Minor typo.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Doomsdayrs View Post
              Microsoft can keep it as their own proprietary kernel module. I do not see how Linux users, big or small, will ever benefit from this.
              What qualifies as a Linux user? I mean, running Linux in the Nintendo 64 is now possible if memory serves, are those who do Linux users? If so, don't you think there'd be much kernel development that doesn't apply to them? And vice versa...

              Sure, comparing the Nintendo 64 to Hyper-V, WSL2, or whatever this is for, is a long stretch, but it's only to exemplify that Linux is used in multitude of environments; some of which are free while others are not. If the reservations the kernel devs have are technical, or based on this being used only by one userspace client, I can get behind it not being mainlined; but just because pushing for its inclusion there's a for-profit company that also produces a desktop OS... I don't know, feels odd. I wouldn't reject it for that reason.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Volta View Post
                Typical moron. Why we need helping m$ in the first place?
                Why... not? I mean, I know there's a traditional rivalry between users of both OSes and there are several times when people behind Microsoft made questionable (to say the least) anticompetitive choices, but why not? Because of fear, for lack of a better word, that Hyper-V/WSL2 grows its userbase and native Linux shrinks or something else? (serious question, it's not my intent to belittle other points of view)

                I could understand a technical standpoint, or an ideological one (as in, it's not FLOSS, but then it'd need to apply to many other things), but "just because" [it's Microsoft], doesn't feel right to me. If I were to use Linux under Hyper-V or through WSL2, I'd welcome it being hardware accelerated if things were graphical.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

                  No, that is the collective lump of brains of most Linux users which quite frankly, deserve a better home because their owners have proven to be utterly incapable of using them.

                  Name any major software technology or API in widespread commercial use today that was ever created out of nothing but community FOSS developers without big corporations donating their code.

                  OpenGL? Created by Silicon Graphics
                  OpenCL? Created by Apple. And much of the implementation in Mesa today wouldn't even have existed if not for Intel.
                  Vulkan? Originally existed as Mantle from AMD. Hell, you won't even have Vulkan today if not for AMD.
                  Docker? Created by cloudControl.
                  Kubernetes? Created by Google.
                  Qt? Created by Trolltech
                  Libreoffice? Original StarOffice code came from Sun Microsystems.
                  exFAT kernel code? From Microsoft and Samsung.

                  If it wasn't for all these multimiliion dollar companies and THEIR engineers giving away their code, Linux will be nothing today. The so-called FOSS community couldn't create jack shit by themselves.
                  You seem to be an astute Windows User ..arent you?

                  Linux created by Linus Torvalds

                  Just for your information nobody, nothing pops out of nowhere. Even Einstein based his RT on Newtons Physics. So without Newton there wouldn't be RT.
                  None of your highly praised MS Devs could move their butts into office without Cars partially made of steel produced in china and is propulsed by refined saudi oil.
                  Everything is connected. The idea was donated by an Engineer almost 150 years ago. How much is this related to the current cars? Do you still have to crank the bar in front of your vehicle? No because some engineer maybe in UK maybe Japan maybe Germany who cares invented the alternator to start your car ....so we could continoue this endlessly.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                    For the love of God don't any of y'all reply to this in full.
                    In full, just joking

                    I agree with what you say about GNOME getting less customizable and I wonder if it's easier to use for new users (i.e. more intuitive vs. traditional desktops), the change from GNOME 2 to 3 hit me hard and although things have matured nowadays I still can't get used to the UI. I think I could get used to KDE, I gave it a shot not long ago and I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw, but I don't recall the distro it was.

                    For me it was XFCE back in the day, and XFCE/Cinnamon as of late, although I'm not a fan of client side decorations... I guess things change with time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                    I can't comment on whether Flatpak or Snaps are better because I have yet to use containerized software like that, but if I were to choose right now I'd go with Flatpak for the same reason you mention, it feels more universal. I still prefer traditional packaging though.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

                      There is no rule in FOSS and in the kernel specifying that patches and contributions must benefit Linux.
                      Yes, there is. What isn't is a rule that says it needs to benefit the Linux desktop, or GNU/Linux, or the free software community, or whatever you want to call it. When you accept code you're taking a responsibility, so you naturally ask "what's in it for me".
                      The point being, it does need to accomplish two things:
                      1) Make the project receiving the code more useful; and
                      2) Give the project the ability to fix the code when need it.

