Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

[kgonzales]

And you sir, have lost. You have taken the final recourse of the interwebz troll and are taking on a condescending tone. The reality of the situation is that you have thoroughly dug your hole and failed to provide any valid response to the overwhelming combined intellect you are opposing.

"overwhelming combined intellect"

Oh gods...I thought I would die laughing on this one.

You all just crack me up. I might have to buy another Nvidia GeForce 670 to recover.

[kgonzales]

I can immediately think of at least three solutions that would still offer choice to the users.
1) Nouveau. It is free to use this feature.
2) If nvidia wants to offer this functionality in their blob, they are free to implement it themselves in their userspace driver and advertise its availability for other drivers to use. Somehow, I doubt that anybody would be particularly impressed with this option, though. It would likely go unused.
3) Don't buy nvidia.

You forgot one.

4) Use Windows or OSX.

[kgonzales]

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.

Loki Games, id Software, and Linux Game Publishing found that out the hard way.

[Paradox Uncreated]

If you knew what a democracy was, and that it is supposed to serve humans, and humans like open-source better, and it stimulates the most intelligent, who in turn are the ones most fit to run a system, to everyones benefit.

What is the problem?

Do you particulary like Microsofts own corporate advertising where old versions of microsoft give headache, and the new are a headache pill?

Have you seen that? So the Microsoft fanbois (and those are truly bois) have to deal with that Microsoft admits their favorite os being shit. But ofcourse the new ones are much better. Well according to the marketing guys atleast. What real people see, are thousands of tweak-apps online. What that means is that no-one is particulary happy with windows, and want to change it.

With open-source you can pretty much put togheter components to form your own entire OS. Scaling from phone, to 1000 cpus.

Microsoft is a joke. Why do people abuse themselves like that? That is because they are IGNORANT. High intelligence is above the general population. SO when are people going to stop thinking running after a ball, or boozing or whoring is better than high intelligence? I mean I guess that is why YOU have microsoft. A constant whine of idiocy, since CP/M. That is what MS sells and is still selling. What advanced users, find to be garbage. And the less advanced lack the mind to listen.

So your rants on windows what is that? Did you think you were going to convince anyone of intelligence? That is again where you fail. You have no clue. It is like playmo-boy criticises austronaut-man of not liking his playmo.

A bit how gays defend cottaging, to a Buddha I guess.

[XorEaxEax]

Yeah... right.

Linux success is due to the fact that you can get it for free. Most users could give two shits that its "free as in speech". They only care when it is "free as in beer".

Most Linux users (many corporations included) couldn't give a damn that it has great OOTB support for hardware. They like not paying for software, and further like not wasting their time contributing anything back to the so-called community which continues to give them stuff for free without them spending one bit of time or money.

Sad but true.

When we are talking of Linux's success we are obviously not talking about the desktop, atleast not yet. We are talking about servers, embedded, HPC, mobile, clusters, 3d/SFX industry, etc, so basically everything beyond the desktop.

Not only are companies often paying for Linux support (Red Hat has made it's fortune through this) but they often invest money into further development of Linux so it's seldom a zero-cost option, hence that is hardly Linux main attraction. If it was then they might aswell choose BSD which is also free, however as we see not only is Linux largely the number one choice in the aforementioned sectors, but as mentioned it's also where lots of companies choose to invest in development.

Linux is the world largest collaborative open source project bar none, with Linus and other key kernel maintainers having the 'problem/priviledge' of sifting through tons of code submitted by companies and individuals who are hoping it will make it into the kernel.

Obviously the GPL has had a great part in this success, as in practice it means that if company A wants to enhance Linux so that it works better for their needs, everyone else is legally entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour, of course the benefit for company A is that it will also be able to enjoy the enhancements made to Linux by company B, etc

If there is no legal 'incitament' for companies to release their enhancements, history shows us that they very seldom will, in particular if there is a competitive advantage to those enhancements. This is not surprising as a company is generally the equivalent of the most selfish and greedy person you can imagine.

Of course in a perfect world there would be no need for licences at all, not even something as permissive as BSD/MIT, but this is not a perfect world, and companies (and not so seldom individuals) won't play fair unless they have to.

This is what is 'sad but true'.

[log0]

Yeah... right.

Linux success is due to the fact that you can get it for free. Most users could give two shits that its "free as in speech". They only care when it is "free as in beer".

Most Linux users (many corporations included) couldn't give a damn that it has great OOTB support for hardware. They like not paying for software, and further like not wasting their time contributing anything back to the so-called community which continues to give them stuff for free without them spending one bit of time or money.

