Page 15 of 33 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 329

Thread: Bickering Continues About NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RCL_ View Post
    My reply to "OSS is on the rise" guys:

    I'm not seeing industry like that. Soon, we will need to jailbreak our PCs just to have a non-signed OS installed. Thanks God Microsoft was pressed hard enough to allow exception for x86 arch, but if x86 dies (and it is not certain that it will remain dominant by 2020), we will wake up in a world where EVERY device is locked by design. Oh, and ARM 64-bit processors feature "TrustZone" privilege level for those thinking that this is just a matter of getting BIOS reflashed.

    As for GPL exceptions:

    During its 20+ year history, GPL (v2+) proved to be very shaky ground to build upon. Unless you guys are posting using gNewSense you ARE relying on GPL exceptions in your day-to-day activities. There are valid reasons (be it patents, lawsuits or R&D costs) to keep the code hidden sometimes and rejecting them gets you nowhere.
    like i said before - why would you be happy to use a non-free component on a free system? why not just use a non-free system?

    I'm not using gnewsense i'm using gentoo and to the best of my knowlege there is no proprietary software on it..

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    wrong wrong wrong another lazy to read post

    1.) PLZ READ THE MAILING LIST, alan cox is not stopping anything he is pointing out a legal conflict that need to be legally solved by lawyers
    2.) Linux kernel devs need to get pragmatic part : NO what the hell ?? since you ovbiously don't know anything about hardware ill explain open documentation means document hardware entry points to be used by any software not the frigging electronic schematics and there is no way in hell to reverse engeneer the hardware schematics from a set of registers.
    3.) R&D again NO intel/AMD/NVIDIA secret sauce is inside the silicon not the registers and GPU technologies are INDUSTRY STANDARDS open to anyone, there is no such thing as intel only secret sauce OpenGL that same applies to CPU X86 ASM is an STANDARD. all that means intel/AMD dont need to give me their CPU schematics to support X86/SIMD they just tell me XMM registers are x,y,z and take A,B as parameter so my compiler will know that when you ask to put data in XMM he will send A,B values to the register x,y,z instead of d,f,g which is for an AMD cpus, in the case of GPU is the same the docs provide an huge amount of registers that do certain things[inside the blackbox silicon] next i download the OpenGL standard and try to do what the standard asks getting creative in combine those registers in a way that do the asked by the standard fast enough
    4.) nvidia cant open their current code not because of the blatanly wrong things you mentioned since their driver don't do anything magical or mythical but they have loads of external to nvidia code and probably unresolved patent issues that will be exposed for lawyers sue them for the next 20 years and many other legally complicated things.

    so no open documentation won't damage them in any way at all in 90% of the gpu functions[UVD/VDPAU gpu parts require MPAA combo autorization or they loose the license but no because loss of R&D or internal secrets]


    But that doesn't stop them to give a good open driver. The most of the work is already bean done by MESA and Intel anyway.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    Only Intel is acceptable for me now
    support openness on the software side, but monopolies on the hardware side.

    Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by D0pamine View Post
    like i said before - why would you be happy to use a non-free component on a free system? why not just use a non-free system?
    I have the freedom to choose non-free components on the free system. You don't have choice on non-free systems. But it seems some people don't want freedom to choose on Linux either. It's either all OSS or all proprietary.

    No room for people who just care about getting the best, be it open or closed. Gotta choose one extreme or the other.
    Last edited by boast; 10-18-2012 at 09:40 PM.

  4. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D0pamine View Post
    like i said before - why would you be happy to use a non-free component on a free system? why not just use a non-free system?
    Because some freedoms are important for me and some others are less so? It's not "all or nothing" for me.

    And yes, I do use non-free systems when I have to. It's just that I prefer to have as free one as possible.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boast View Post
    support openness on the software side, but monopolies on the hardware side.

    Nice.



    I have the freedom to choose non-free components on the free system. You don't have choice on non-free systems. But it seems some people don't want freedom to choose on Linux either. It's either all OSS or all proprietary.

    No room for people who just care about getting the best, be it open or closed. Gotta choose one extreme or the other.

    this is true - you DO have the freedom to use a non-free component on your system because its YOUR system

    there is no middle ground to this software is either free or proprietary and if nvidia wants to use GPL code in its driver then it must release its driver under the GPL - this isnt zealotry or fanboyism this is a legal issue

    EDIT: a legal issue and bloody good troll bait
    Last edited by D0pamine; 10-18-2012 at 09:53 PM.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RCL_ View Post
    Because some freedoms are important for me and some others are less so? It's not "all or nothing" for me.

    And yes, I do use non-free systems when I have to. It's just that I prefer to have as free one as possible.
    all my freedoms are very important to me from the freedom to use whatever i like on my system to the freedom to eat toe jam

    remember - what you consider to be an un-important freedom today might be of critical importance tomorrow

    yes i want things to 'just work' but then again i purchase hardware with what i'm going to be running on it in mind..

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    i keep having to repeat myself - i've given up on this thread

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boast View Post
    support openness on the software side, but monopolies on the hardware side.

    Nice.



    I have the freedom to choose non-free components on the free system. You don't have choice on non-free systems. But it seems some people don't want freedom to choose on Linux either. It's either all OSS or all proprietary.

    No room for people who just care about getting the best, be it open or closed. Gotta choose one extreme or the other.


    Print an Open Risc, tune it like Loongson (with emulation capability and 3D instructions), and i will buy it from you, and i will use a free software rasterizer wit LLVM.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    387

    Default

    The definition for the "best" is "open".

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    The definition for the "best" is "open".
    i prefer the term 'free'

Posting Permissions

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