Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 134

Thread: NVIDIA Publishes Code For X Synchronization Fences

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kazetsukai View Post
    I imagine they'll contribute small bits and pieces to Nouveau going forward, but noone can say for certain.
    Well then we just have to wait and see how that plays out in the future...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    All we know is that AMD and Intel are working around it and nVidia isn't going to attempt it. We know, as this has been posted on Phoronix a while back (half a year?), that they decided to not attempt to even try it.
    How do you know this? How do you know what steps nVidia have taken in evaluating the possibility of opening specs? If you have specific details then there are many here who'd like to read them. Until then you're simply pissing in the wind.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Yet PathScal was the one that did it, while nVidia was leaning backwards and not giving a fsck.
    And here you go again. You say "and not giving a fsck." Of course they give one. I don't see how they could be ignorant of the backlash.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    What a hell of a gesture. A couple of Fermi cards costs way less than PR, yet they totally didn't gave the most basic of all basics gesture of good faith whatsoever.
    So good for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Well how about totally removing their Vesa driver? It can't get more anti-open source than that. It actually took manpower to remove the driver.
    And here you really demonstrate how ignorant you are of the situation. nVidia publically acknowledged that the Nouveau driver was very much superior to their current nv driver and so it made no sense what so ever to maintain a driver that no one would ever contemplate using. With Nouveau on the scene there's no use for the open source nv driver.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    What exactly did they contribute? What the hell is it? Is it contributing or selfishly putting something out there that is only going to help their own blob driver?
    So you don't read the xorg-devel mailing list I see. Michael also details some of what nVidia contribute towards the Xorg stack.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Or we could simply just keep hating nVidia for taking the stance "Haha... yeah we like the fact that our cards are supported by FLOSS and so our cards have a good chance of gettijng bought by people who like FLOSS, but when Noveau gets an IP lawsuit it is their problem, not ours. See? We didn't contribute whatsoever. We even removed our FLOSS driver. Hah!"
    More unsubstantiated rubbish.

    Any IP lawsuit wont be coming from nVidia. Apart from that, all IP recently brought to light by anyone is subject to legal challenge from anyone generally speaking. nVidia publishing an open driver in no way guarantees indemnity from IP lawsuits.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Getting the good from Noveau but not getting the bad. Yeah that's totally great. We should praise the fact that nVidia will not harm Noveau, like that's a good thing. Like that is some effort that nVidia took. Hmph...
    Of course nVidia's stance not to harm Nouveau is a good thing. So is the development of their closed driver. If you simply can't bring yourself to run closed drivers then obviously AMD is a better fit for you but not everyone shares your view.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    @mugginz:
    There are two thing: Words and deeds.

    I basically do not care, whatsoever. Intel, AMD and nVidia are bound by IP that is all comming from the same companies. I look around and see that Intel does FLOSS. I look around and see that AMD does FLOSS. I look around and see that nVidia doesn't and leaves everything up to the Noveau guys.

    No deeds, just words. I can't run an OS on words, mugginz.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    @mugginz:
    There are two thing: Words and deeds.

    I basically do not care, whatsoever. Intel, AMD and nVidia are bound by IP that is all comming from the same companies. I look around and see that Intel does FLOSS. I look around and see that AMD does FLOSS. I look around and see that nVidia doesn't and leaves everything up to the Noveau guys.

    No deeds, just words. I can't run an OS on words, mugginz.
    But we already know that nVidia no longer publishes an open driver. The issue that we've been discussing is in what way this is good or bad, etc.

    You seem to be of the view that nVidia sucks but you're a bit short on rational reasons for this.

    I see nothing wrong with you stating that nVidia's position on open source drivers doesn't gel with your personal political belief system but that's about the only fair thing you've had to say on the matter. When you wonder off and try to invent reasons as to why nVidia is anti open source I as yet haven't seen you provide any real material to substantiate why this is so.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    But we already know that nVidia no longer publishes an open driver. The issue that we've been discussing is in what way this is good or bad, etc.

