Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 143

Thread: Ubuntu 9.10 Off To A Great Performance Start

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krazy View Post
    If all hardware companies followed the "open source" (and open specs) linux standard for hardware support, then there would be no problem. AMD's currently doing the right thing by releasing code and hardware specs, but it will take time for hardware support to mature.
    Open source software is great, I agree, it allows others to more easily help out and submit bug fixes, it encourages transparency, and best of all, if the community as a whole doesn't like it, they can help change it, and if the dev's don't want to, it can be forked if needed. Ideally though, if it has to do with certain features or options being available, the dev's should make a plug-in system to allow anyone to piece in the modules they prefer, but that's a different subject.

    However, having all the modularity on the source level isn't the answer, because modern Linux users don't want to be bothered with compiling, and having every distro do it isn't the most free answer either as this only makes users have to go round about through them instead of from the devs, and needlessly creates duplicated effort and work when every version of a program should only have to be compiled once, and then made available for all Linux users. For example, I can't even try out Firefox Beta 3.5 cleanly because there are no packages for it right now, just a simple binary when all the other platforms have a nice juicy package they can all easily install. They get a nice feature, while Linux users suffer. In other words, right now, things suck. That's the coffee, so wake up to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolidSteel144 View Post
    That's a damn shame. Instead of people just getting something that works and make it their own they should just improve that software. Unity is key.
    Exactly, the original dev's are the one who should get the web traffic, bug reports, etc, and while mirrors and easy software installation systems like yum and apt-get are great, don't get me wrong, and should definitely continue to be used, those systems would have a billion times more software packages available to users if universal Linux packages were being used instead of the way things are now.

    "Oh please oh please distro company ZYX, package this new game that just came out for meeeeeeeee, it has this awesome feature XYZ!"

    "NO! We won't! If you want it, reformat your computer and install this other distro, they have it! Or, wait until the new version of our distro comes out, maybe by then it'll be available for you! Mwuhahahaha!"

    OK maybe not the mwuhahaha part, was added for dramatic effect, but you get the point. They're not the ones who should be in control, the original devs should be in control, and if they are being poofaces for whatever reason, the project can be forked or someone else can package it and/or rename it or whatever is needed.

    Any way, all software developers should demand a universal Linux package format, and help push for it, a format that existing managers are going to want to adopt. Then hopefully in the future, the universal packages will replace the proprietary stupid old-way-of-doing-things packages.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    I see no new major packages in karmic at all. I basically only look at: virtualbox-ose and squashfs-tools because i would like to backport the first to kanotix (only a simple change that would install the guest addons there) and squashfs-tools 4 is needed for kernel 2.6.29+ - so without they will not build any live images. You see directly what status live images have got for U development...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,264

    Default

    You're advocating an universal package format, and demanding that every open source dev create packages for that format. Don't you think that increases their workload, hm?

    Say you wrote a nice utility in 1999 that is still used. Something like xsri. How would you react if, as a result of this move, you'd start getting *cough*spam*cough* hundreds of requests to create a package for this format X, because they somehow think it's *your* responsibility.

    And that's just one example. It's not the devs' responsibility at all, and it should not be. Also, if I read your post right, you want packages to be downloaded all from the original source. Thus upping bandwidth requirements, losing all the convenience of package managers, and finally, it's the Windows model.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krazy View Post
    I think you'll find it's the other way around. Ever read the nv driver code?
    Since when is the nv driver code closed?

    Other way round again I think. Taking the nvidia driver for example, instead of contributing to an open acceleration architecture in X such as EXA or UXA, they went and implemented their own proprietary solution.
    And be limited to crappy performance and accept 50% 3d performance as good enough? I don't think so. Now that would really put linux gaming another 10 years behind.

    Bullshit. Provide a link to this "Fuck you" quote.
    The quote was to relay the general attitude that closed sourced developers, not a direct quote from a mailing list. (although it has been used in several private emails) get when trying to add support for any device specific items that involve a closed source driver. This has been seen many times over the past in the kernel and xorg for example:

    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ly/037098.html
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NzE1Mw

    In fact, if it wasn't for Linus keeping a sane head on him a lot of the kernel devs would outright lock out closed source drivers if they had their way. You can read a crap load of attempts by kernel devs to sway Linus in this direction.

    Perhaps Greg KH relayed this best with his

    We, the undersigned Linux kernel developers, consider any closed-source Linux kernel module or driver to be harmful and undesirable. We have repeatedly found them to be detrimental to Linux users, businesses and the greater Linux ecosystem. Such modules negate the openness, stability, flexibility and maintainability of the Linux development model and shut their users off from the expertise of the Linux community. Vendors that provide closed-source kernel modules force their customers to give up key Linux advantages or choose new vendors. Therefore, in order to take full advantage of the cost savings and shared support benefits open source has to offer, we urge vendors to adopt a policy of supporting their customers on Linux with open-source kernel code.
    We speak only for ourselves, and not for any company we might work for today, have in the past or will in the future.
    Then there are items like this from a sane Linus:

    http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/li...7/10/10/334625
    Well, I've talked to various people, and none of the main kernel people
    end up being at all interested in a kernel that has external dependencies
    on binary blobs for tuners.

