Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

Printable View

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

10-11-2012, 01:11 PM
droidhacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealNC

The kernel allows closed source software to run on it. DMABUF, being an API that can be used externally, should be exported to be used by anyone, regardless of license. What's next? GPLing the mmap() interface and making it illegal to run non-GPL software under Linux? You seriously think that's a good thing?

This has nothing to do with licenses. This has to do with AMD and Intel trying to stay ahead of NVidia by abusing their position within the kernel developer community.

AMD closed source binary drivers are no more allowed to use that than nvidia. If nvidia wants to play this game, they need to open source it.
10-11-2012, 01:12 PM
artivision

Quote:

Originally Posted by droidhacker

Actually, its DRM's flip side.... digital rights of the USER. Protect the USER's rights to do what they want with what they own. So DRM in this case would refer to PROTECTING the user from hostile adversaries (like NVIDIA) who would limit the user's rights to free open source software in favor of their proprietary crap.

Don't say crap so easily. They probably afraid to go partially open source, all the monetary companies do. I think we must take half the fault because we didn't convince them.
10-11-2012, 01:16 PM
frantaylor

Quote:

Originally Posted by droidhacker

Closed drivers have no business interacting with open drivers.

WHAT A JOKE!!!

Your ethernet card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE. Your "open source" ethernet driver is talking to CLOSED SOURCE CODE. The part of that "closed source" code that talks to its bus controller is called a "driver".

Your disk controller has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

Your sound card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

ALL of the "open source" drivers on your linux system are interacting with CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS and VICE VERSA.

But SOMEHOW zealots can PUT THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND and PRETEND that their computers are "open".
10-11-2012, 01:18 PM
Detructor

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilboa

Sorry, you are being *very* naive.
Here's a number of other reasons:
1. Your code includes licensed 3'rd party code that cannot be opened.
2. Your code includes patent-infringing code that will get you sued.
3. Your code is multi-platform (more on that later) and includes platform specific code that prevents it from being opened.
4. Your code is being used by clients and you're prohibited by contract from releasing your code.
etc, etc.

1. is recursive to my arguments
2. software patents are stupid and should be removed anyway. If one person had an idea there is sure as hell another person that has the same idea. tbh, the whole patent thing is just considered the "2nd most stupid thing ever 'invented'" by me. Right after weapons.
3. recursive to my arguments
4. in case you really signed a contract about something like that, you should be abandoned in the desert and even if you manage to get out alive, you should be banned from using a computer EVER again. There is not a single good reason why something should be kept secret. If something needs to be kept secret, it's something that shouldn't be done in the first place, since you don't want the public to know about it and if you don't want the public to know about something it must be considered 'bad' by moral implications of society, thus it must not be done.
10-11-2012, 01:19 PM
droidhacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by artivision

Don't say crap so easily. They probably afraid to go partially open source, all the monetary companies do. I think we must take half the fault because we didn't convince them.

It isn't our business to "convince" them. Its our business to support organizations who "get it" without being convinced. If nvidia (hostile) wants to be stuck in the dark ages with drivers that don't work properly, that's their CHOICE. They are not being compelled to do so. If they CHOOSE to be hostile, that MAKES them hostile.

Fear is irrelevant. They can either choose to play the game according to the rule book, or they can fu*k off. I couldn't care less either way, nvidia is PERMANENTLY off my list of possible hardware suppliers. I doubt that even releasing a FULLY functional open source driver set would change my mind about them. Too hostile for too long.
10-11-2012, 01:30 PM
johnc

Quote:

Originally Posted by droidhacker

They can either choose to play the game according to the rule book, or they can fu*k off.

What, from a business perspective, does the Linux desktop bring to the table?

I don't get the entitlement mentality of a group that amounts to less than 1% of the market.
10-11-2012, 01:33 PM
droidhacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by frantaylor

WHAT A JOKE!!!

Your ethernet card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE. Your "open source" ethernet driver is talking to CLOSED SOURCE CODE. The part of that "closed source" code that talks to its bus controller is called a "driver".

Your disk controller has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

Your sound card has a PROCESSOR ON IT. It is running CLOSED SOURCE CODE.

ALL of the "open source" drivers on your linux system are interacting with CLOSED SOURCE DRIVERS and VICE VERSA.