    You seem to be of the view that nVidia sucks but you're a bit short on rational reasons for this.
    Well then if this is all about good/bad and opinion then all I have left to say is that in my opinion nVidia sucks because they do not persue open drivers and the concept of FLOSS drivers is awesome in my book because they:
    1. are not bound by a license made to restrict, rather than enable
    2. integrate better due to the nature of a free license
    3. allow for a consistent feature set (state trackers)
    4. are made in the interest of the FLOSS ecosystem and not in the interest of nVidia

    Then nVidia pisses me of because:
    1. they do not release docs
    2. decided not to go FLOSS even after AMD and Intel did
    3. the do not make free software for a free operating system and that sucks because the very reason most people adopt free software is usualy because it is free software and Linux can't drive adoption simply because it is not Windows

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Well then if this is all about good/bad and opinion then all I have left to say is that in my opinion nVidia sucks because they do not persue open drivers and the concept of FLOSS drivers is awesome in my book because they:
    1. are not bound by a license made to restrict, rather than enable
    2. integrate better due to the nature of a free license
    3. allow for a consistent feature set (state trackers)
    4. are made in the interest of the FLOSS ecosystem and not in the interest of nVidia

    Then nVidia pisses me of because:
    1. they do not release docs
    2. decided not to go FLOSS even after AMD and Intel did
    3. the do not make free software for a free operating system and that sucks because the very reason most people adopt free software is usualy because it is free software and Linux can't drive adoption simply because it is not Windows
    And now onto why someone would want to use a closed driver.

    What do you do when any, and I mean absolutely any of the open drivers in concert with its associated hardware doesn't provide the performance in terms of speed or functionality or both that an end user requires?

    Do you then suggest that instead of using an open platform with a closed driver they instead adopt a fully closed solution such as Micosoft Windows or is it acceptable to use the Linux/Closed driver hybrid?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    What do you do when any, and I mean absolutely any of the open drivers in concert with its associated hardware doesn't provide the performance in terms of speed or functionality or both that an end user requires?

    Do you then suggest that instead of using an open platform with a closed driver they instead adopt a fully closed solution such as Micosoft Windows or is it acceptable to use the Linux/Closed driver hybrid?
    There's a difference in what is persued and what is currently the situation. What I said was that if it is OK to just have a blob and no FLOSS then one might as well run Windows or Mac OS X in case one wants Unix.

    You have to ask yourself this: Is Linux in its current state for me (y/n). For me it is yes, with the FLOSS drivers. For others it may be not, with the FLOSS drivers.

    Linux has always been that OS that grew everyday in terms of usage and functionality, but it has alway had this steep barrier that you had to wait for untill it was low enough for you to jump over it. People with little needs had a fairly lightweight backpack and could easily jump over it. People, like you, that requered a lot more had a fairly heavy backpack and needed to wait for the Linux barrier to get low enough for you to jump over it.

    I do not considder nVidia as a part of the Linux ecosystem, just a yetpack in order for people to get over that barrier. Now that very thing is what got me arguing continuesly to no end.

    I would accept the blob, but only if there was some effort to persue the availablity of running a decent FLOSS driver.

