Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

[kgonzales]

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.

I don't see how anything you said invalidated anything I said.

People were posting that Linux is designed to give users their freedom, and I said that is crap, people just want something for free that works. They will gladly download Ubuntu and complain that it doesn't make their randomly purchased laptop look good enough compared to Windows which to them was also free since it came with the laptop.

Companies will buy plenty of servers than load Linux on there, pay nothing for support or development, and contribute nothing to support or development. They only care that Linux was free to them, so they can blow the cash elsewhere.

NVidia has produced a driver that many companies who DO pay for Linux and DO perform high level graphics work need to continue to do so. However, issues like this was why Windows is making up big time in the high end workstation space.

[RealNC]

I call bullshit, what determines 'bad' performance? Not as good as under Windows? OSX would be dead in the water then.

OS X *is* dead in the water. The only computer gaming platform right now is Windows.

Valve has shown that gaming on Linux works, showing better performance in their opengl tests compared to Windows.

With proprietary drivers. Unless you mean Intel, which is only able to run old games (L4D is an old game.)

High performance gaming on Windows means you can get 60FPS with high resolutions and maximum details on a demanding game released this year.

You are obviously the one living in a fantasy world.

Benchmarks say otherwise.

What? The kernel devs have had the exact same position long before Intel and AMD even started dabbling in GPGPU solutions, the reason Linux enjoys such a strong hardware support out-of-the-box is a direct result of their hardnose stance.

I don't buy any of your arguments. With that logic, the kernel should not provide any GPL exceptions at all, so that you wouldn't be able to run GPL incompatible software on it. That way, userspace software vendors would open source their products. Yeah, I can see *that* one working.

No. The kernel is a required, low level component of the OS. Just like the GPL itself provides a built-in exception for using low-level proprietary OS components with GPL software without resulting in a GPL violation, so should the kernel do the reverse. The NVidia driver is a driver, and thus cannot work reliably outside kernel space. Forbidding them from using kernel interfaces is immoral. Why is it OK that I can run a GPL app on Windows, which links against Microsoft's C library, but I can't have a proprietary driver making use of an interface of a GPL kernel?

In my eyes, what the kernel devs are doing is plain bigotry. The kernel is a required component and you cannot work around it. If you're not allowing proprietary vendors to use it in order to be able to offer support and stay competitive in the licensing policy of their choice, then you're being a bigot. If NVidia isn't allowed to interface with the kernel, then Google shouldn't be allowed either. Much of the Android stack is proprietary, yet no one sees a problem with the Linux kernel sitting at the center of it. And NVidia isn't actually even modifying the kernel, let alone distribute it. It's not like they have changed the kernel and refuse to GPL their changesets. The only thing they're trying to do is to use an interface.

Hypocrites.

[kgonzales]

OS X *is* dead in the water. The only computer gaming platform right now is Windows.

It's not completely terrible. Windows is by far the best overall option, given the driver quality and the game choices. OS X is hamstrung by both, plus the inability to get the highest end graphics hardware possible. But I can play some MMOs and strategy games without a big deal on OSX. Newer MBP/MBPr platforms are using the GeForce 650M. The real problem is the lack of high end graphics in the iMac and Mac Pro.

Now iOS on the other hand is becoming quite a monster of a gaming platform. But that is another thing entirely.

Hypocrites.

Agreed. Painful double standard here.

[Rigaldo]

People were posting that Linux is designed to give users their freedom, and I said that is crap, people just want something for free that works. They will gladly download Ubuntu and complain that it doesn't make their randomly purchased laptop look good enough compared to Windows which to them was also free since it came with the laptop.

What if I told you that pre-installed Windows is not free? 0_0

[kgonzales]

What if I told you that pre-installed Windows is not free? 0_0

While you are technically correct, the reality is that it makes no difference. It comes with most of the desktops or laptops people purchase, and is therefore perceived as free. If I build my own hardware, then yes I need to buy my own copy of Windows and know the costs. But how many people do that? Very few.