Sad but true.

You seem to be seriously confused. There are over hundred companies employing linux kernel developers. The major contributors are fulltime developers. It seems to work for them.

By the way the biggest part of linux kernel is driver code. If I had to guess I'd say over 70 percent. It is nvidia who don't want to play by the rules here. Go and bitch at them.

[gilboa]

It is your own fault for doing that. Either write your own code, or obtain that code under a free license.
It is your own fault for doing that. F**K YOU then.
...
Not sure how "platform specific code" would prevent it from being opened.... but even if it did, it only applies to those platform-specific PARTS of the code.
...
Then you did a terrible job in reviewing those contracts. Time to shoot yourself in the head.
...

Obviously you never tried to get corporate code or patches GPL'ed or even tried to get any type of closed source company play ball with the OSS world (let alone cooperate with OSS developers).
When you do, we'll revisit the subject.

Nice? Are you on crack? They tried to SNEAK IT IN rather than what they SHOULD have done (to be nice), which is to ASK.
Nothing wrong with ASKING POLITELY, however, even if they did, it should STILL be declined. Closed drivers have no business interacting with open drivers.

I do agree that their method was impolite.... But they sneaked it in? Using a high profile DRI ML message? You kidding me?

- Gilboa

[gilboa]

1. is recursive to my arguments

.

No sure what you mean.

2. software patents are stupid and should be removed anyway. If one person had an idea there is sure as hell another person that has the same idea. tbh, the whole patent thing is just considered the "2nd most stupid thing ever 'invented'" by me. Right after weapons.

As someone that have to run circles around stupid, generalized software patents I couldn't agree more.
.... But on the other hand, as long as they exist, unless you plan to face bankruptcy, you have to leave by the law of the land.

3. recursive to my arguments

Not sure what you mean.

4. in case you really signed a contract about something like that, you should be abandoned in the desert and even if you manage to get out alive, you should be banned from using a computer EVER again. There is not a single good reason why something should be kept secret. If something needs to be kept secret, it's something that shouldn't be done in the first place, since you don't want the public to know about it and if you don't want the public to know about something it must be considered 'bad' by moral implications of society, thus it must not be done.

... You're being very naive.
Obviously you never worked in the company remotely related to the security world or any type of governmental world.

- Gilboa

[kgonzales]

If you knew what a democracy was, and that it is supposed to serve humans, and humans like open-source better, and it stimulates the most intelligent, who in turn are the ones most fit to run a system, to everyones benefit.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, pure and simple. And if you actually understood it, you would not want it.

A bit how gays defend cottaging, to a Buddha I guess.

And more with the anti-gay thing. Honestly, given how hard it is for anyone to love you, you should think of broadening your horizons.

[kgonzales]

When we are talking of Linux's success we are obviously not talking about the desktop, atleast not yet. We are talking about servers, embedded, HPC, mobile, clusters, 3d/SFX industry, etc, so basically everything beyond the desktop.

Not only are companies often paying for Linux support (Red Hat has made it's fortune through this) but they often invest money into further development of Linux so it's seldom a zero-cost option, hence that is hardly Linux main attraction. If it was then they might aswell choose BSD which is also free, however as we see not only is Linux largely the number one choice in the aforementioned sectors, but as mentioned it's also where lots of companies choose to invest in development.

Linux is the world largest collaborative open source project bar none, with Linus and other key kernel maintainers having the 'problem/priviledge' of sifting through tons of code submitted by companies and individuals who are hoping it will make it into the kernel.

Obviously the GPL has had a great part in this success, as in practice it means that if company A wants to enhance Linux so that it works better for their needs, everyone else is legally entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour, of course the benefit for company A is that it will also be able to enjoy the enhancements made to Linux by company B, etc

If there is no legal 'incitament' for companies to release their enhancements, history shows us that they very seldom will, in particular if there is a competitive advantage to those enhancements. This is not surprising as a company is generally the equivalent of the most selfish and greedy person you can imagine.

Of course in a perfect world there would be no need for licences at all, not even something as permissive as BSD/MIT, but this is not a perfect world, and companies (and not so seldom individuals) won't play fair unless they have to.

This is what is 'sad but true'.

I know all of this rhetoric. And at the end of the day, most people and companies use Linux because it is free as in beer. When they do pay for it, its not because they want to help open source, its because they realize they don't want to maintain anything. They want to call someone up and have them fix it.

There is no such thing as "playing fair". There is winning and losing. Collaboration is only done when it suits you to win.