    I think that it is OK have proprietary as a choice; for example on top of-, or if FLOSS is a choice; part of Linux. But I just do not see proprietary only as a part of Linux.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    There's a difference in what is persued and what is currently the situation. What I said was that if it is OK to just have a blob and no FLOSS then one might as well run Windows or Mac OS X in case one wants Unix.
    But that's simply not true. There's a big difference between a system running Linux with a proprietary driver and a system running either OSX or Windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    You have to ask yourself this: Is Linux in its current state for me (y/n). For me it is yes, with the FLOSS drivers. For others it may be not, with the FLOSS drivers.
    Linux is suitable for me in all aspects except open source video drivers. I could be a cry baby about that and storm off into Windows or Apple land but that gets me no where closer to a Linux installation with the graphics performance I'm after. When I can use the Linux I know and love and also have the graphics performance I require with the addition of a closed driver it's mostly what I'm after. Certainly a lot closer to my ideal system than either OSX or Windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Linux has always been that OS that grew everyday in terms of usage and functionality, but it has alway had this steep barrier that you had to wait for untill it was low enough for you to jump over it. People with little needs had a fairly lightweight backpack and could easily jump over it. People, like you, that requered a lot more had a fairly heavy backpack and needed to wait for the Linux barrier to get low enough for you to jump over it.
    Well I've been using Linux as my full time desktop OS since Mandrake 9.0. Prior to that it still got some use from me, just not full time. Since those times nVidia has provided a pretty good graphics solution with the best drivers available. Various restrictions in terms of functionality that have been part of the Linux desktop have been addressed over time and it's now gotten to the point where it's quite full featured from most points. At any point in time if a Linux desktop wasn't capable of required functionality I would've had to switch to another platform.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I do not considder nVidia as a part of the Linux ecosystem, just a yetpack in order for people to get over that barrier. Now that very thing is what got me arguing continuesly to no end.
    I don't consider nVidia part of the core Linux ecosystem either. I consider them an addition to it. An addition that serves a very useful purpose.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I would accept the blob, but only if there was some effort to persue the availablity of running a decent FLOSS driver.
    Well they've publicly stated their position and that position would seem to be completely incompatible with your requirements so for you I guess nVidia is ruled out of the question all together.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portets43 View Post
    do people forget to think about vdpau? vdpau is open source, and great. they really did us a favor by releasing it free. it's a great piece of software.
    So... they published the specifications for the API that software developers need to use in order to interface with their closed source proprietary blob... That really isn't a favor to the general world -- that is a favor to THEMSELVES in order to further the world's DEPENDENCY on their blob driver.

    And on top of that, it happens to be something that we DON'T NEED since it competes with another scheme -- VA-API.

    @ALL: about this bickering about whether nvidia is for or against open source.... WTF: there is NO clear cut answer to this question since there are more places you can stand than strictly for or strictly against. In one interpretation, you could state that your RELATIVE standing makes the determination.

    Clearly the likes of AMD and INTEL are far more FOR open source than NVIDIA. Of this there can be no doubt. So **RELATIVE** to AMD and INTEL, NVIDIA is *against* open source. Again, the word RELATIVE, that and the old phrase "if you're not for, you're against".

    Now fact is simply this: If nvidia were so fundamentally opposed to open source as some would suggest, they would have NO LINUX DRIVER AT ALL -- including their BLOB. It simply wouldn't exist, so it is clear that they aren't THAT evil.

    Which again leads to the scale and relative importance.
    Are they SUFFICIENTLY FOR open source to satisfy YOU? If the answer is YES, then by all means, you have that option. If the answer is NO, then again, your personal preference.

    And just a little note about AMD and open source:
    In case you are wondering WHY AMD is so much more FOR open source than NVIDIA.... the answer is quite simple: FUSION gives them LITTLE CHOICE! You can't sell a CPU that doesn't work in Linux with open source drivers. To do so would screw too much up. There's no coincidence that the state of the open source driver is where it is -- evergreen support starting and looking to be on target to finish (more or less) at about the same time as fusion launches -- in other words, launch-day support built right into the kernel.

    And so AMD's plans aren't nearly as PURE as a lot of you seem to presume. Not that that's reason to keep me from AMD products -- regardless of their motivations, the end result is good for me and satisfies what **I** need.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tallahassee. FL
    Posts
    127

    Default

    V!ncent get off your open source high horse. I think you just don't like the fact that nvidia has been and will continue to be the flagship hardware/driver provider for most causal Linux users. Nvidia doesn't need open source drivers to get Linux market share so way even bother... The only reason AMD opened up is because ATI kept such a lousy track record in the past.

Posting Permissions

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