3 ms·

The ABI is not portable. Good code is portable. A static ABI is a stupid goal. Nvidia is stupid for relying on it. IMHO

by 5ilv3r 10y ago

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]

The ABI is not portable. Good code is portable. A static ABI is a stupid goal. Nvidia is stupid for relying on it. IMHO

by 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

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]