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

  • #61
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    Mostly afaict
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

    Matters because windows and microsoft is the antipathy of that spirit. Neither MS nor anyone else get to profit from copyleft software while stripping those rights from users. So if WSL is only useful in a non copyleft environment it has zero chance of getting accepted for use in exclusively copyleft environments. Which is at the heart of the linux kernel.

    They only care now because they realised (too late imho) that closed source simply cannot compete long term.
    The heart of the Linux kernel is __definitely__ not exclusively copyleft environments. Most users of the kernel are either embedded or servers both running proprietary non-copyleft software. The Linux kernel is copyleft. It doesn't expect the users to be constrained to copyleft.

    Besides, all of the Hyper-V support that mainline __already has__ depends on having this non-copyleft OS. So your argument that it has zero chance of getting accepted? Nope, it has really good chances, unless there's a technical reason not to. Evidence abounds.

    Don't forget, Linux is not free software, it is open source software. The immediate effects may be the same because the chosen license is the same, but the motivations differ and because of that you get different policies with regards to what gets accepted.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by sinepgib View Post

      The heart of the Linux kernel is __definitely__ not exclusively copyleft environments. Most users of the kernel are either embedded or servers both running proprietary non-copyleft software. The Linux kernel is copyleft. It doesn't expect the users to be constrained to copyleft.

      Besides, all of the Hyper-V support that mainline __already has__ depends on having this non-copyleft OS. So your argument that it has zero chance of getting accepted? Nope, it has really good chances, unless there's a technical reason not to. Evidence abounds.

      Don't forget, Linux is not free software, it is open source software. The immediate effects may be the same because the chosen license is the same, but the motivations differ and because of that you get different policies with regards to what gets accepted.
      You are probably thinking of openBSD. If you distribute hardware with the linux kernel on it all the software it comes with needs to be (should be) gpl or gpl compatible.

      You also seem confused. All this ms driver seems to do is allow people to write directx applications that run on WSL. as long as directx is closed source it has as much chance of getting mainlined as the nvidia kernel module and even less chance of getting community adoption.
      Last edited by mSparks; 14 January 2022, 07:33 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by mSparks View Post

        It would also be nowhere if Linus accepted every half baked badly written buggy meme pull request that goes against the spirit of the GPL.
        I don't think you know what the spirit of GPL is or what it means. Also do note that Linus deliberately froze the version of Linux to GPL 2.1 and he was glad to do it because he does not like what the future versions of GPL did.

        He also said that he does not care if Microsoft contributes to the kernel and given that Microsoft is the top contributor to the kernel (which means he approves those PR's) so I am sorry to burst your bubble but neither the GPL 2.1 (or the spirit of it) or Linus agree with you

        Originally posted by mSparks View Post
        It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. They gonna get through all this rewrite just to get rejected again because there is no use case that fits with the spirit of GPL.
        This is nothing new and considering how much Microsoft has contributed to the kernel you are making a big deal out of something thats not. It will be resolved and figured out based on feedback.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by mSparks View Post
          You also seem confused. All this ms driver seems to do is allow people to write directx applications that run on WSL. as long as directx is closed source it has as much chance of getting mainlined as the nvidia kernel module and even less chance of getting community adoption.
          Again wrong, this allows you to get GPU acceleration in a linux VM. did you even read the article? scratch that, you obviously didn't.

          Between the Intel compute runtime project and libdxg, we now have a fully open source implementation of our virtualized compute stack inside of WSL
          for a more technical explanation read the patch, but the TLDR is this is an open path between and d3dkmthk, this even means, that it could very well be possible to get vulkan acceleration out of the API.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

            Again wrong, this allows you to get GPU acceleration in a linux VM. did you even read the article? scratch that, you obviously didn't.



            for a more technical explanation read the patch, but the TLDR is this is an open path between and d3dkmthk, this even means, that it could very well be possible to get vulkan acceleration out of the API.
            So you are saying this part of the article isn't true?

            ->DXGKRNL is their "DirectX" kernel driver component for use with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) ....

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by mSparks View Post

              You are probably thinking of openBSD. If you distribute hardware with the linux kernel on it all the software it comes with needs to be (should be) gpl or gpl compatible.

              You also seem confused. All this ms driver seems to do is allow people to write directx applications that run on WSL. as long as directx is closed source it has as much chance of getting mainlined as the nvidia kernel module and even less chance of getting community adoption.
              You're wrong about both things.
              First, no, you don't, and I have no idea why you think that when pretty much all devices out there carry proprietary software, see for example all Android devices.
              Second, DirectX (or rather, Direct3D) has an open source Gallium3D state tracker in Mesa, which means it's effectively open enough to implement support in the other open source drivers for real hardware. Not only that, but what I mentioned about Hyper-V is code that __has already been merged years ago__. That has been accepted. That depends on running your virtualized instance on Windows to be of any use. Sorry to burst your bubble.
              If you don't believe me, believe kernel.org, straight from the horse's mouth.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by mSparks View Post

                So you are saying this part of the article isn't true?

                ->DXGKRNL is their "DirectX" kernel driver component for use with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) ....
                No, he's saying it's not the only way to make use of it.


                Have you actually read the GPL license at some point or do you just parrot the misinterpretation you heard once? The GPL is only copyleft with regards to what it considers derivative work. It simply has no rights over anything else. The Linux community doesn't generally consider userspace applications or anything Linux run on top of to be derivative work. For the latter, they actually can't, because you always design your hardware/virtualization technology before even contemplating running Linux on it.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

                  burst your bubble but neither the GPL 2.1 (or the spirit of it) or Linus agree with you
                  Hate to burst your bubble but
                  https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.1...nse-rules.html
                  The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0),

                  NOT LGPL 2.1
                  The LGPL was developed as a compromise between the strong copyleft of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and more permissive licenses such as the BSD licenses and the MIT License.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

                    So you are saying this part of the article isn't true?

                    ->DXGKRNL is their "DirectX" kernel driver component for use with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL2) ....
                    I don't think you understand what directx IS. Direct X is the ENTIRE 3d acceleration api on windows, all vulkan calls, still go through the dxgkrnl, or through directx, same with with openGL, d3d12 and d3d11 etc. are the graphics api oriented to gaming.

                    EDIT: so I guess then yes, all applications would be directx applications, in the same way that literally any gpu program you run on a windows PC is a directx application.
                    Last edited by Quackdoc; 14 January 2022, 08:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by sinepgib View Post
                      see for example all Android devices.
                      Android kernel is a fork. MS is free to fork it and make all their source available to if they so wish.

                      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

                      I don't think you understand what directx IS. Direct X is the ENTIRE 3d acceleration api on windows,
                      Exactly, this has nothing to do with linux or the linux kernel, they will never mainline it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X