Page 32 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2230313233 LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 329

Thread: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #311
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    I don't have, nor would I buy, that acer motherboard just so I could coreboot it... that would be a waste.


    Your argument about the intel wifi firmware did indeed defeat mine, I had no idea and thought they were open source as their gfx are.


    I know there are more important issues at hand like people getting deprived of their freedoms IRL and software freedom seems silly compared to that, I counter with the following point: It is this fucking multi national huge corporations like microsoft or intel that play a key role in the sad state of things that our western consumer societies became.

    Any and all, chance you have to stay away from them is a chance you should grasp.

    but I see your point, the only option being buying extremely niche and expensive computers from china.




    at this stage might as well release a distro with the nvidia proprietary drivers already in it and steam and all sorts of proprietary drivers, I'm sure it would be quite a sucess

  2. #312
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    at this stage might as well release a distro with the nvidia proprietary drivers already in it and steam and all sorts of proprietary drivers, I'm sure it would be quite a sucess
    did happen, not with steam but nvidia and amd drivers, search for knoppix gaming live cd or something like that... but its illigal to do that, its one thing to make it easy for ubuntu that the user can easily self-install a closed source driver or to press both on one iso image and release it for downloading...

    but again I understand you and most of your arguemnts are true... I did not know about that nasty firmwares long times too. its kind of a small betrail, because I thought linux is opensource (only). and that gpl forbits to press unfree and free stuff on one cd and especialy that combinations of a kernel which loads or uses closedsource stuff would not be ok... but I was wrong too...


    You have to make the right dosage of freedom you can make peace with at least for the midterm... and look out for stuff that goes further even knowledge hinders us for freedom like we see here we both did not know enough to even take aktion to get (more) freedom, because we did not even know that we used closedsource blobs... from evil companies.

    I think we have the wrong system so we can either be totaly unsocial or unfree or unemployed and just free to die...

    capitalism is good till a point, then you have at least patch it... we try to solve the problems from today with the solutions that brought us this problems... till that does not change... nothing change for good at all...

  3. #313

    Default Double-standard

    Quote Originally Posted by tehehe View Post
    Haha yeah. I mean if proprietary vendors can't use this interface then what is even the point of it?
    Ummm... for open-source devs to use it? No?

    Quote Originally Posted by tehehe View Post
    Personally I don't wish bad things for Cox. He is great asset. I just think he should be glad that nvidia wants to use MORE open source in their drivers instead of reinventing the wheel behind closed doors.
    Don't you see the ironic double-standard in that remark? Nothing is preventing nVidia from using more open source in their drivers, except that they go to some pains to keep their drivers proprietary. And now they want to still have the privileges that come from being open-source, while actually remaining proprietary.

    If nVidea isn't willing to fulfil their side of the bargain (ie. the code-sharing obligations of the GPL) then they aren't allowed to claim the benefits (integrating other people's GPL code, into their software) either. Many parties donated their code under the GPL license terms precisely because they wanted to be sure such private appropriation couldn't happen to their work, code provided to all who were willing to share freely.

    - - -

    PS: Yeah, it kind of sucks for users who just want to play the latest graphics-heavy games on their Linux PCs, and that's too bad.

    PPS: But lets not blame the guys who just want the reasonable, principled, carefully-constructed and fairly agreed-upon deal to be kept -- especially when they don't have any right to change the deal, or any power to change the deal. Even supposing they wanted to (and it's understandable that they wouldn't, when that would arguably undermine a major purpose of their work.

  4. #314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D0pamine View Post
    proper drivers? module taints kernel!!!!! GNU/Linux gaming is stillborn? i play games no problem!!!! pragmatic? why does X,Y,Z developer have to bend over for a corporation!!! hobbyist? go on say 'Desktop market share' i dare you :P
    Why?

    Because many people don't understand the difference between pragmatism and expediency, and think that "pragmatic" and "expedient" are synonyms.

    Which is strange, because "expediency" still has a strong negative connotation, while "pragmatism" has a positive one. Less strangely, people don't like to admit they're taking the expedient choice, and so they claim it's just pragmatism -- or even boast about how they're being so pragmatic...