    So right now it seems like while I would personally want to have more
    vendors supprt their own drivers, if that in this case means that we'd
    have to have user-space and unmaintainable binaries to tune the cards,
    everybody seems to hate that idea.

    As such, the old and decrepit em28xx driver seems more useful to people,
    since at least it supports the limited set of hardware on its own.
    Closed source developers get amazing support when they decide to reach out to the open source community. For example, how else has there been such rapid support for VDPAU provided in Xine, MPlayer, VLC, FFmpeg and others? It was only announced in November last year!
    Now VDPAU isn't closed is it?
    Last edited by deanjo; 05-18-2009 at 10:42 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,264

    Default

    Now VDPAU isn't closed is it?
    I don't see VDPAU in Intel, AMD, nv, nouveau drivers..

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I don't see VDPAU in Intel, AMD, nv, nouveau drivers..
    There is nothing that is stopping other drivers from incorporating VDPAU into their own drivers.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    You're advocating an universal package format, and demanding that every open source dev create packages for that format. Don't you think that increases their workload, hm?
    Might respond to the rest later, but, that was just an asinine response and I have to comment..

    No, I expect Linux developers to want users to download and use the software they write. If they didn't want users using it, they shouldn't have released it to begin with. Since they apparently do, of course they want to release it in a universally accessible format which is also easy to install. They should only have to release it in this format, and nothing else.

    If I were a developer, I'd be releasing the source code, as required by law any way under my license, as well as a binary inside a universally supported package which actually integrates into the OS better than any straight binaries or installers ever could or will. Those packages are what everyone should be supporting, you know, actual important Linux standards for everybody, instead of proprietary garbage that only helps a select few.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,538

    Default

    I guess the over-arching question is "what is the business model if there's only one Linux rather than a bunch of distros" ? Right now a good chunk of the common Linux work is done by developers working for major distros; how do those companies continue to succeed and continue funding Linux development ? Selling support contracts can be part of the solution but I don't think they're a complete solution.

    I think most of the participants understand the drawbacks of the current model, but AFAICS maintaining a bit of proprietary differentiation is an important part of funding the ongoing work, even if the source code for that proprietary work is freely available.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Since when is the nv driver code closed?
    It's not, I'm saying that it is deliberately obfuscated.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    You will NEVER get the stubborn opensource community to be co-operative with closed source drivers. When it comes to that stuff they are extremely pig headed. Proprose such a thing and they will cry "We can't fix their crap, screw them." Closed sourced developers have tried to get a bit of help in area's to ensure compatibility instead they are greated with "Fuck you". Nvidia has accepted that and they don't expect any help from the X community at all anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by krazy View Post
    Other way round again I think. Taking the nvidia driver for example, instead of contributing to an open acceleration architecture in X such as EXA or UXA, they went and implemented their own proprietary solution.
    And be limited to crappy performance and accept 50% 3d performance as good enough? I don't think so. Now that would really put linux gaming another 10 years behind.
    So, paraphrasing: "We can't fix their crap, screw them." ?

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The quote was to relay the general attitude that closed sourced developers, not a direct quote from a mailing list.
    Your quotes all relate to binary blobs which are impossible to properly support. There is an open offer of help to hardware companies for linux support. See here.
    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Now VDPAU isn't closed is it?
    Nope, and thanks to that the "closed-minded" open source devs have provided support in most of the major linux video solutions.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krazy View Post
    It's not, I'm saying that it is deliberately obfuscated.


    So, paraphrasing: "We can't fix their crap, screw them." ?


    Your quotes all relate to binary blobs which are impossible to properly support. There is an open offer of help to hardware companies for linux support. See here.

    Nope, and thanks to that the "closed-minded" open source devs have provided support in most of the major linux video solutions.
    Did you even bother actually reading my initial comment? Seems you are arguing the exact same thing now.

    You will NEVER get the stubborn opensource community to be co-operative with closed source drivers.
    As far as "binary blobs which are impossible to properly support" that my friend is a load of horseshit. If the X layer didn't change on a weekly basis and they actually settled on some set standards then it becomes very easy to maintain blob compatibility. It's because of this volatile type of development that you do see blobs break. In other OS's you are fully capable of upgrading kernels and video subsystems without breaking the previously installed driver.
    Last edited by deanjo; 05-18-2009 at 03:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •