Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 259 of 259

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    What the use the internet for depends on the person in my opinion more than the internet.
    Yep, guess I meant "the people posting on the internet" more than the actual collection of wires & routers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    I just don't like reading people who claim that their pc works perfect(or better than mine) cause it can do stuff like boot in an open way. 0_o **
    (^bad metaphor)
    So I reply .. And it results in reading more of it ..(logic) X_x
    Yeah, you have to be careful though -- some people really *do* get significantly different results from others because of seemingly trivial differences in their hardware or distro/version (eg degree of power management happiness is to some extent a function of what your HW vendor put in the VBIOS power tables).

    There is also a wide variety of usage patterns and some users really do find their priorities align pretty well with what the drivers implement today. Others find the exact opposite, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    Now please let us continue the trolling etc ..
    Yep

  2. #252
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yep, guess I meant "the people posting on the internet" more than the actual collection of wires & routers.



    Yeah, you have to be careful though -- some people really *do* get significantly different results from others because of seemingly trivial differences in their hardware or distro/version (eg degree of power management happiness is to some extent a function of what your HW vendor put in the VBIOS power tables).

    There is also a wide variety of usage patterns and some users really do find their priorities align pretty well with what the drivers implement today. Others find the exact opposite, of course.



    Yep
    I wasn't strictly talking about open drivers in that part actually, but more generally. I guess you're right though about differences between hardware.

  3. #253
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    You do realise that AMD is actively developing OSS drivers and releasing specifications, right?

    And it's not a "call" from the kernel devs. Binary blobs using internal kernel interfaces are probably illegal, and no "call" can change that (the legality would have to be tested in court, of course, but no "call" can affect that either).

    It's not like a kernel dev can make a "call" that will suddenly allow you to link binary blobs against GPL software.
    Yes, I do realise AMD is developing OSS drivers etc

    Calling "illegal" Binary blobs using internal kernel interfaces might be a stretch. It's a contract / license violation, and can only be enforced after pre-court examinations of the breach, and whether it meets sufficient legal conditions.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for opensource - I have released a fair bit of code, including an algorithm I could have patented/licensed and made a lot of money on, all as Public Domain, as I thought the GPL amongst others would be too restrictive for my intentions.

    However, GPL is good to protect certain things, I agree with it on those terms. But sometimes a little diplomacy is needed. Linus applied that to some things too.
    There's LGPL which a lot of developers use because GPL is too restrictive, and they want their libraries to have a wider use.

    Programmers have to eat too - it's all very well to say "give away what you do for free" while on corporate welfare (r.e. Stallman et al) - but it's a complex world and society where the rest of us have to produce work to get paid. Let's take a different ecosystem - the independent developers making a living off their work on Android Market; if they were to release their code, they would no longer have that advantage (after countless copies earning $0.01) and would probably quit and join a large corp, or take up road-sweeping as a side job instead of pursuing what they like to do and be able to feed themselves and their family.

    Hence a little diplomacy towards nVidia at least; I have found their email support for Linux exemplary (AMD have been terrible on that front). They have programmers to pay, and they have licenses to protect. That's the way it is. Why kick them in the teeth when they are trying to find the best compromise for us?


    P.S. I bet Win/Mac users are laughing their heads off at the bickering :P
    Last edited by pixelpusher; 10-18-2012 at 08:07 AM.

  4. #254

    Default New developements.

    Where do new developments happen? Nvdidas lab? No. New developements happens everywhere. Such as this idea i hereby release into the GPL zone.

    You can do antialiasing completely without additional resource-use, did you know? If you use a technique, such as r_jitter in doom3, (there are probably several ways of doing this), this itself increases the percieved resolution, and then you can merge the previous frame, with some transparency, and maybe the frame before with even more transparency, which will composite to antialiasing. The absolutely cheapest way of doing antialiasing.

    Now how do I get this into the nvidia-driver? How much bureacracy much happen? If they listen at all? And if I didn`t gpl it, would they just hide it inside their closedsource driver?

    It really comes down to what benefits mankind doesn`t it.
    It`s a bit fun, Einstein said, e=mc2. So what is money? The energy in the universe is constant.
    Well it does also sound like a pantheistic argument, so I am not going to go to deep into it.
    But it is all about how you think about something. Society will still run, and go well, even if Nvidia opensources their driver. It`s just paradigms that must change.

    Peace Be With You.

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Where do new developments happen? Nvdidas lab? No. New developements happens everywhere. Such as this idea i hereby release into the GPL zone.

    You can do antialiasing completely without additional resource-use, did you know? If you use a technique, such as r_jitter in doom3, (there are probably several ways of doing this), this itself increases the percieved resolution, and then you can merge the previous frame, with some transparency, and maybe the frame before with even more transparency, which will composite to antialiasing. The absolutely cheapest way of doing antialiasing.

    Now how do I get this into the nvidia-driver? How much bureacracy much happen? If they listen at all? And if I didn`t gpl it, would they just hide it inside their closedsource driver?

    It really comes down to what benefits mankind doesn`t it.
    It`s a bit fun, Einstein said, e=mc2. So what is money? The energy in the universe is constant.
    Well it does also sound like a pantheistic argument, so I am not going to go to deep into it.
    But it is all about how you think about something. Society will still run, and go well, even if Nvidia opensources their driver. It`s just paradigms that must change.

    Peace Be With You.
    Well .. The thing is NVIDIA(and AMD) literally CAN'T opensource their driver, even if they wanted too .. Or at least much of it.
    As paradigms change, it might slowly become possible though.
    If I am not mistaken, even Intel has to reverse engineer their own product .. :|

    Why? Because not everything in their hardware/software(drivers) is completely theirs for example, so there are licensing issues with 3rd parties and such from what I perceive. Among other things.

  6. #256
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    Well .. The thing is NVIDIA(and AMD) literally CAN'T opensource their driver, even if they wanted too .. Or at least much of it.
    As paradigms change, it might slowly become possible though.
    If I am not mistaken, even Intel has to reverse engineer their own product .. :|

    Why? Because not everything in their hardware/software(drivers) is completely theirs for example, so there are licensing issues with 3rd parties and such from what I perceive. Among other things.


    They can use the entire MESA, Intel's work and LLVM with a proper and full back-end, and create very easy, an Open Driver with 70-90% the performance of the Closed one. Then they can use the latest OGL4 work as a Closed Extension Driver for the Open one. When we say Extension Driver we mean only Shader Compilers, FX and Programs for the Rasterizer(synthesizer), not any Driver Functionality like memory management, that should be Open.

  7. #257
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    They can use the entire MESA, Intel's work and LLVM with a proper and full back-end, and create very easy, an Open Driver with 70-90% the performance of the Closed one. Then they can use the latest OGL4 work as a Closed Extension Driver for the Open one. When we say Extension Driver we mean only Shader Compilers, FX and Programs for the Rasterizer(synthesizer), not any Driver Functionality like memory management, that should be Open.
    When making business decisions, one also has to consider costs vs. benefits.

  8. #258
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    They can use the entire MESA, Intel's work and LLVM with a proper and full back-end, and create very easy, an Open Driver with 70-90% the performance of the Closed one. Then they can use the latest OGL4 work as a Closed Extension Driver for the Open one. When we say Extension Driver we mean only Shader Compilers, FX and Programs for the Rasterizer(synthesizer), not any Driver Functionality like memory management, that should be Open.
    If it truly is possible to do so, I wish they would do so and everyone would be satisfied. Still the "DIE NVIDIA" style won't help much, so I hope people don't keep acting like that.
    I believe, may be wrong, but I do, that using DMA-BUF is a step towards the direction you say. I hope things play out well for Optimus users in whatever way.

  9. #259
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    If it truly is possible to do so, I wish they would do so and everyone would be satisfied. Still the "DIE NVIDIA" style won't help much, so I hope people don't keep acting like that.
    I believe, may be wrong, but I do, that using DMA-BUF is a step towards the direction you say. I hope things play out well for Optimus users in whatever way.


    Nvidia wants to explore the entire GPL for their next Fusion product "Denver", they even have their own Distribution inside their labs. They must not get anything without give something back. To respect every one else its the first step towards. You can't just take right or good from wrong.

Posting Permissions

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