    In fact, from a user perspective, the GPL is more often the not actually the truly pragmatic route, because it is conscientiously focused on preserving the freedom of the users (often a.k.a. the "owners" who actually buy the products) to use their own property how they wish to -- rather than preserving the freedom of the vendors to control what people can do with their own property even after they've paid for it.

    Some people are more easily distracted by cool new toys than others, and easily persuaded to overlook their own long-term interests for a somewhat faster, easier, "cooler" or more convenient technological gimmick in the short run.

    Letting nVidia get it's way in this matter would be the more expedient choice for some users -- in the short run we'd get somewhat easier and smoother drivers for more powerful graphics chips -- but in the long run (heck, even in the medium run) our computing lives would suffer, even if measuring the deterioration might be harder to pin down clearly).

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    - - - - - - - - - - -
    Change of topic:

    But from a Linux kernel developer's perspective, it could be much worse, even in the short run; because they would no longer know (could not know) for sure, precisely what the code in their kernel actually is doing, they wouldn't be able to look into the code, step through it to see where/how things are going wrong, or determine the best way to modify or add functionality. That's why Linux kernel devs decline to debug kernels "tainted" with proprietary drivers. They'd be more like nuclear physicists -- smashing stuff together and hoping to learn something useful from how the debris gets thrown out -- than like software programmers; and that's not a sane way to write or debug or work on complex kernel code... especially if it's your own kernel.

    So no one should expect the Linux kernel devs to see letting closed code into the kernel as "pragmatic" -- they're the ones that would actually have to deal with the real consequences, and they know better. For Linux kernel devs, this isn't even "expedient", it's just begging for trouble.
    Last edited by Bernard Swiss; 12-31-2012 at 04:33 AM.

  5. #315
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernard Swiss View Post
    So no one should expect the Linux kernel devs to see letting closed code into the kernel as "pragmatic"
    I don't think NVIDIA made such a request though. I think what they asked for was the label "EXPORT_SYMBOL" rather than "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" on the DMA-BUF functions, so that they can make invocations on those functions from their driver as I presume they do with other cases. But whether or not there's a legitimate legal difference between these two markers is highly questionable it seems.

    However, and I don't know if it's considered pragmatic or something else, but Linus has acknowledged that the Linux ecosystem should make a way for proprietary software, including proprietary drivers, to participate.

    The problem I have with your criticism of proprietary software is that you're saying that a software developer such as myself does not have a right to his intellectual property, and that providing a product to an end-user should necessarily entail the developer giving up his IP rights. Whether or not that's truly best for the end-user is questionable, and I think it depends on the software. I do think there are examples where it's clearly superior for the end-user, and other examples where it's inferior. A mix of both open and closed seems to truly be "pragmatic".

  6. #316
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    A mix of both open and closed seems to truly be "pragmatic".
    Its maybe in short term pragmatic for the user but not for linux itself... even that its allowed to write such drivers and release it... closed source drivers I mean, does harm really hard the reputation of linux. Why is that so... what happens if a noob tries out linux... he says aih I get asked if I want to install the "better" or faster nvidia drivers at the first start... oh yes of course... tahts the normal way windows does it that way so that must be the normal thing to do everywhere...

    What happens next it causes massive problems instabilities... even black screens after boot in some cases etc. What happens next... the user deinstalls linux und whines everywhere how bad linux is. When this Closedsource drivers would be kind of banned not allowed to make any interface changes to the kernel and would not be allowed to be easily installed through such restricted-driver-management tools... the user would boot intel pc perfekt experince... linux is great... they would boot amd hardware... no problems... ok not so fast so amd is to blame. then they would boot nvidia stuff (and that would be especialy true in the time before nouvou drivers got released) they would see a black screen or some vesa drivers or something... they would say... ohh nvidia sucks because they as only company dont release any drivers to linux.

    Then nobody who would want to do anything with linux would buy nvidia card... Nvidia is the weekest market player anyway today... as grafic-chip/card seller... they would hopefully get bankrupt... or they would release a driver finaly...

    long story short point... the mega-buggy closed source drivers harms the reputation of linux... anybody will blame linux for each bug you get using this because peoples head are streamlined with windows-world-thinking...

