Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 259

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    What is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and why is it so important it is GPL only?
    It's the FSF's version of digital rights management.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dargllun View Post
    I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
    Lol I knew someone would say something. I have an AMD APU I have HDMI audio support and video acceleration (whatever xbva can afford, for instance use with VLC).

    I agree that there should be a common API for all video drivers to simply simplify however I guess. As to OS'ing drivers Linux has enough problems with patents and whatnot I think since it's free it should be exempt =).

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    Except for a few points:

    1) First off, in most companies, S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information. So thats why NVIDIA can't just open their drivers.

    2) The drivers for the H/W are going to be at a VERY low level, and will basically show how NVIDIA accomplished everything in its H/W. You think AMD/Intel would like to see that information? This is especially notable, since NVIDIA has a lot of specialized components on its cards to handle certain tasks (they've hinted at such over the years...)

    3) If the Kernel does not expose a way for a technology like Optimus to work, then the only way to accomplish it is though drivers. And since NVIDIA will not open their drivers up (nor should they be required to), anyone who opposes NVIDIA's efforts looses the right to complain about the lack of optimus support.
    Are you on drugs or something? "S/w Coding standards is company proprietary information." Try copyright your odd typing standard. Gaymer2k mixedcase oddballshit v1.0. PROPRIETARY. (lol).

    I already answered all this with the post you are answering, maybe you should re-read it.

    And btw, getting wellsupported gfxchip(s) with opensource drivers, is good to have on the TO-DO list. If Nvidia won`t give drivers, well someone else will.

    Peace Be With You.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Add this to another list of reasons why Steam on linux is a bad idea. Linux is only for running on servers and the OSS religion.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    24

    Default

    @Paradox Uncreated

    Please do us all a favor and get out of here.
    Your homophobic and insulting way to other users is absolutely a shame.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flim View Post
    @Paradox Uncreated

    Please do us all a favor and get out of here.
    Your homophobic and insulting way to other users is absolutely a shame.
    Lol, well cry have a heartattack, do some cottaging and kill yourself I guess.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    So why are Nvidia so afraid of opening up their drivers? I mean plenty of worldclass stuff in linux, my own plugins included. They are a hardware seller right? So the drivers that come with are open-source, what harm would it do? And sharing that, does that make anyone more competitive? Think about optimizations from the users aswell. Probably to the point of optimal. And generalized for any driver. So everyone contributes. How can that be negative?

    Peace Be With You.
    in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

    1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
    2. you want to make money with your program.

    While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

    *edit
    and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
    Last edited by Detructor; 10-11-2012 at 10:22 AM.

  8. #28

    Default

    What happened to people document stuff? If I buy some hardware shouldn`t I be able to do whatever I want with it?
    I remember people documented stuff so much more before. But then again, assmembly programming was also common. Synths also, imagine if people just gave you a highlevel interface for the midi. MIDI documentation was everywhere. To the point that a technically skilled individual could just read it, and do whatever he wanted with it. Not that MIDI is such a good standard but... Nvidia could do it for the benefit of all. What about doing just that, instead of worrying about the dollar for a change.

    Peace Be With You.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detructor View Post
    in my now 5 years (including 3 years of vocational education) I came to the point that there are only 2 reasons to not publish your code as open-source:

    1. your code is ugly. Really ugly. It's bad designed, variables are badly named and your code is covered in comments that don't actually explain anything since they're long outdated
    2. you want to make money with your program.

    While point 2 is not entirely true since there are companies that make money off of their open-source programs, I still don't understand how that's possible.

    *edit
    and if your program goes out of the production cycle, there is really only reason 1 to not release the source code.
    I can`t really think of any good reason either. Atelast tools. If people don`t want to release source for games or an actual work of art, music, graphics, fine. But I really think the tools should be open source. Carmack releases his engines after some time though, which is nice. Ultimately I guess also gameengines that are opensource will be good enough. But it takes some dedicated development. Doing that only for 10 yrs gives you an edge.

    Peace Be With You.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dargllun View Post
    I'm all for OSS to be sure, but let's not forget that those closed source drivers are giving NV users very decent video acceleration and HDMI audio support, and have been doing so for ages. Something your can't say of, for instance, AMD. There are always two aspects to it: openess of the source and functionality delivered. It's hard to beat NV in the 2nd category.
    I know that and I never denied it (although OSS drivers are improving). But the truth is, that there's no reason to use Linux except for the fact that it's open source. If all I cared about was functionality delivered, then I'd use Windows: NVIDIA makes good drivers for Windows, too. Instead, I choose Linux because of its unique features, which stem from it being open source.

    NVIDIA don't care about the open source community (which is no longer, if it ever was, made up of enthusiasts and free software philosophers, but instead it comprises very successful commercial companies and millions of average Joes who don't even know that the products they use and love couldn't exist without open source software), and they are the last computer company behaving this way. Well, they and Microsoft.

    One second after NVIDIA (or ATI or whoever) release a new batch of graphics cards, they stop giving a damn about the older generation of cards and the millions of people who bought them. This means that as soon as a new OS release is out, the functionality delivered for people using binary drivers with "old" hardware drops to zero.
    The only ones who assure that users are able to continue upgrading their OS without losing the functionality of their hardware are the kernel's developers, and they can do it only as long as the drivers are open source. The same thing can be said about their ability to fix bugs.

Posting Permissions

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