Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 281

Thread: Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_%28software%29

    Now tell Nvidia to get onboard.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    +++++++++++++++

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    Then someone come up with an idea that doesn't involve relicensing anyone's code that allows optimus to be used by the USERs?

    Detail it below.
    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.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    So, GPL doesn't mean freedom for the users? It means a few strong armed people get to make decisions for everyone else? Then the GPL means nothing but another way for people to control and menipulate each other. Alan might as well patent it and start sueing other implemetations, becuase he is as bad as Apple/Microsoft.
    GPL is what is called "copyleft". It uses copyright laws to enforce the license. It's pretty much the polar opposite of traditional copyright, but the enforcement is just as strict. For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work. If someone redistributes something that is under traditional copyright, authors can and will sue them. If someone doesn't redistribute something that is under a strong copyleft, authors can and will sue them. So yes, GPL is strict and it is a way to control and manipulate. The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    722

    Default

    Doesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.

    Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    DMA_BUF is NOT an external interface used by userspace, it is an internal kernel-only interface between in-kernel modules.
    Xorg is planning of using it as part of dri3.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    For instance, under traditional copyright, people must not redistribute the copyright work. Under GPL, people must redistribute the copyright work.
    No no no.

    If you modify GPL software, you don't have to redistribute anything. But if you CHOOSE to redistribute, then the resulting code must also be GPL.

    You can combine GPL software and proprietary software to your heart's content, as long as you don't distribute the result to others. GPL is a distribution license.

    The difference is that GPL is used to keep the code open at all times and at all costs.
    No, GPL is used to ensure that if you receive software, you keep the right to modify and redistribute it under GPL terms. It doesn't say anything about the case where you keep the code for yourself and don't pass it on.

    This is very important, because the "viral" FUD bullshit is based on such false premises. GPL doesn't force you to do anything with your code. It only governs the redistribution of code based on GPL code. If you want to distribute versions of GPLed code, it has to be under the GPL.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorBlux View Post
    Xorg is planning of using it as part of dri3.
    I don't think they're going to use the kernel interfaces directly, but I'd appreciate a link clarifying how exactly this is supposed to happen.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Doesn't bode well for Android, unless Google has their own method.

    Of course iOS and WinRT won't be encumbered with insanity, so they won't have any problem implementing such a mechanism.
    Linux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).

    Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Linux has had these exact policies all this time and yet Android is the best-selling smartphone OS in the world and nexus 7 is bound to have made Android a good dent in the tablet space, so much for being 'encumbered with insanity'. If Google needs to provide such a 'method' for proprietary drivers then yes, they are fully capable of implementing this, it won't be a 'problem'. Your continued trolling of 'oh god, if Linux doesn't make it easy for proprietary drivers it will fail anytime now' is as hollow as it ever was (and yet you keep on repeating the same bs like a broken record, it's almost as if you had an agenda...).

    Linux success is obviously tied to it's great out-of-the-box support for hardware in all forms which is exactly what their no-binary-drivers-in-kernel-space policy has brought. Again we have NVidia as the last big holdout, and it's discrete gpu heydays are quickly coming to an end on the desktop. Desktop users in general will look on discrete gpu's the way we nowadays snicker at the voodoo architecture which is what nvidia once replaced, as something arcane and obsolete.
    lol... ok. you win teh internets for the day.

Posting Permissions

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