  7. #317
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    Its maybe in short term pragmatic for the user but not for linux itself... even that its allowed to write such drivers and release it... closed source drivers I mean, does harm really hard the reputation of linux. Why is that so... what happens if a noob tries out linux... he says aih I get asked if I want to install the "better" or faster nvidia drivers at the first start... oh yes of course... tahts the normal way windows does it that way so that must be the normal thing to do everywhere...

    What happens next it causes massive problems instabilities... even black screens after boot in some cases etc. What happens next... the user deinstalls linux und whines everywhere how bad linux is. When this Closedsource drivers would be kind of banned not allowed to make any interface changes to the kernel and would not be allowed to be easily installed through such restricted-driver-management tools... the user would boot intel pc perfekt experince... linux is great... they would boot amd hardware... no problems... ok not so fast so amd is to blame. then they would boot nvidia stuff (and that would be especialy true in the time before nouvou drivers got released) they would see a black screen or some vesa drivers or something... they would say... ohh nvidia sucks because they as only company dont release any drivers to linux.

    Then nobody who would want to do anything with linux would buy nvidia card... Nvidia is the weekest market player anyway today... as grafic-chip/card seller... they would hopefully get bankrupt... or they would release a driver finaly...

    long story short point... the mega-buggy closed source drivers harms the reputation of linux... anybody will blame linux for each bug you get using this because peoples head are streamlined with windows-world-thinking...
    While I recognize many of the problems you're referring to, and have had some of them happen to me, I don't think these problems are inherent to closed source (see OS X, Windows, Android, etc. as counter-examples). Most of these problems appear to be due to a lack of testing, bugs, or ridiculous design decisions made outside of the driver... typically in OSS or distro mechanisms.

    For example, with a stock install of Ubuntu 12.10, the user can not install the NVIDIA driver without crippling his desktop. Why? Because Canonical has been mailing it in for quite a few releases these days. Why should the concept of a "closed source" driver be blamed for what is clearly an error from the OS vendor? Lightdm was another situation. If it attempted to bring up the display manager before Xorg was loaded... kaboom... the user was screwed with a blank screen. How is that the fault of a closed driver? I had a fun time troubleshooting that one. In some of these cases it's impossible to believe that there was any testing at all.

    I also take exception with the idea that NVIDIA is the weakest market player. First, they have the best Linux driver (fact). Second, they are actually in strong footing in the GPU market. They have far superior GPUs to those of Intel and AMD as a company isn't exactly enjoying financial bliss.

    And, with all of the frustrations I experience with Linux (which fortunately aren't too often), it's hardly ever NVIDIA that I'm shaking my fist at.

    Dare I say, the big problem with "Linux" (from a noob perspective) is that these distributions are all beta (or even alpha) releases. There is NO quality assurance being applied, and that's just blunt and to the point. Look at how many times there are versions released with show-stopping bugs and regressions that would have been picked up had a formal regression testing phase been followed. Even an LTS like 12.04 shipped with major cluster-f's. They have to slow down and not release a single change until it has been thoroughly tested. That's just how professional software works.

  8. #318
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    While I recognize many of the problems you're referring to, and have had some of them happen to me, I don't think these problems are inherent to closed source (see OS X, Windows, Android, etc. as counter-examples). Most of these problems appear to be due to a lack of testing, bugs, or ridiculous design decisions made outside of the driver... typically in OSS or distro mechanisms.

    For example, with a stock install of Ubuntu 12.10, the user can not install the NVIDIA driver without crippling his desktop. Why? Because Canonical has been mailing it in for quite a few releases these days. Why should the concept of a "closed source" driver be blamed for what is clearly an error from the OS vendor? Lightdm was another situation. If it attempted to bring up the display manager before Xorg was loaded... kaboom... the user was screwed with a blank screen. How is that the fault of a closed driver? I had a fun time troubleshooting that one. In some of these cases it's impossible to believe that there was any testing at all.

    I also take exception with the idea that NVIDIA is the weakest market player. First, they have the best Linux driver (fact). Second, they are actually in strong footing in the GPU market. They have far superior GPUs to those of Intel and AMD as a company isn't exactly enjoying financial bliss.

