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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Microsoft Reworks The "DXGKRNL" Driver It Wants To Get Into The Linux Kernel
Collapse
X
-
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.
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.Last edited by Sonadow; 13 January 2022, 01:55 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by GI_Jack View PostUntil 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doomsdayrs View PostMicrosoft can keep it as their own proprietary kernel module. I do not see how Linux users, big or small, will ever benefit from this.
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
-
Originally posted by Volta View PostTypical moron. Why we need helping m$ in the first place?
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
-
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.
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostFor the love of God don't any of y'all reply to this in full.
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
-
Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
There is no rule in FOSS and in the kernel specifying that patches and contributions must benefit Linux.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment