4 ms·

Proprietary drivers are a huge pain in the ass on linux

by bwat49 10y ago

eropple 10y ago
I think open-source drivers are a net good, but proprietary drivers are a pain because of ABI instability more than anything else. Linux could improve on this. I get why they don't, and I don't have an opinion positive or negative on their stance because I don't use desktop Linux anymore--but this is not just a driver-vendor thing.
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  No it's an ecosystem thing. Linux distro upstreams are source compatible but not binary compatible. You can compile any combination of applications and libraries together, but you cannot expect a compiled binary from a completely different environment to work in your environment. It's just a coincidence that major linux distributions are similar enough to USUALLY be binary compatible with eachother. What an open graphics driver would allow, for example, is the use of a busybox and ulibc ultra-compact linux environment to be a tiny control node to command the much more powerful GPU. That just can't happen right now with binary only drivers that expect to live on a very specific binary stack. If you change the stack, you lose everything.
  - eropple 10y ago
    So I've read your post a few times, and I'm pretty confused. What exactly does this have to do with my post? What does uclibc have to do with kernel ABIs?
    - 5ilv3r 10y ago
      The ABI is not portable. Good code is portable. A static ABI is a stupid goal. Nvidia is stupid for relying on it. IMHO
      - eropple 10y ago
        That...has very, very little, perhaps nothing, to do with your prior post. It is also silly, because proprietary code exists and is necessary to use Linux in the way people want to use it. A static ABI is not stupid if it enables users to do the things they want to do with a tool--namely, use nVidia hardware effectively and optimally. That the Linux kernel doesn't support that is not a feature when their userbase is a rounding error of all nVidia users and are in no position to be making demands.
        Qwertious 10y ago
        See "the platform problem": https://lwn.net/Articles/443531/ https://lwn.net/Articles/443531/ tl;dr ABIs are an implementation detail, what people want are stable drivers. And if Linux did provide a stable ABI, then people would create midlayers, which silos everyone and encourages them to improve their midlayers instead of improving the base, and the improved base is what makes Linux so good in the first place. Using the base is necessary for community interaction.
        Asooka 10y ago
        But maybe if we let people write midlayers, in time those would converge to the best midlayer design, then they would coalesce to a single library since the midlayer is not the product and open sourcing your dependecies is good business, and finally it can enter upstream.
        monocasa 10y ago
        > in time those would converge to the best midlayer design What makes you think that?
        eropple 10y ago
        I understand the concern--but, fundamentally, the problem here is that Linux isn't big enough on the desktop, and won't be big enough on the desktop, to dictate terms in the way that the "community interaction" folks want to. You compromise when you're the little guy, or you lose. (And I don't think the Linux maintainers really care about the desktop all that much, so I understand the decision and it's totally okay in my book. That's why I went back to a Mac and Windows on the desktop. Different tools for different jobs.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Proprietary drivers are a huge pain in the ass on linux

by bwat49 10y ago

Proprietary drivers are a huge pain in the ass on linux

I think open-source drivers are a net good, but proprietary drivers are a pain because of ABI instability more than anything else. Linux could improve on this. I get why they don't, and I don't have an opinion positive or negative on their stance because I don't use desktop Linux anymore--but this is not just a driver-vendor thing.

5ilv3r 10y ago
No it's an ecosystem thing. Linux distro upstreams are source compatible but not binary compatible. You can compile any combination of applications and libraries together, but you cannot expect a compiled binary from a completely different environment to work in your environment. It's just a coincidence that major linux distributions are similar enough to USUALLY be binary compatible with eachother. What an open graphics driver would allow, for example, is the use of a busybox and ulibc ultra-compact linux environment to be a tiny control node to command the much more powerful GPU. That just can't happen right now with binary only drivers that expect to live on a very specific binary stack. If you change the stack, you lose everything.
- eropple 10y ago
  So I've read your post a few times, and I'm pretty confused. What exactly does this have to do with my post? What does uclibc have to do with kernel ABIs?
  - 5ilv3r 10y ago
    The ABI is not portable. Good code is portable. A static ABI is a stupid goal. Nvidia is stupid for relying on it. IMHO
    - eropple 10y ago
      That...has very, very little, perhaps nothing, to do with your prior post. It is also silly, because proprietary code exists and is necessary to use Linux in the way people want to use it. A static ABI is not stupid if it enables users to do the things they want to do with a tool--namely, use nVidia hardware effectively and optimally. That the Linux kernel doesn't support that is not a feature when their userbase is a rounding error of all nVidia users and are in no position to be making demands.
      - Qwertious 10y ago
        See "the platform problem": https://lwn.net/Articles/443531/ https://lwn.net/Articles/443531/ tl;dr ABIs are an implementation detail, what people want are stable drivers. And if Linux did provide a stable ABI, then people would create midlayers, which silos everyone and encourages them to improve their midlayers instead of improving the base, and the improved base is what makes Linux so good in the first place. Using the base is necessary for community interaction.
        Asooka 10y ago
        But maybe if we let people write midlayers, in time those would converge to the best midlayer design, then they would coalesce to a single library since the midlayer is not the product and open sourcing your dependecies is good business, and finally it can enter upstream.
        monocasa 10y ago
        > in time those would converge to the best midlayer design What makes you think that?
        eropple 10y ago
        I understand the concern--but, fundamentally, the problem here is that Linux isn't big enough on the desktop, and won't be big enough on the desktop, to dictate terms in the way that the "community interaction" folks want to. You compromise when you're the little guy, or you lose. (And I don't think the Linux maintainers really care about the desktop all that much, so I understand the decision and it's totally okay in my book. That's why I went back to a Mac and Windows on the desktop. Different tools for different jobs.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]