                      That's why there _is_ a strong requirement for kernel drivers to have at least one open source userspace user. Because the maintainers need to be able to see what's going on when something goes wrong.

                      Now, to the issue at hand: it does fulfill both needs, and whatever is the backend doesn't seem to matter whenever other closed targets are used :shrug:
                      Does anyone here have the design for AMD's and Intel's cards? Why are they special in any way?
                      I think seeing EEE as a possibility here is rather dumb. Linux is GPL. If they actually extend, they are mandated to release the source code. Which means anyone can port it to mainline. Maybe they could extend some userspace APIs on top of it, but then we either are where we are now, where developers develop for Windows, which is zero sum for us, or developers avoid it because they need it running on a Linux server.

                      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                      That won't happen until the kernel has a more stable ABI. IMHO, that should be the LTS releases. Let the stable, interim, releases break things with new drivers and changes, but have it all get back in line by the end of the year and the next LTS release.
                      Here I disagree strongly. I don't think it makes sense for drivers to be closed source. I'm aware sometimes there are patent issues, but technically and commercially I don't see how the drivers themselves give away any of the "secret sauce" of hardware makers. It's mostly on the microarchitecture, the driver is just how you interface with it. I get why you would make closed source applications, but hardware sales because of the hardware, not because of the drivers. The drivers are just a requirement for using it.
                      So, what is missing for this part is not a stable ABI, but that realization by the suits in hardware companies that release closed drivers.
                      In fact, I think that makes sense even for their Windows drivers, it's not specific to Linux or other FLOSS operating systems.

                      I get that getting it upstream is harder tho, but the API/ABI changes are generally quite trivial to fix and you can offload that part to the community for out-of-tree open source drivers, something you can't do for closed drivers.

                      Note that I'm not putting in my FLOSS zealot hat here. I do have one, but it's hanged right now. This time, I'm trying to see it from a selfish, corporate POV, and see the incentive to do the things I propose.

                      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

                      and the reason why it would "encourage" users to migrate away is a bad point, no one will migrate away from linux except people who needed linux for their work. if you don't want people to migrate away the answer is making a good linux desktop which doesn't turn users away from it, which at this point seems to be a truly futile task.
                      The perils of bazaars. If you get the people doing the work to make the choices (which I fully support when they work for free, BTW, even when I often disagree that those are the best choices) you get stuff that only appeals to them. Commercial interests force you to listen to users and compromise, and often ends up in things that, you know, regular users want.

                      Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

                      Vulkan is as good as DirectX but has almost no lobbyism in the Gameengine Sector. Besides it was the FOSS community reverse engineering the whole DirectX API (plus windows itself) to make it run almost on par with windows performancewise without any documentation or help provided by MS.
                      Whether DirectX is technically better or not is completely irrelevant tho. What matters is whether apps require it or not. And the harsh reality is many games require it and we currently need to add translation layers on top of WINE for non-native games and game makers to write several renderers (hint: most don't bother) for native games.
                      DirectX support is, in practice, a good thing. Even if it's proprietary, even if Vulkan is better, none of that matters for making for a good desktop experience, what matters is that users can get whatever they want done.

                      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

                      Typical Linux copium and whining with the "Oh boo hoo we are not capable enough to make something as good as DirectX by ourselves so Microsoft is bad and they must give away the API they spent billions to create and maintain for free because I say so"
                      Nah, it's more like "why should anyone but Microsoft take this maintenance burden?". I do see a reason tho. Having this in the kernel gives them an incentive to maintain the state tracker, and the state tracker is something you could plug into our other Gallium drivers, which is cool.
                      There's also the fact that while WSL2 does nothing for gaining desktop market share for Linux, it does help it stay dominant in the server: you use it to develop for Linux, mostly, and what you develop for Linux will likely run on Linux, to many's surprise.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X