NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 vs. AMD Radeon RX 7600 Linux Gaming Performance

[coder]

Second. GPL license does permit mixing propertiary and GPL code under certain conditions

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

Thanks for the explanation of how they use kernel modules and shims to workaround GPL restrictions. I wasn't aware that dynamic-loading was good enough to avoid GPL's linking restrictions. At best, I thought this was a grey area... but I hadn't heard anything about it for a long time.

I also didn't know there are "non-GPL symbols". Any idea how? Is there some "non-GPL kernel API"? Who decides which symbols are GPL and which aren't?

[piotrj3]

Thanks for the explanation of how they use kernel modules and shims to workaround GPL restrictions. I wasn't aware that dynamic-loading was good enough to avoid GPL's linking restrictions. At best, I thought this was a grey area... but I hadn't heard anything about it for a long time.

I also didn't know there are "non-GPL symbols". Any idea how? Is there some "non-GPL kernel API"? Who decides which symbols are GPL and which aren't?

This is not legally binding (non-gpl symbols), in reality entire code is GPL so it is more like gentleman's agreement or that GPL-enforced symbols cannot be used by modules that taint kernel.. And decision is basically up to person that contributes code. However I believe sometimes enforcing GPL symbol is overused : https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTIwNDI - basically decision made by kernel developers made years of years of pain to users because of dogma reasons.

In case of Nvidia it is important to know that glue code is opensource and is provided by Nvidia and is compiled(and modified) during installation. This installation process interacts with code that is GPL so even if nvidia would interact with GPL, it is not done by Nvidia, it is done by user pressing install. So technically speaking the one combining propertiary and non-propertiary code is user. So Nvidia doesn't have obligation to GPL their own driver, but if user with installed nvidia driver would like to publish his own distro with already installed nvidia driver that is potential violation of GPL but not by Nvidia but by user.

[qarium]

I will buy neither. Not interested in castrated products sold at exorbitant prices. Both cards must cost at most $200.

did you see amd launched the AMD RX7600 XT ... its faster and same price as the 7600 before.

means amd already cuts the price because of the market situation and the release of the 4060

[qarium]

Okay, then forget the charge of "ban evasion" and just look at what avis is actually posting. On substance alone, I don't see much difference from the kind of stuff that got birdie banned. My issues with birdie weren't who he is, it's what he did. If anyone behaves in such a toxic way as birdie did, we don't need them here.

On the other hand, if "avis" is going to be on good behavior, then there's no issue. I just wouldn't put money on that happening.

I do have a simple solution to this who does fix 2 main problem on phornix.com first problem the forum moderation problem second problem the finance of michael to run phoronix.

michael should implement a funktion what does not send posted posts in unapproved mode instead it costs money for the spammers to post. also people like birdie should not be banned instead they shoule be set in a payment is needed to post.,

this would fix both problems michael does get money and spam and bad behaviour goes down because it becomes expensive to them.

[coder]

michael should implement a funktion what does not send posted posts in unapproved mode instead it costs money for the spammers to post.

In that case, a few deep-pocketed trolls and spammers could quickly drive away other members. Afterwards, maybe they get bored and leave as well. Then, almost nobody is left to help keep the lights on.

also people like birdie should not be banned instead they shoule be set in a payment is needed to post.,

I think it would incentivize the wrong kinds of posts. Who is going to pay money to offer helpful information? However, if you're paying money to post something controversial, you might feel like you should really make it as impactful as possible to "get your money's worth", and thus the toxic posts would get even more toxic.

Interesting idea, though.

[qarium]

In that case, a few deep-pocketed trolls and spammers could quickly drive away other members. Afterwards, maybe they get bored and leave as well. Then, almost nobody is left to help keep the lights on.

I think it would incentivize the wrong kinds of posts. Who is going to pay money to offer helpful information? However, if you're paying money to post something controversial, you might feel like you should really make it as impactful as possible to "get your money's worth", and thus the toxic posts would get even more toxic.

Interesting idea, though.

you don't understand the concept fully you claim they go more toxic to give it the best run for the money but you do not unterstand that the more toxic they go the higher is the price to post. someone like birdie would quickly finance the complete phoronix.com operation.

"Who is going to pay money to offer helpful information?"

that claim is nothing because the price for helpful information is ZERO this is only for people like Birdie.
toxic people pay and helpful people pay zero it is that easy.

