Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-13-2012, 02:43 PM
Paradox Uncreated

If you remove the +100$ on windows, it IS percieved as free! I can`t see no price tag! Lets just take this windows with us home *BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* NOW WHAT THE HELL IS THIS"#¤"¤ I AM PERCIVIN HERE.
10-13-2012, 02:52 PM
kgonzales

Quote:

Originally Posted by artivision

In EU i have the right to buy any laptop or desktop and return the windows license saving 50eu. And at least these assholes, they take pride from something important.

No they don't . They like being assholes because they have nothing else other than looking down on others, period. They rarely contribute or do anything useful.

I have met and worked with people who actually contribute to open source and make it better. They don't act like that. They actually try to understand the issues, fix the problems with the software, and work to make it easier to use and deploy. They don't stick their head in the sand, hide behind silly ideology that open source is always the bestest, and rail against people who use other solutions. No, they ask, "why are people using those solutions, and how can we improve what we are doing to make what we are doing better?"

Taking back a Windows license to get your 50 euros back isn't something important. It just reinforces that people want something for free. Asking why most people would prefer NOT to do that, why they would prefer to use Windows or OSX, and working to make Linux something that everyone would actually WANT to use, THAT is important. Hell, even taking that 50 euros of savings and contributing the money to open source projects who you derive benefit from would be better than being some snotty asshole on the internet.
10-13-2012, 03:00 PM
artivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgonzales

No they don't . They like being assholes because they have nothing else other than looking down on others, period. They rarely contribute or do anything useful.

I have met and worked with people who actually contribute to open source and make it better. They don't act like that. They actually try to understand the issues, fix the problems with the software, and work to make it easier to use and deploy. They don't stick their head in the sand, hide behind silly ideology that open source is always the bestest, and rail against people who use other solutions. No, they ask, "why are people using those solutions, and how can we improve what we are doing to make what we are doing better?"

Taking back a Windows license to get your 50 euros back isn't something important. It just reinforces that people want something for free. Asking why most people would prefer NOT to do that, why they would prefer to use Windows or OSX, and working to make Linux something that everyone would actually WANT to use, THAT is important. Hell, even taking that 50 euros of savings and contributing the money to open source projects who you derive benefit from would be better than being some snotty asshole on the internet.

I understand completely. But you can't get right or good from wrong "tested". So Linux is the only solution.
10-13-2012, 03:01 PM
Paradox Uncreated

Seriously though, I think the "free" of linux, without me mentioning beer (ah shit that was impossible), is really good. Anyone can change it, and enthusiasm drives it. It is free of commercial contructs and feeble marketing. And also functions as an encyclopedia of excellent code. That is very in line with the principles of education.

Whatever is close source, dies with it`s companies. And many examples are of that. And there is a lot of to freedom, and setting an algorithm free, and I do understand Stallman on this, however I also like recent developments and establishment of the concept of "open source".

It really comes down to what kind of society you want. Obviously open-source is more in line, with an evolved society. Are we here to enslave ourselves by our own society to suboptimal commerical constructs, and commercial culture?

Religiously one may ponder Adam in the garden, who had no money, and dinner was ripping an apple of a tree. While most agree that commercial constructs and exchange of goods may be good, one should consider the exaggaration of it also.

Peace Be With You.
10-13-2012, 03:06 PM
log0

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgonzales

I don't see how anything you said invalidated anything I said.

Are you serious or just trolling?

You have stated that "Linux success is due to the fact that you can get it for free." and "Most Linux users (many corporations included) couldn't give a damn that it has great OOTB support for hardware. They like not paying for software, and further like not wasting their time contributing anything back to the so-called community which continues to give them stuff for free without them spending one bit of time or money."

This is plain wrong. Any somewhat serious company that has linux kernel as a business component will invest into it, employ kernel devs. This paid devs are major contributors to the kernel. There are serious amounts of money pumped into linux, which clearly contradicts your statements about "get it for free" and "wasting time contributing back".
10-13-2012, 03:21 PM
pingufunkybeat

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealNC

I don't buy any of your arguments. With that logic, the kernel should not provide any GPL exceptions at all, so that you wouldn't be able to run GPL incompatible software on it. That way, userspace software vendors would open source their products. Yeah, I can see *that* one working.

No. The kernel is a required, low level component of the OS. Just like the GPL itself provides a built-in exception for using low-level proprietary OS components with GPL software without resulting in a GPL violation, so should the kernel do the reverse. The NVidia driver is a driver, and thus cannot work reliably outside kernel space. Forbidding them from using kernel interfaces is immoral. Why is it OK that I can run a GPL app on Windows, which links against Microsoft's C library, but I can't have a proprietary driver making use of an interface of a GPL kernel?

You are extremely confused.

1) You cannot put GPL software into the Microsoft Windows kernel. It's illegal. You can't put proprietary software into Linux either. It's also illegal.

2) You can run any software using Microsoft's libc. You can run any software using glibc. Both are equally legal.

3) There is nothing the kernel devs can do. They can NOT let Nvidia put their stuff in the kernel. The license prohibits it. They do not have the ability (or desire, but that's secondary) to change the license. Even if everyone on lkml agreed they wanted to, THEY CANNOT.
10-13-2012, 05:04 PM
yogi_berra

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoronix

So while many Linux desktop users are quick to bash NVIDIA over their lack of proper Optimus support, right now they are also being forced down by the Linux kernel developers not wanting to allow non-GPL drivers to use this unified buffer sharing infrastructure and reducing driver interoperability.

It doesn't matter what Alan Cox wants, courts have already stated that APIs are not covered by copyright or have you already forgotten the Oracle v. Google case where Java's API (gpl 2 same as the kernel, mind you) lost to Android?
10-13-2012, 05:34 PM
asdx

Quote:

Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat

You are extremely confused.

1) You cannot put GPL software into the Microsoft Windows kernel. It's illegal. You can't put proprietary software into Linux either. It's also illegal.

2) You can run any software using Microsoft's libc. You can run any software using glibc. Both are equally legal.

3) There is nothing the kernel devs can do. They can NOT let Nvidia put their stuff in the kernel. The license prohibits it. They do not have the ability (or desire, but that's secondary) to change the license. Even if everyone on lkml agreed they wanted to, THEY CANNOT.

What about firmware blobs the kernel is shipping with? Isn't that illegal?
10-13-2012, 05:38 PM
pingufunkybeat

Quote:

Originally Posted by yogi_berra

It doesn't matter what Alan Cox wants, courts have already stated that APIs are not covered by copyright or have you already forgotten the Oracle v. Google case where Java's API (gpl 2 same as the kernel, mind you) lost to Android?

Correct.

Google did a clean-room reimplementation of Java Virtual Machine, using the same API.

Nvidia can do a clean-room reimplementation of the Linux kernel, using the same API.

What they can't do is link proprietary code against GPL code. Google did not do this, they wrote their own code.
10-13-2012, 05:39 PM
pingufunkybeat

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdx

What about firmware blobs the kernel is shipping with? Isn't that illegal?

They don't link against the Linux kernel, or run on the same hardware.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page