Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 115

Thread: NVIDIA Loses Huge GPU Order Due To Linux Blob

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyPaw View Post
    So much for the argument that there is no good financial reasons to open source your drivers.
    Indeed. This is exactly what we always wanted to become clear(er): No open source support and no hardware info = bad business decision.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    ... it seems that AMD is giving the Chinese access to the source code of their proprietary driver
    The article mentions neither the word "proprietary" nor "open". Why do you think your interpretation of the article is correct?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marek View Post
    The article mentions neither the word "proprietary" nor "open". Why do you think your interpretation of the article is correct?
    You're right, the article isn't clear. That's just what I infer.

    First we have

    A rumor appeared from the heart of Beijing that due to the performance of its GPU architecture and its Linux drivers, NVIDIA was approached by one of the leading Chinese CPU teams to use an NV GPU in a pilot school PC project.
    Presumably this refers to Nvidia's binary driver. Then we have

    To cut the story short, the NV team appeared there, and in very arrogant manner told the Chinese side that they are a large US corporation, and that recompiling the Linux drivers would cost the Chinese a lot of money.
    Again, presumably talking about recompiling Nvidia's proprietary code. So we have the situation where the customer wants code compiled for their new architecture, but is quite happy if that code is proprietary.

    Then we have

    With NVIDIA back in Santa Clara, California and Southern China, there was no doubt as to who the Chinese would call next. The other GPU vendor, while having mediocre Linux drivers, at least did not make any fuss over source code access.
    My interpretation of this is that AMD is offering source code access to fglrx. The reason I think this is that a) the Chinese didn't seem to care if the code they got was proprietary, b) "mediocre Linux drivers" almost certainly refers to fglrx, and c) "fuss over source code access" would be redundant if they were talking about the open Radeon driver.

    So, yes, perhaps they chose AMD because of open drivers, rather than AMD's willingness to give them access to their closed code. The article isn't clear; maybe the author doesn't actually know either. My reading of it, however, is that the Chinese have gained access to fglrx.

    I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    My interpretation of this is that AMD is offering source code access to fglrx. The reason I think this is that a) the Chinese didn't seem to care if the code they got was proprietary, b) "mediocre Linux drivers" almost certainly refers to fglrx, and c) "fuss over source code access" would be redundant if they were talking about the open Radeon driver.

    So, yes, perhaps they chose AMD because of open drivers, rather than AMD's willingness to give them access to their closed code. The article isn't clear; maybe the author doesn't actually know either. My reading of it, however, is that the Chinese have gained access to fglrx.

    I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
    Careful. Facts and logic don't go over easy with much of this group.

    Lots of hate and fanboyism here to contend with.

    Basically we have:

    1) A source article that is mostly garbage and hearsay and says nothing of confidence.
    2) Michael coming along and reinterpreting this article to draw his own wild-ass conclusions. (Though, in fairness, he claims another "source". But who's to know how reliable that source is?)
    3) All the fanboys lining up in this thread to congratulate themselves for yet another proof that 100% FOSS is full of win. (Missing the point that, if the story is to be believed, NVIDIA was actually the first to be contacted, despite the fact that it's well known that they don't work with open drivers.)


    Is it wrong to wait until there are some actual facts before drawing any conclusions? And, even if true, this "loss" to NVIDIA might not be such a loss... if they place super high value on keeping their tech close to their vests.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
    1. They use Radeon IGP in the past (I give example on page 1) and probably continue to use IGP instead or discrete in this pilot project (we talk about GPU for school, not for computing or CG rendering, remember?)
    2. They alredy use FOSS radeon driver on boards with Radeon IGP.
    3. I think port fglrx to MIPS is much harder than use existence FOSS driver and also pointless for weak IGP GPU.
    Last edited by RussianNeuroMancer; 06-22-2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    b) "mediocre Linux drivers" almost certainly refers to fglrx, and c) "fuss over source code access" would be redundant if they were talking about the open Radeon driver.
    "mediocre Linux drivers" almost certainly refers to the radeon open source driver. fglrx is quite comparable to the nvidia proprietary driver for linux.

    "fuss over source code access" is not redundant if they were talking about the lack of it for the nVidia driver.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    953

    Default

    Hopefully this will now light the fire under nVidia to at least help the nouveau team out in the same fashion as AMD did for the radeon driver. SO here's hope AMD will have the incentive to improve their blob as well as getting the FOSS radeon driver into tiptop shape

    Good for the Chinese to be the catalyst (no pun intended)

    Now if nvidia can port their blob to ARM then that'll be another market for them...so they should wake up now
    Last edited by DeepDayze; 06-22-2012 at 11:45 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hal2k1 View Post
    "mediocre Linux drivers" almost certainly refers to the radeon open source driver. fglrx is quite comparable to the nvidia proprietary driver for linux.

    No it's not. Fglrx is easily one of the worst possible drivers you could use on Linux.

    It may look half-way decent when you are running full screen benchmarks, but in terms of actual real world use it's compatibility with applications and desktops is miserable and it's crash prone. Not to also mention that it's miserable to install.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Ten million graphics cards? I guess they don't do anything small in communist China...
    China is capitalist. It's a pretty bad dictatorship, but still capitalist. AFAIK, there are no communist countries left on the planet right now.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    China is capitalist. It's a pretty bad dictatorship, but still capitalist. AFAIK, there are no communist countries left on the planet right now.
    There's way too many anti-capitalists looking at China as "the future"(in a positive way), for China to be capitalist.

    It's still communist.

    Sad thing is, most people don't know what communism is anymore, or why it's so dangerous.

Posting Permissions

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