Nvidia Wants to Remove Some GPL From Linux Kernel Code

Status
Not open for further replies.

chewy1963

Honorable
May 9, 2012
246
0
10,680
WTF Nvidia? Just release your drivers via the GPL and you wouldn't have to worry about it! But noooo, you want to keep your drivers proprietary. In the words of the immortal Linus Torvalds: "F*&^ You, Nvidia!
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
1
19,780
First Nvidia get stoned for not providing drivers and now when they work towards that end they get stoned, what a grateful bunch of peeps!
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]spasmolytic46[/nom]Arg! The linux version of steam is so close. Don't f*ck this up for me nvidia.[/citation]

if the drivers go open, wouldnt you be able to code a work around to get cuda and physx up and going on an amd card?
 
Dec 2, 2011
273
0
18,810


I want open drivers (although I don't care about CUDA or Physx), but I was more worried about nvidia starting a pissing match that winds up with them abandoning Linux support after they get told off. This is why I'm worried nvidia will screw this up for me.
 

division_9

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2011
65
0
18,640
I understand why Nvidia wants to keep it's drivers closed. But I swear to god, this is about as awkward as a guy walking into the girls bathroom. It just ain't right.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]First Nvidia get stoned for not providing drivers and now when they work towards that end they get stoned, what a grateful bunch of peeps![/citation]That's not the issue. The kernel developers have many problmes debugging involving closed-source modules and get often changes requests because of them. Since they don't have access to the code, they can't identify if the module or the kernel code is responsible for errors and can't tell if the modules have security holes.

Nvidia sells hardware, not drivers, so releasing programming info for the GPUs doesn't cost them anything. Video development with Nvidia devices is slow because only Nvidia has the info. This also means that when older devices are no longer supported by Nvidia, they can't easily be supported by anyone else either. This is a significant problem with laptops because the GPUs are normally not changeable.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]spasmolytic46[/nom]I want open drivers (although I don't care about CUDA or Physx), but I was more worried about nvidia starting a pissing match that winds up with them abandoning Linux support after they get told off. This is why I'm worried nvidia will screw this up for me.[/citation]

if you dont care about phys or cuda, is there any reason to stick with nvidia?
 
Dec 2, 2011
273
0
18,810
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]if you dont care about phys or cuda, is there any reason to stick with nvidia?[/citation]

I'll admit it's been a few years since I tried, but I've always had issues with ATI/AMD cards in Debian (with both open and closed source drivers) Linux. they either don't work at all, don't work right, or are extremely slow and have limited functionality. Every time I've used Nvidia in Linux they have just worked, even if it was a proprietary driver.

Nothing is more frustrating that spending hundreds of dollars on a videocard and no matter what you do it only works as well as some intel chipset on a motherboard.
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]WTF Nvidia? Just release your drivers via the GPL and you wouldn't have to worry about it! But noooo, you want to keep your drivers proprietary. In the words of the immortal Linus Torvalds: "F*&^ You, Nvidia![/citation]

Linus is a raging nerdboy. Linux wants nothing more than to get some market share. . . how much of the market will they hold without Nvidia? 46.7% of all steam users won't be using Linux for games, then. Oh well Linux blows anyways.
 

claber

Honorable
Oct 22, 2012
2
0
10,510
I'm impressed that Toms readers do not seem to know how nVidia and ATi work. Their driver teams have more engineers that the hardware teams. The drivers are a central piece of their product.

Drivers contain: 3rd party licensed IP and trade secrets such as details on how the architecture works, as well as algorithms.

Look at the games: drivers update can boost a game's performance significantly (not SLI). Just updating the driver, using the same card. It is a good example of how important the driver is.

Another example: Quadro vs GeForce vs Tesla: virtually the same hardware, but the cost difference is due to the work needed to get the drivers developed.

Graphics cards are much more about the driver then the hardware.
 

f-14

Distinguished
linux is an operating system drivers are a manufacturers way of getting their product to work with that system.
why should Nvidia have to bow to any one if they don't want to sell more product to users of that particular system?
it is Nvidia's right to protect their particular efforts and flair of their products. faced with the competition from intel and amd i can understand, but faced with the effort by microsoft and valve to control gaming and other applications that require the need for their dedicated video card it would be prudent to expand their horizons considerably than to continue blindly down the path laid out for their future controlled by microsoft or valve.

something majorly proprietary must be involved for them to hold back like this.
 

computerguy72

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2011
190
1
18,690
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]Nvidia sells hardware, not drivers, so releasing programming info for the GPUs doesn't cost them anything.[/citation]

Wow. Almost your entire assertion is false. Nvidia competes with AMD, Intel and others and spends large amounts of money optimizing their drivers to remain competitive. Lots of manufacturers have the same attitude not just Nvidia. Heck the full driver set on Windows is 150MB and has gone through thousands of revisions. They finally start spending money on US with more development and support and boom lots of people start dumping on them. Intolerance has crushed us for years and we would be much further along without this mess.