Further, that pre-installed Windows is also configured to work with all the wizz-bang features of the hardware. When someone wipes Windows off the system and replaces it with Linux, they find that not everything "just works". Then Linux sucks to them, and they go back to Windows. Linux is no longer free, because they wasted a bunch of time and effort on it.

[entropy]

It [Windows license] comes with most of the desktops or laptops people purchase, and is therefore perceived as free.

If you're stupid... yes.

[kgonzales]

If you're stupid... yes.

And some wonder why people think the Linux community is full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else...

Its because the so-called Linux community IS full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else.

Thanks for making that clear again to everyone.

Of course, you can't show me where people can purchase non-Windows bearing hardware which is less expensive than buying a mass-market computer with Windows pre-installed... no, you can only say people are stupid.

[Rigaldo]

While you are technically correct, the reality is that it makes no difference. It comes with most of the desktops or laptops people purchase, and is therefore perceived as free. If I build my own hardware, then yes I need to buy my own copy of Windows and know the costs. But how many people do that? Very few.

Further, that pre-installed Windows is also configured to work with all the wizz-bang features of the hardware. When someone wipes Windows off the system and replaces it with Linux, they find that not everything "just works". Then Linux sucks to them, and they go back to Windows. Linux is no longer free, because they wasted a bunch of time and effort on it.

I understand what you say, and I guess that in machines with Linux pre-installed, this could be reversed, in a certain degree at least.
That doesn't necessarily mean that one OS has a disadvantage or advantage over the other, but to the user it might seem like it. For example I might have to tell the Linux kernel that "aspm=force" through the bootloader, but on Windows someone else did it for you(the corresponding tweak) and called it, let's say, "Asus Smart Battery" and tell you it's a software developed by the company that helps make better usage of your hardware. xD
(I made up the last one randomly to clarify.)
But how would the user tell? Or care I guess .. :/
I believe that it will get much better soon though with some things things I'm reading and most things will be able to pretty much just work, even if no-one does it for you(or an OEM at least etc). Hopefully things will indeed go well in this part. Besides, more machines with Ubuntu pre-installed will be available in the next years it seems.

[artivision]

And some wonder why people think the Linux community is full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else...

Its because the so-called Linux community IS full of self-righteous assholes who think they are better than everyone else.

Thanks for making that clear again to everyone.

Of course, you can't show me where people can purchase non-Windows bearing hardware which is less expensive than buying a mass-market computer with Windows pre-installed... no, you can only say people are stupid.

In EU i have the right to buy any laptop or desktop and return the windows license saving 50eu. And at least these assholes, they take pride from something important.

[kgonzales]

I understand what you say, and I guess that in machines with Linux pre-installed, this could be reversed, in a certain degree at least.
That doesn't necessarily mean that one OS has a disadvantage or advantage over the other, but to the user it might seem like it. For example I might have to tell the Linux kernel that "aspm=force" through the bootloader, but on Windows someone else did it for you(the corresponding tweak) and called it, let's say, "Asus Smart Battery" and tell you it's a software developed by the company that helps make better usage of your hardware. xD
(I made up the last one randomly to clarify.)
But how would the user tell? Or care I guess .. :/
I believe that it will get much better soon though with some things things I'm reading and most things will be able to pretty much just work, even if no-one does it for you(or an OEM at least etc). Hopefully things will indeed go well in this part. Besides, more machines with Ubuntu pre-installed will be available in the next years it seems.

Exactly. Companies like System76 do a lot of work to make the process of using Linux on a laptop or desktop "just work". They smooth over many of the rough edges of the OS, in the same way that Asus smooths over Windows installs for users.

Users don't care. They just want things to work. Honestly that is part of this move to tablets and smartphones. They tend to be much easier to use and straightforward to maintain than a computer, regardless of the OS.

Some parts of Linux are much more user friendly than before. The oft maligned X.org server, for example, no longer requires the archaic xorg.conf file. In general, it can configure everything dynamically. In other places, tho, like the transition from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3, where numerous functionality regressions were caused in the move and are not yet fixed, users can be very very frustrated. Windows has tended to have fewer of these regressions (tho they screw up too... WinXP to Vista...) and they have many more companies smoothing the rough edges.