Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: NVIDIA Announces New Legacy Linux Support

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    If by "KMS" you mean the standard mode setting framework in the kernel, the blob will never be able to implement it due to license issues.
    This has come up a few times already. And every time I've asked for confirmation of that, a link showing that KMS symbols are GPL-only. But I never received that confirmation. So please either provide such a link, or stop repeating unconfirmed claims. I suppose I could have a look at the kernel source myself, but then again, I'm not the one making the claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    how do you differentiate between the two
    The framework in the kernel used by the open drivers is KMS. Nvidia's doesn't have a name, so call it simply "nvidia's modesetting".

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Do you have a source that mentions fbcon is optional with the linux kernel-based implementation (not nvidia) of kernel mode setting?
    I'm not aware of such a source. But why does it matter? What's important is that Nvidia does not need to use KMS to provide fbcon, they could provide it on top of their own modesetting implementation.

    And to answer the obvious question of why don't they provide it then: Simple, they have no incentive to. The desktop is a low priority for them, and all their high-priority customers are using X.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    And to answer the obvious question of why don't they provide it then: Simple, they have no incentive to. The desktop is a low priority for them, and all their high-priority customers are using X.
    Heh, and their lack of optimus support even now (albeit that seems to be changing in part to Linus' big FU) shows how high-priority even their X customers are.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Heh, and their lack of optimus support even now (albeit that seems to be changing in part to Linus' big FU) shows how high-priority even their X customers are.
    They just announced they'll provide drivers for 6000 series till 2017. Until you find a manufacturer that does better, I'd say stfu.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Heh, and their lack of optimus support even now (albeit that seems to be changing in part to Linus' big FU) shows how high-priority even their X customers are.
    Err, Optimus falls into the low-priority desktop part.
    (I know Optimus is on laptops, I use "desktop" as meaning "simple end user running Linux on their home machine", as opposed to high-paying customers doing heavy-duty graphics stuff on high-end workstations)

    And *rolls eyes* that them looking into Optimus support now has anything to do with Linus' FU. Seriously guys, what is it with giving the FU such magical abilities? I really, really, really don't get it.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Until you find a manufacturer that does better, I'd say stfu.
    I could say intel (open source drivers, KMS and as of 2.20.7, hybrid graphics support) but obviously their GPU isn't nearly as capable as nvidia GPUs are. In regards to the "stfu", it's exactly that response which doesn't get nvidia to provide equal same time support to their linux drivers as they do their windows drivers. This is why Linus' big FU was important.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    In regards to the "stfu", it's exactly that response which doesn't get nvidia to provide equal same time support to their linux drivers as they do their windows drivers. This is why Linus' big FU was important.
    LOL!

    Nvidia doesn't provide equal support for the Linux desktop because there's no business incentive to do so. That's all there is to it, trying to come up with anything else is just silly. And Linus' FU changed exactly nothing regarding that. Meh, I suppose this myth of the legendary Linus FU will stay around forever, despite being total nonsense.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Err, Optimus falls into the low-priority desktop part.
    (I know Optimus is on laptops, I use "desktop" as meaning "simple end user running Linux on their home machine", as opposed to high-paying customers doing heavy-duty graphics stuff on high-end workstations)

    And *rolls eyes* that them looking into Optimus support now has anything to do with Linus' FU. Seriously guys, what is it with giving the FU such magical abilities? I really, really, really don't get it.
    Perhaps it's just coincidence that nvidia started looking into optimus support after Linus' FU and the implementation of prime dma-buf happened to land in xorg 1.13 and kernel 3.5 right around that time. Things seem to indicate that they snapped to attention when Linus did that. Sometimes I wonder why they said they simply wouldn't support optimus but never gave any particular reason like it would be better if there was infrastructure for it like there is now in xorg and the kernel so that they wouldn't have to write a custom implementation (like their custom kernel modesetting implementation :-) ).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    LOL!

