|
I don't see how he makes these connections, giving users access to a unified repository of apps (many of which are free!) will destroy free software? Every Linux distribution I've used has a model fairly close to Google's (there's a central repository for most software that is moderated to some extent to keep out dangerous and broken software, and you can take risks and download them from elsewhere as well).
If anything, this seems like a way to make the distribution of free software easier, because it puts the free and paid alternatives together in one place so even less technically inclined users will be able to download and install them. 
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently Linus is not a fan of Nvidia... and he doesn't hold back how he really feels about them. 
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/[^]
Can't blame him, drivers have been a major cause of headaches in Linux for years.
Warning: The video in the story is long and it doesn't allow you to skip ahead... thanks Wired... 
|
|
|
|
|
Only a little later he says "... because I'm a nice guy".
|
|
|
|
|
I'd hate to see someone he deems not nice
|
|
|
|
|
So let me get this straight...Nvidia is bad because they don't want to spend their money to have their employees develop graphics drivers for a system with only a small market share and almost no programs that even need a graphics card?  Just because Linux is free and people donate their time to it, doesn't mean it's free for Nvidia to support it, and unless it's profitable for them they have no reason to support it. It's basic economics...
|
|
|
|
|
Nvidia also tries its best to keep the linux guys from developing their own driver.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Linux community would be happy to write their own drivers. As I understand, they are pissed because nVidia is an undocumented* moving target of proprietary crapola.
So no, they don't expect Nvidia to spend money to insanely obvious ridiculism. They just want Nvidia to enable others to do so for free.
*) Lower that gun, JoSi, NOT in the sense of "illegal alien"
|
|
|
|
|
That makes sense, but it still takes them some time and money to create and distribute documentation (a lot less I would think, especially if they already have suitable documentation for public distribution being used internally).
As far as the moving target goes, graphics hardware has always been a rapidly changing segment of hardware, they have to keep changing to prevent AMD from getting ahead. I doubt they do it on purpose to prevent the Linux community from making drivers. And like I said, it's not like anything on Linux needs the advanced features of a graphics card, and I wouldn't think the basics change much.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: it still takes them some time and money to create and distribute documentation (a lot less I would think, especially if they already have suitable documentation for public distribution being used internally).
No doubt, it would cost them something. I'd almost expect a crockshit of brittle "only with the right incantation" API's - which is how I meant the moving target. Of course, graphics card drivers are always on the move, but if done right by the manufacturer, that makes them an interesting problem, too 
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: only a small market share
Only a small market share? ...Linux is probably the most prominent embedded system and server OS in the world... and now owns a huge market share of handheld devices with Android. I'd say that's a pretty big market share.
lewax00 wrote: and unless it's profitable for them they have no reason to support it
Do you think just because people are running Linux they don't buy their hardware? 
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: Linux is probably the most prominent embedded system and server OS in the world...
And generally those two applications do not need graphics cards. So it doesn't effect my point at all.
Albert Holguin wrote: Do you think just because people are running Linux they don't buy their hardware?
Profit is the amount of money gained after costs. Just because they buy the cards does not make them a profitable market if the sales of those cards do not exceed both the cost of manufacturing the card and the cost of developing, distributing, and maintaining a driver.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: if the sales of those cards do not exceed both the cost of manufacturing the card and the cost of developing, distributing, and maintaining a driver.
I don't think you understand the open source community... they want to develop their own drivers. The problem is that Nvidia isn't documenting it's hardware well or at all...
|
|
|
|
|
Even creating documentation takes time. And employee time costs money. Not to mention they may wish to protect trade secrets (which if no longer secret may cause them to lose their competitive edge, and then lose ground to competitors, and as a result, money).
The point is, they expect Nvidia to do what they want, but no one's considering the repercussions on Nvidia's end. And for any successful business, what it comes down to in the end is money. And businesses that do not make money do not last long.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: Even creating documentation takes time. And employee time costs money.
You don't think they have to write that documentation anyway? That has to be written regardless to build a product that is supportable within a large company... that's a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Internal documentation is not always appropriate for public consumption. And even then, they have to distribute it, which means at the very least they would have to a) pay an employee to design a web page within their site to host it and b) pay for the additional bandwidth (though, with a document that probably won't be downloaded that often it's probably immaterial).
If it were profitable for them to do so, they probably would have done it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it looks like the drivers already exists, what's the issue then? It looks like Torvalds is whining for the sake of whining.
|
|
|
|
|
They provide drivers and documentation irregularly... that's the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: And generally those two applications do not need graphics cards.
When did you use a terminal/command line ATM[^]? 
|
|
|
|
|
When did you use a ATM with complex 3D graphics? Or maybe high definition video? A low power CPU is more than capable of handling the static 2D graphics used by an ATM...
|
|
|
|
|
|
The vast majority of embedded system still don't need a GPU. Sure, you can come up with some examples, but I bet for every one that needs it there are 100-1000 more that don't. And the article also mentioned that Nvidia is actively working on Android support, so there's no reason to assume they won't work with manufacturer's of such devices, but I'm guessing it's because there's something in it for them (hint: it's money).
|
|
|
|
|
You would think if you can write the Kernel for an OS, drivers would be a walk in the park for him.
He could always visit here[^] for help.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it's easy if they would document their interfaces to their hardware well...
I've worked quite a bit with interfacing software with hardware, so I feel his pain... 
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: You would think if you can write the Kernel for an OS, drivers would be a walk in the park for him.
Yes, but the problem with NVidia is that they don't release information as to how to interface to their hardware. It would be like giving someone a book in a language they had never seen before, and expecting them to read it perfectly.
=====
\ | /
\|/
|
|-----|
| |
|_ |
_) | /
_) __/_
_) ____
| /|
| / |
| |
|-----|
|
=====
===
=
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
