Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

[asdx]

Bullshit, they are the exact opposite as they DON'T give NVidia any special favours, NVIDIA are hypocrites, they don't want to open their driver but they think they should have the benefits of open drivers, in other words they think the world owes them the right to have the cake and eat it.

Exactly, fuck them. Let's remain firm, they won't have DMA-BUF, code or specs or GTFO.

[Gigetto96]

The problem is OpenGL itself : the reference implementation of OpenGL drivers IS CLOSED. Anybody who wants to develop a real OpenGL driver, looks at that reference code, and IS FORCED TO MAKE A CLOSED DRIVER.

STOP with stupid hate against NVIDIA.
It is not a fault of NVIDIA, if they wanted to develop an official OpenGL driver. Do you want an open source driver? Ok, but it will be a Mesa driver, programmed by people who had not access to the OpenGL reference code, and it will be slow and shitty like other current open source driver.

So the bad guys are not the NVIDIA guys, but the KRONOS group, who keep CLOSED the ironically named OpenGL...
If Kronos group decided to open for real the OpenGL, we could have excellent drivers for Linux.

I am personally fed up of reading every week these discussions...

[XorEaxEax]

The hardware is lacking.

I think you should take a look at the sale numbers of triple-A, graphically demanding titles over the years. How is that a "a small portion?"

And how many are playing those on ricer machines at highest settings? Again Linux only needs to be able to play these games at full speed, which would be 30 or 60fps depending on game and with a good enough visual quality. It doesn't matter if you get 105fps or 155fps in an unthrottled benchmark mode when it comes to being able to enjoy playing the game (unless of course you are a ricer and take personal pride in how many fps your rig can muster).

And? Where in the GPL's text is a distinction made between kernel and user space?

Nowhere, what is your point? If you are again referring to user-space glibc, it is licenced as LGPL which means you can link to it without having to licence your program as GPL. This is a different licence than the modified GPLv2 which the Linux kernel is licenced under.

Unless I missed the news, NVidia did not release a driver that uses DMABUF. If you've seen one, then yes, it would be a figment of your imagination.

Of course not, they also haven't released a driver using other kernel functionality marked as EXPORT_GPL, yet the proprietary driver works, how about that!

I can use my hardware just fine. NVidia seems to respect their paying customers.

Only if you use their hardware on the operating systems they see fit to support, and you call this 'respect'. However when the kernel devs say they won't support proprietary drivers wanting to interact with the kernel you call this 'bigotry'. You are the hypocrite.

NVidia doesn't request special treatment. They request fair treatment.

They get what they give, again they provide drivers under 'their conditions and only compatible with systems they deem worthy', they are treated likewise by the kernel devs, thus they are getting 'fair treatment'.

I don't care about licenses. I care that the products I buy with my money are working.

Both my machines have NVidia cards in them (9800GT) and they work just fine with Nouveau. Now if by 'working' you really mean not getting the same performance you get with the proprietary drivers then by all means use the proprietary drivers.

[asdx]

The problem is OpenGL itself : the reference implementation of OpenGL drivers IS CLOSED. Anybody who wants to develop a real OpenGL driver, looks at that reference code, and IS FORCED TO MAKE A CLOSED DRIVER.

STOP with stupid hate against NVIDIA.
It is not a fault of NVIDIA, if they wanted to develop an official OpenGL driver. Do you want an open source driver? Ok, but it will be a Mesa driver, programmed by people who had not access to the OpenGL reference code, and it will be slow and shitty like other current open source driver.

So the bad guys are not the NVIDIA guys, but the KRONOS group, who keep CLOSED the ironically named OpenGL...
If Kronos group decided to open for real the OpenGL, we could have excellent drivers for Linux.

I am personally fed up of reading every week these discussions...

I'm not sure how Khronos Group operates, but assuming that they are at fault as you say they are, and even if they released everything, Nvidia would still be the assholes they are now, and they still wouldn't release the hardware docs that nouveau developers need to improve the driver. So if Khronos Group is at fault then so is Nvidia.

Stop trying to put band-aid on a gaping wound.

Sigh.

Nvidia won't use DMA-BUF. Period.

[Gigetto96]

I'm not sure how Khronos Group operates, but assuming that they are at fault as you say they are, and even if they released everything, Nvidia would still be the assholes they are now, and they still wouldn't release the hardware docs that nouveau developers need to improve the driver. So if Khronos Group is at fault then so is Nvidia.

Stop trying to put band-aid on a gaping wound.

Sigh.

Nvidia won't use DMA-BUF. Period.

If the problem was only the hardware documentation, ATI/AMD should have excellent open source drivers. But this is not the case. Actually, also the decent Intel drivers are slower than the Windows ones. Why? Because there are some more advanced software tricks in the closed reference implementation of OpenGL, I think.
And the open source drivers developers are struggling to re-invent today many things that already exist from many years, but that were never published.

So at the moment: no closed source = no official OpenGL driver = no serious Linux use in modern graphics fields. And now that OpenCL is becoming popular, the situation is even worse...