    Nvidia doesn't provide equal support for the Linux desktop because there's no business incentive to do so.
    Wait what? I'm pretty sure linux users pay money for nvidia hardware just the same as windows users. We may not be as many as windows users but we are a growing community. I'm sure Valve recently throwing their weight behind linux also tends to help that argument as well.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Perhaps it's just coincidence that nvidia started looking into optimus support after Linus' FU and the implementation of prime dma-buf happened to land in xorg 1.13 and kernel 3.5 right around that time.
    There is no coincidence that Nvidia started looking into it as soon as dma-buf and xrandr1.4 came to fruition. That the FU happened around the same time, that's a separate event and believing it had anything to do with it is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Things seem to indicate that they snapped to attention when Linus did that.
    Please elaborate on these "things".

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Sometimes I wonder why they said they simply wouldn't support optimus but never gave any particular reason
    They said they don't have plans to support Optimus "at this time", which was in a post more than two years ago. And they didn't need to give any reason, it was clear to anyone having a clue - there was no business incentive, and the rest of the stack wasn't capable. I said this a long time ago already: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=96 <- because I had a clue, rather than believing in magical middle fingers.

    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    so that they wouldn't have to write a custom implementation (like their custom kernel modesetting implementation :-) ).
    Their custom implementation predates KMS. That's why they have it. And it's not the only such thing, Nvidia had a few things before the open stack got it - in addition to modesetting in the kernel, there's also accelerated indirect rendering (nvidia had it before AIGLX existed), and redirected direct rendering (nvidia had it before DRI2 existed), and possibly a few things more.


    Quote Originally Posted by logistiker View Post
    Wait what? I'm pretty sure linux users pay money for nvidia hardware just the same as windows users. We may not be as many as windows users but we are a growing community.
    We're still very, very tiny compared to the amount of Windows users.
    Last edited by Gusar; 09-11-2012 at 12:34 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Please elaborate on these "things".
    I was referring to this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTE3MzY

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    and xrandr1.4 came to fruition.
    I'm pretty sure xrandr 1.4 never existed. I believe xorg decided not to release that (which kind of sucked at the time because we thought nvidia couldn't support xrandr in their blob without 1.4 which turned out to be false) and skipped to xrandr 1.5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    They said they don't have plans to support Optimus "at this time", which was in a post more than two years ago. And they didn't need to give any reason, it was clear to anyone having a clue - there was no business incentive, and the rest of the stack wasn't capable. I said this a long time ago already: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=96 <- because I had a clue, rather than believing in magical middle fingers.
    Well for the people who don't understand all the mechanics of a graphics stack, I suppose they could have elaborated. On the other hand, the elaboration could have evoked another reaction where people think they're just blaming open source instead of writing their own implementation which would make it somewhat of a catch 22.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Their custom implementation predates KMS. That's why they have it. And it's not the only such thing, Nvidia had a few things before the open stack got it - in addition to modesetting in the kernel, there's also accelerated indirect rendering (nvidia had it before AIGLX existed), and redirected direct rendering (nvidia had it before DRI2 existed), and possibly a few things more.
    Other than the potentially false remark here about licensing issues, it would seem to make sense that they implement the kernel one and remove their custom one since it would reduce bloat in their driver from a programmer's perspective. Whether or not they would implement an fbcon driver at that point is still speculation. :-/

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    We're still very, very tiny compared to the amount of Windows users.
    Somehow it doesn't seem all that tiny since linux runs on a lot of embedded devices (tablets, smartphones, etc). In terms of desktop users (laptops too), it also doesn't seem that small. I understand most computers sold come preinstalled with windows on it but who keeps the statistics of what people do with their computers after they buy them? If we're to believe that the sole statistic of determining the market share of linux desktops is based on the number of units sold where it's preinstalled, we may always remain a small market share (i.e. in the desktop space) even though that may not be the case.

Posting Permissions

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