Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 329

Thread: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    The trouble of integrating of or integrating into 3rd party software is inevitable attribute of any closed source (proprietary) license.

    I don't see it as a problem of GPL. The license just does what it was designed to do - to protect freedom. It prevents the hostile takeover.


    And anyone claiming how "BSD would be better" have definitely zero clue. MacOSX is a living proof of your stupidity.

    Had Linux been BSD licensed, Nvidia would have forked, mixed it into own drivers and release it as Nvidia OS, under proprietary license.


    Nvidia does do very good drivers. But current situation is just their own fault in choosing wrong (proprietary) license.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dm-xterm View Post
    I just made an account because his comment was pointless, I was hoping I wouldn't be the only one to notice his problems were all his fault... "lets buy an expensive piece of equipment without confirming everything will work how I want, then blame someone else"...
    You need to shut up. NOW.

    I specifically bought an Optimus laptop to research approaches to solving Optimus on Linux. Why else did I spend so much time on the Bumblebee and Ubuntu Hybrid Graphics team?

    I also had expectations that PRIME and dma-buf would be adequate. The situation is arguably worse today since Nvidia is locked out of dma-buf and are making even their high-end GTX chips Optimus-only.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    You really don't get it. Want to use open source? Respect the fscking license at least! No need to call others names. Believe it or not but linux still would be doing well even if nvidia ceased to exist tomorrow.

    Btw nvidia are already violating linux kernel license, no matter if this symbols are changed or not. And they should really let their lawyers handle this and not the devs.
    Personally I'd only call names people calling others names.
    I respect all Linux developers of course, but I believe they could have had a better stance(more diplomatic). Who am I to know though. But mostly some anti-anything people could have a better stance.
    Yes, Linux wouldn't change much if NVIDIA ceased to exist, wouldn't say the same about their drivers ceasing to exist though ..

    **Haha, "fscking" .. fsck .. lol Took me a moment to get it.


    Quote Originally Posted by alexThunder View Post
    Yeah, I can see how a bigger amount of Linux users using NVidia blobs will make NVidia to go open.

    Or to be more general: More people not caring about open source and using proprietary software will do more good to open source than actually having and keeping things open?
    So you take it as a given that they won't care about open source. Not so unlikely, not all of them at least, and it would also mean more people who DO care. Well, making parts of the driver open could potentially have many benefits(instant support for new X.org, kernels, out of the box driver, etc). Maybe they'd care about that. Or MAYBE about the ones creating the thing with this larger user base?
    Or maybe they should drop their driver altogether, like some people here seem to suggest. That'd help nouveau too, now wouldn't it?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LLStarks View Post
    You need to shut up. NOW.

    I specifically bought an Optimus laptop to research approaches to solving Optimus on Linux. Why else did I spend so much time on the Bumblebee and Ubuntu Hybrid Graphics team?

    I also had expectations that PRIME and dma-buf would be adequate. The situation is arguably worse today since Nvidia is locked out of dma-buf and are making even their high-end GTX chips Optimus-only.
    If you bought it to research approaches.... if did your research, would the result be opensource or closed source?

    Because optimus does not exist in first place due to nvidia being closed source; and not releasing anything... its only them who are capable, yet they refused.

    GPL is designed to prevent exactly this, to prevent proprietary monopoly.

    And if they want to integrate anything tightly with open kernel, they should keep all relevant parts open as well. The kernel is protected by the license against abuse.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    No, open source or provide specs or GTFO.
    you are such a closed minded zealot ! amd gives specs , how well does the opensource driver work compared to the amd or nvidia blob ? do you really think specs would change the situation for noveau that mutch ?even with specs it would take years to be on par with the blob !

    users simply need the blob for everything more than basic 2d usage . And nobody buys an optimus laptops for that purpose ! alan cox move is a hit in the face for linux users . that's a fact .

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Hah.

    Quote Originally Posted by LLStarks View Post
    You need to shut up. NOW.

    I specifically bought an Optimus laptop to research approaches to solving Optimus on Linux. Why else did I spend so much time on the Bumblebee and Ubuntu Hybrid Graphics team?

    I also had expectations that PRIME and dma-buf would be adequate. The situation is arguably worse today since Nvidia is locked out of dma-buf and are making even their high-end GTX chips Optimus-only.
    So what you are saying is you knew what you were getting into before hand, and yet still whine about it... thats even worse... "I knew for a fact about it before hand, but I still have a right to whine about it not working..."

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigaldo View Post
    So you take it as a given that they won't care about open source. Not so unlikely, not all of them at least, and it would also mean more people who DO care. Well, making parts of the driver open could potentially have many benefits(instant support for new X.org, kernels, out of the box driver, etc). Maybe they'd care about that. Or MAYBE about the ones creating the thing with this larger user base?
    Or maybe they should drop their driver altogether, like some people here seem to suggest. That'd help nouveau too, now wouldn't it?
    Yeah and MAYBE the pixie of open source will become the new CEO of NVidia and open up everything they have.

    The only thing, which would improve, when we get more of these people is the number of entries in the bugtrackers.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freedam View Post
    A question - is it possible to make this available via syscalls?
    Probably.

    But then it would be pretty much written in stone and couldn't change easily to ensure backward compatibility. And Linux kernel guys are adamantly against this.

    The discussion about a stable driver API is a very old one, and it's unlikely that kernel devs are going to budge on it.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christian_frank View Post
    you are such a closed minded zealot ! amd gives specs , how well does the opensource driver work compared to the amd or nvidia blob ? do you really think specs would change the situation for noveau that mutch ?even with specs it would take years to be on par with the blob !
    Had you followed closely, you would understand, that AMD does not opensource properly.

    They do not provide all specs. This is why performance and functionality are REDUCED.

    Also, driver uses AtomBIOS rather than accessing hardware directly (what proprietary does).

    And opensource driver lacks efficient VLIW compiler, the original compiler is still used by proprietary catalyst, which is why 3d performance of opensource is reduced.

    Releasing *full* specs will help situation *a lot*.
    Working together with community on the driver, or funding *adequately* would accelerate the process, so we would see results in this era.

    This is how intel does it. The wrong things about intel - not using gallium and not having enough raw power in their hardware.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Also, driver uses AtomBIOS rather than accessing hardware directly (what proprietary does).
    Catalyst uses AtomBIOS, just like the FLOSS driver does.

Posting Permissions

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