[asdx]

If the problem was only the hardware documentation, ATI/AMD should have excellent open source drivers. But this is not the case. Actually, also the decent Intel drivers are slower than the Windows ones. Why? Because there are some more advanced software tricks in the closed reference implementation of OpenGL, I think.
And the open source drivers developers are struggling to re-invent today many things that already exist from many years, but that were never published.

So at the moment: no closed source = no official OpenGL driver = no serious Linux use in modern graphics fields. And now that OpenCL is becoming popular, the situation is even worse...

In that case, NVIDIA should be paying engineers to be working with the Linux kernel developers. Nvidia should be investing in engineers to work solely in open source (the kernel, mesa, nouveau, etc). They should have teams working in documentation and making them public. They should be doing what Valve and Intel are doing now.

AMD and NVIDIA don't give a shit about open source, that's the problem. They expect people like us to code the whole drivers and do all the work for them, without docs or with incomplete docs, for free, and that's not a fair game.

Things would be a lot better if everyone played fair. Why is it so hard to play fair?

Linux is not a magical wizard that will make everything work well alone and by itself, those corporations don't give a shit about Linux, that's the problem, they are greedy, assholes, and the consumer have to put up with their crap because there are no better alternatives. I wish things would change for the better, but sometimes I lose hope.

Maybe things will turn out to be better with Steam, and I find it to be a good thing that the kernel devs are being firm with their decision on the DMA-BUF thing, they shouldn't let NVIDIA touch this, let them fuck themselves in their own dirty game.

What will happen here is that Nouveau will get optimus support first than Nvidia (blob), Nouveau will be able to handle optimus with DMA-BUF and the blob won't. Nouveau will get the reclocking and will get better performance. Nouveau will get Wayland support, etc.

Nvidia will only dream of getting Optimus support in their blob.

Nvidia is pathetic, seriously.

[artivision]

The problem is OpenGL itself : the reference implementation of OpenGL drivers IS CLOSED. Anybody who wants to develop a real OpenGL driver, looks at that reference code, and IS FORCED TO MAKE A CLOSED DRIVER.

STOP with stupid hate against NVIDIA.
It is not a fault of NVIDIA, if they wanted to develop an official OpenGL driver. Do you want an open source driver? Ok, but it will be a Mesa driver, programmed by people who had not access to the OpenGL reference code, and it will be slow and shitty like other current open source driver.

So the bad guys are not the NVIDIA guys, but the KRONOS group, who keep CLOSED the ironically named OpenGL...
If Kronos group decided to open for real the OpenGL, we could have excellent drivers for Linux.

I am personally fed up of reading every week these discussions...

OK agent, I'm this close to $#@! you. The entire page of comments is irrelevant and wrong because are based to you comment that is also wrong. The reference implementation of OpenGL drivers IS OPEN. Anybody is welcome to look at the reference code (there is not actual code, just some precode = how it works + standards for binary compatibility), without the need to Open or Close anything. Its Nvidias fault and AMDs also: With HD5000 AMD it self said that they will try with HD8000 to have only Open drivers. Fuck both. If only i wasn't gamer!

[artivision]

The hardware is lacking.



I think you should take a look at the sale numbers of triple-A, graphically demanding titles over the years. How is that a "a small portion?"


And? Where in the GPL's text is a distinction made between kernel and user space?



Unless I missed the news, NVidia did not release a driver that uses DMABUF. If you've seen one, then yes, it would be a figment of your imagination.


I can use my hardware just fine. NVidia provides me with a working driver and good customer support. I gave them my money, so that's what I expected from them. AMD on the other hand, took my money, gave me no working driver and no good support. Instead, they tell me how they gave me a bunch of useless source code. What am I supposed to do with that? Write the drivers myself? I paid them so that they give me finished, well working drivers.

NVidia did that, AMD didn't. IMO, AMD is doing the immoral thing here, not NVidia. NVidia seems to respect their paying customers.

I don't care about licenses. I care that the products I buy with my money are working.



The GPL does not make a distinction between user and kernelspace.



NVidia doesn't request special treatment. They request fair treatment.



NVidia does not want to use open code in their drivers. Where did you see that? What they need is to communicate with the kernel.

Again: The GPL does not know what a "kernel" is. There's no distinction between a proprietary userspace program using a glibc API, and a proprietary driver using a kernel API.

Nvidia does want to use the entire GPL with their next fusion product. They even have their own Linux distribution inside their labs.

[boast]

ricer gamers? ricer machines? Yes, we know PC gaming is big in Korea and Japan, but is the racism really needed?

[bridgman]

And? Where in the GPL's text is a distinction made between kernel and user space?

It's in the first paragraph of the (modified) GPL license at the top of the Linux kernel source code tree :

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Linus Torvalds

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied...ING?h=drm-next

With HD5000 AMD it self said that they will try with HD8000 to have only Open drivers.

"Citation needed"

What we said was that with HD8000 we would try to have open source driver support at launch time. Nothing about eliminating Catalyst support.