But SOMEHOW zealots can PUT THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND and PRETEND that their computers are "open".

And you clearly don't understand anything at all about how hardware works and interacts with the kernel. Yes, there are closed crap running on *some* hardware (not all...), and absolutely NONE of your retarded accusations apply IN THE LEAST to my position.

How it has to work:
(KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -)- HARDWARE1
(KERNEL -- DRIVER2 -)- HARDWARE2

How nvidia thinks it should work:
(KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -)- HARDWARE1
(KERNEL -- NVIDIADRIVER -- NVIDIAHARDWARE)
(KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -- NVIDIADRIVER -- HARDWARE1)
(KERNEL -- DRIVER1 -- NVIDIADRIVER -- NVIDIAHARDWARE)

Think of the brackets as a security barrier.

In a properly segmented system, the interaction between the kernel and the hardware is determined by the driver for that hardware. A driver that is open to external audit and generally safe. What nvidia is offering, is to have THEIR CLOSED DANGEROUS driver and hardware DIRECTLY MANIPULATING the kernel itself.

The driver is part of the security that is protecting the kernel from the hardware. How do we know and trust that the nvidia driver doesn't do something horribly dangerous? In fact, we know from past observations that their driver has a TERRIBLE track record when it comes to security. You seriously advocating that we open up the kernel to EVEN MORE potential exploit from a known danger?

BTW: That closed source code running on those pieces of hardware you mention.... are not kernel drivers. They're just running on that hardware themselves. If they want to do something REALLY FREAKING STUPID, that's their business. Part of the driver's job, as I've mentioned, is to make sense of some of that stupid crap rather than allowing it to wreak havoc.
10-11-2012, 01:41 PM
droidhacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnc

What, from a business perspective, does the Linux desktop bring to the table?

I don't get the entitlement mentality of a group that amounts to less than 1% of the market.

According to the ONLY entity that is actually in a position to count the Linux user base (that would be microsoft, strangely enough), the Linux user base is LARGER THAN APPLE, which is about 10%. So we are really looking at over 10% of the desktop/laptop market. And of course, that is ONLY counting the desktop/laptop market. There is more to it than that, since when you actually consider the rest of the market (tablets, phones, routers, televisions, refrigerators), Linux ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** outsells MS.

As far as entitlement goes, I AM entitled to control MY WORK. I AM entitled to choose where to spend MY MONEY. So yes, I AM entitled to tell nvidia to FU*K OFF, as is EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who has contributed to a part of the Linux Kernel related to this nvidia attack.

Now if the Linux desktop isn't big enough to be worth it for nvidia to play in by the rules, they are WELCOME to LEAVE. Play by the rules, or don't play at all. That isn't entitlement, its an ultimatum.
10-11-2012, 01:51 PM
johnc

Quote:

Originally Posted by droidhacker

According to the ONLY entity that is actually in a position to count the Linux user base (that would be microsoft, strangely enough), the Linux user base is LARGER THAN APPLE, which is about 10%. So we are really looking at over 10% of the desktop/laptop market. And of course, that is ONLY counting the desktop/laptop market. There is more to it than that, since when you actually consider the rest of the market (tablets, phones, routers, televisions, refrigerators), Linux ***SIGNIFICANTLY*** outsells MS.

As far as entitlement goes, I AM entitled to control MY WORK. I AM entitled to choose where to spend MY MONEY. So yes, I AM entitled to tell nvidia to FU*K OFF, as is EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who has contributed to a part of the Linux Kernel related to this nvidia attack.

Now if the Linux desktop isn't big enough to be worth it for nvidia to play in by the rules, they are WELCOME to LEAVE. Play by the rules, or don't play at all. That isn't entitlement, its an ultimatum.

Frankly, you sound like a 7-y/o crybaby.

Thankfully Linus isn't this ridiculous.

At the end of the day, it appears Optimus will remain a Windows-only feature for the immediate future. (Not sure if it's available under OS X.) Chalk up yet another thing in the long list of items that Windows does better than Linux.
10-11-2012, 01:55 PM
entropy

What do you think, can we expect a comment of Torvalds on that matter?

Not sure what he would say. Isn't he more on the liberal side concerning the blobs?

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