"In that case, a few deep-pocketed trolls and spammers could quickly drive away other members"

why should the other members go-? i think they would enjoy the joke of life that this stupid toxic person now fund the complete opensource operation at phoronix.com.

"Interesting idea, though."

its really the solution... michael and phoronix.com need money to operate these toxic people need to be punished but censor-shipment is bad honestly bad the solution is to make them pay for the operation

and helpfull people pay zero.

by this we could even end the ads on phoronix.com if michael make a lot of money on toxic people there is no need for ads anymore.

also paid post does not mean you can abuse it to post something agaist the law you can still delete the paid post shortly after the post.

[sophisticles]

Regarding the GPL, there is a strong possibility that it is not legally binding or enforceable in the U.S.

The GPL is an EULA and these are usually enforced in courts through the prism of contract law.

According to this:

https://toslawyer.com/are-end-user-license-agreements-enforceable/

The thing is even if the GPL is enforceable, there is the concept of "Standing to Sue", i.e. who is the aggrieved party?

In the case of GPL'd software, there would need to be specific plaintiffs or someone would have to try to convince a court that they have "Organizational Standing".

The bottom line is that it would not be a copyright violation, it would be a contract violation.

Honestly, the GPL is one of the most idiotic things ever conceived, the brainchild of a commie loving hippie.

[coder]

Regarding the GPL, there is a strong possibility that it is not legally binding or enforceable in the U.S.

The GPL is an EULA and these are usually enforced in courts through the prism of contract law.

According to this:

https://toslawyer.com/are-end-user-license-agreements-enforceable/

The thing is even if the GPL is enforceable, there is the concept of "Standing to Sue", i.e. who is the aggrieved party?

In the case of GPL'd software, there would need to be specific plaintiffs or someone would have to try to convince a court that they have "Organizational Standing".

The bottom line is that it would not be a copyright violation, it would be a contract violation.

Anyone can publish legal opinions on the internet. They're probably not worth much more than you pay for them.

The fact of the matter is that GPL has been tested in court. If you find a novel take on it so compelling, I guess you can try to draw a case and test it for yourself. A vast number of corporations and their legal teams have decided otherwise.

Honestly, the GPL is one of the most idiotic things ever conceived, the brainchild of a commie loving hippie.

Why is it "commie"? It's doesn't mandate the work is "free as in beer". It basically just mandates that anyone who receives the work in any form should have the right to modify it. In that sense, you can think of it as "right to repair".

As a developer, maybe I'm willing to implement a novel video codec. I don't want money for it (maybe I don't think I can even sell it), but I'll offer to give it to you if you share any of your modifications or enhancements with me. That's basically why I think some developers like it. It basically enshrines a spirit of collaboration.

Finally, I think GPL + Linux's steadfast resistance to having a stable driver API has been the driving force in aggregating Linux' massive amount of hardware support. It creates a strong incentive for device makers to upstream their drivers. And that creates a sort of "network effect", whereby the value of Linux grows as a nonlinear function of its hardware support.

And this is why I think it beat out the BSDs and other alternatives, as the OS of choice for embedded & cloud computing.

Nobody is forcing you to license your software as GPL. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd software. If you don't like it, there are alternatives.

[piotrj3]

Regarding the GPL, there is a strong possibility that it is not legally binding or enforceable in the U.S.

The GPL is an EULA and these are usually enforced in courts through the prism of contract law.

According to this:

https://toslawyer.com/are-end-user-license-agreements-enforceable/

The thing is even if the GPL is enforceable, there is the concept of "Standing to Sue", i.e. who is the aggrieved party?

In the case of GPL'd software, there would need to be specific plaintiffs or someone would have to try to convince a court that they have "Organizational Standing".

The bottom line is that it would not be a copyright violation, it would be a contract violation.

Honestly, the GPL is one of the most idiotic things ever conceived, the brainchild of a commie loving hippie.

Despite that i sometimes defend Nvidia (and sometimes criticize Nvidia) I think GPL is good license in some cases. I really like how Linus Torvalds described it - aka you took my code, you changed it/improved it you need to contribute them back so it kinda warrants that software will improve and you aren't being leeched by companies. There is a lot of big projects that are maintained by less then 5 people whose work is "stolen" by companies and no one funds them, no one contributes changes back, meanwhile project by downloads is huge somehow.