    And, with all of the frustrations I experience with Linux (which fortunately aren't too often), it's hardly ever NVIDIA that I'm shaking my fist at.

    Dare I say, the big problem with "Linux" (from a noob perspective) is that these distributions are all beta (or even alpha) releases. There is NO quality assurance being applied, and that's just blunt and to the point. Look at how many times there are versions released with show-stopping bugs and regressions that would have been picked up had a formal regression testing phase been followed. Even an LTS like 12.04 shipped with major cluster-f's. They have to slow down and not release a single change until it has been thoroughly tested. That's just how professional software works.
    Then use Debian Stable and whine about how old it is.

    Also, people aren't paid for making Linux distros and the show-stopping bugs almost always have workarounds. Get over it, choose what you want.

  9. #319
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Dare I say, the big problem with "Linux" (from a noob perspective) is that these distributions are all beta (or even alpha) releases. There is NO quality assurance being applied, and that's just blunt and to the point. Look at how many times there are versions released with show-stopping bugs and regressions that would have been picked up had a formal regression testing phase been followed. Even an LTS like 12.04 shipped with major cluster-f's. They have to slow down and not release a single change until it has been thoroughly tested. That's just how professional software works.
    Umm don't you know the ancient saying that MS Windows becomes usable after releasing first service pack? OS X has same birthing difficulties...
    Last edited by Ramiliez; 12-31-2012 at 08:23 PM.

  10. #320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I don't think NVIDIA made such a request though. I think what they asked for was the label "EXPORT_SYMBOL" rather than "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" on the DMA-BUF functions, so that they can make invocations on those functions from their driver as I presume they do with other cases. But whether or not there's a legitimate legal difference between these two markers is highly questionable it seems.
    You think it's running in user space?
    Nope... then it must be running in kernel space. Fancy that.
    The re-labelling of the symbols is in fact -- as others have pointed out -- merely clarifying the matter. That's why the lawyers liked the idea so much; it saves on having to wade through the GPL legalese to figure out what developers are and aren't allowed to do with those items.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    However, and I don't know if it's considered pragmatic or something else, but Linus has acknowledged that the Linux ecosystem should make a way for proprietary software, including proprietary drivers, to participate.
    And your point is?
    Although Linus is definitely and explicitly an "Open Source" guy, and not a "Free Software" guy (he considers "users" too stupid to merit or benefit from FOSS -- it's for developers like himself), he still somehow finds nVidia extremely difficult to work with (the worst, in fact). Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that nVidia is trying to reap the benefits, but not fulfil their consequent responsibilities?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The problem I have with your criticism of proprietary software is that you're saying that a software developer such as myself does not have a right to his intellectual property, and that providing a product to an end-user should necessarily entail the developer giving up his IP rights. Whether or not that's truly best for the end-user is questionable, and I think it depends on the software. I do think there are examples where it's clearly superior for the end-user, and other examples where it's inferior. A mix of both open and closed seems to truly be "pragmatic".
    (emphasis mine)

    Hell no! Don't spout such nonsense in my name -- I don't appreciate it!

    I would say, that a software developer such as yourself does not have a right to other people's "intellectual property". And that providing a product to an end-user should entail the developer giving up his IP rights is simply something that the GPL most definitely does not require.

    If the code is actually yours, you get to release it under whatever terms you want. Of course, if the code isn't actually yours, you do have to conform to the license terms of the actual owner -- whether that code is under the GPL or whether it's under some proprietary license.

    - - - -

    PS:
    If you don't like the terms of the GPL, then don't use GPL code, write your own damn code, or licence someone else's. That someone else will likely want cash and/or other material considerations, but BSD code is under terms you would probably find congenial -- you won't have to pay a dime for it, and you won't have to share it with anyone to whom you give the resulting software.

    PPS:
    There are times when the smart thing to do is to use a proprietary license. There are times when the smart thing to do is to use a BSD license, or MIT license, or something similar -- but there are many advantages to the GPL approach -- and much of Linux's success is due precisely to it's being licensed under the GPL, which encourages a degree of collaboration that other licenses either simply don't, or even discourage.

Posting Permissions

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