 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
[citation][nom]claber[/nom]I'm impressed that Toms readers do not seem to know how nVidia and ATi work. Their driver teams have more engineers that the hardware teams. The drivers are a central piece of their product.Drivers contain: 3rd party licensed IP and trade secrets such as details on how the architecture works, as well as algorithms.Look at the games: drivers update can boost a game's performance significantly (not SLI). Just updating the driver, using the same card. It is a good example of how important the driver is.Another example: Quadro vs GeForce vs Tesla: virtually the same hardware, but the cost difference is due to the work needed to get the drivers developed.Graphics cards are much more about the driver then the hardware.[/citation]
Actually I'm more impressed how people, like you, comment on issues they don't have clue about. The current issue is not about opening their drivers. Current issue is about nVidia's refusal, for years, to provide proper support of their hardware under Linux, refusal to provide documentation to the kernel developers in order to allow development of open source drivers for their hardware, but now when kernel developers developed feature of the kernel that could make nVidia's life easier they want to use it. No wonder why some of the kernel developers are upset about it.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
[citation][nom]computerguy72[/nom]Wow. Almost your entire assertion is false. Nvidia competes with AMD, Intel and others and spends large amounts of money optimizing their drivers to remain competitive. Lots of manufacturers have the same attitude not just Nvidia. Heck the full driver set on Windows is 150MB and has gone through thousands of revisions.[/citation]You're confusing "GPU programming info" with "driver source code". It's unlikely the GPU has third-party IP in it's architecture (other than that of patent trolls).
 

antilycus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
933
0
18,990
it's not really that simple. NVIDIA has been a pioneer and has spent BILLIONS of dollars making sure that they have the best drivers on the market....and they do. They CRUSH AMD/ATi, Intel, Matrox, SGI etc. Nvidias bread winner is in their driver code. Their hardware is easy to copy (as that's the way to the world works no, nvidia spends the billions to produce it, everyone else just copies it), the software/drivers are the proprietary bread winner for nvidia. I don't know if _GPL would give up trade secrets or not, but not everything can run for free.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]claber[/nom]I'm impressed that Toms readers do not seem to know how nVidia and ATi work. Their driver teams have more engineers that the hardware teams. The drivers are a central piece of their product.Drivers contain: 3rd party licensed IP and trade secrets such as details on how the architecture works, as well as algorithms.Look at the games: drivers update can boost a game's performance significantly (not SLI). Just updating the driver, using the same card. It is a good example of how important the driver is.Another example: Quadro vs GeForce vs Tesla: virtually the same hardware, but the cost difference is due to the work needed to get the drivers developed.Graphics cards are much more about the driver then the hardware.[/citation]

thought the cost difference was because with a quatro or tesla nvidia will cook up custom drivers to fix problems you encounter useing them

[citation][nom]antilycus[/nom]it's not really that simple. NVIDIA has been a pioneer and has spent BILLIONS of dollars making sure that they have the best drivers on the market....and they do. They CRUSH AMD/ATi, Intel, Matrox, SGI etc. Nvidias bread winner is in their driver code. Their hardware is easy to copy (as that's the way to the world works no, nvidia spends the billions to produce it, everyone else just copies it), the software/drivers are the proprietary bread winner for nvidia. I don't know if _GPL would give up trade secrets or not, but not everything can run for free.[/citation]

only reason i even considered nvidia, was because of their proprietary bs like physix or cuda, if those went away, i would never give them a second glance. im a bit bias due to how mad nvidia got me in the past, but i speak with my wallet and wont give them money. as for being the best... not so much... fastest single gpu card ill give them, but value for money, do they ever retain that title for long?
 

digitalvampire

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2010
44
0
18,530
I can't describe how happy it makes me to see people debating about Linux and the GPL. I, like you, have an opinion on this current subject, but I'd rather just make a few comments or observations. Here we go...

1) GPL'ed software is not (just) about cost. If you've followed Linux development AT ALL over the past decade, you know who Alan Cox is. There are a few, let's call them big boys, in the Linux community, and he's one of them. He's also a big proponent of free (as in speech, not beer) software. He believes in protecting freedoms through the use of the GPL. I would encourage some of you keep this in mind. Also, if Nvidia believes it has something to protect by keeping its source closed (and I would guess it's the bottom line, but it's closed source, so that's just conjecture), then they have that same right.

2) Nvidia has a horrible reputation in the free software community and are notoriously difficult to work with. I believe someone above posted a link to some of Linus' comments. However, since I started using Linux exclusively (almost 10 years now), they have supplied working and fast proprietary drivers. Obviously, I'd rather them be licensed under a free software license, but at least we have them. I'll not complain too much.

3) A large subject that I'm surprised nobody mentioned. Android. Android is, technically, just another Linux distribution. It uses the Linux kernel (with Google's patches) with software sitting on top. Also, I'm also pretty sure most of you have heard of Nvidia's Tegra chip. Does Nvidia's intention to get into the mainline kernel (at least to some degree) make a little more sense now?

4) AMD opened up much of its driver, and because of this, acquired a huge business deal (100+ million dollars) in China. This same company skipped over Nvidia because they were unwilling to do this. So could keeping things closed also be a liability in business?

5) There are also other rather technical things to consider. Legal issues on proprietary module insertion (Linux is a macrokernel). Could Nvidia just open up it's base code (the Windows and Linux drivers use much of the same code) and just tack on proprietary things later, perhaps under a different license? Things like X.org come into play as well. Etc Etc.

So there is some food for thought. Hopefully. :)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.