4 ms·

> I'm giving nVidia the benefit of the doubt and assuming they have legitimate reasons for not wanting to open source all their code. They don't, because there

by shmerl 8y ago

> I'm giving nVidia the benefit of the doubt and assuming they have legitimate reasons for not wanting to open source all their code. They don't, because there is nouveau already and Nvidia are being rather nasty in preventing it from fully working. See: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/open-source-nvidia-linux-nouveau/998310-nouveau-persevered-in-2017-for-open-source-nvidia-but-2018-could-be-much-better?p=998316#post998316 https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d... > Like with Windows APIs, which still have a lot of compatibility with applications compiled 20 years ago. Try using Windows drivers from older Windows kernels with newer Windows. They won't work. So it's not anywhere close to 20 years.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
True about drivers, but Windows drivers do work for much longer stretches of time than Linux drivers do simply because you don't have to recompile them for every minor change to the kernel. There's no reason Linux couldn't have stable ABIs for major kernel versions other than that they don't want to.
- shmerl 8y ago
  > Windows drivers do work for much longer stretches of time than Linux drivers do simply because you don't have to recompile them for every minor change to the kernel. So do Linux dkms drivers. Windows is just using "dkms" like approach for everything. But it doesn't have any advantage in compatibility time period. > There's no reason Linux couldn't have stable ABIs for major kernel versions Not sure what you are talking about. Linux does have such stable interfaces.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > Not sure what you are talking about. Linux does have such stable interfaces. Not sure what you're talking about either. I've never had to write a Linux driver, but it is a frequent complaint that one has to recompile drivers for new kernel versions. If the ABI was stable, that wouldn't be necessary.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > one has to recompile drivers for new kernel versions. dkms requires compilation, but it happens automatically with kernel upgrade. Read more about its design: * https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_S... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support * https://github.com/dell/dkms https://github.com/dell/dkms So not sure where you saw "frequent complaints", those are likely from people who have no clue what they are talking about.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        > dkms requires compilation So not a stable ABI at all then.
        shmerl 8y ago
        Stable API, not stable ABI. Installation through compilation is normal. Those who complain about it have no clue what they are complaining about, because they don't even see it when dkms drivers are recompiled. So again, go learn about it, before saying it's a problem. Otherwise you are tilting at windmills.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying if you think that an API that requires recompilation from source of drivers on every kernel release is at all comparable to a multi-year stable driver ABI. What was this all about again? Oh right: Linux has bad support for some hardware, you blame the "driver manufacturers" for writing bad drivers, I blamed the kernel for accepting bad drivers. Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. However, the kernel devs refuse to provide a stable ABI for drivers, making this nigh impossible. They claim that this is because it ensures higher quality drivers that can be maintained without the manufacturer, but that is clearly false because many drivers are crap and not maintained despite being mainlined. So instead of taking any responsibility for bad drivers, people like you just blame everyone else. A tried and true practice of Linux Desktop evangelists.

by shmerl 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

True about drivers, but Windows drivers do work for much longer stretches of time than Linux drivers do simply because you don't have to recompile them for every minor change to the kernel. There's no reason Linux couldn't have stable ABIs for major kernel versions other than that they don't want to.

shmerl 8y ago
> Windows drivers do work for much longer stretches of time than Linux drivers do simply because you don't have to recompile them for every minor change to the kernel. So do Linux dkms drivers. Windows is just using "dkms" like approach for everything. But it doesn't have any advantage in compatibility time period. > There's no reason Linux couldn't have stable ABIs for major kernel versions Not sure what you are talking about. Linux does have such stable interfaces.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Not sure what you are talking about. Linux does have such stable interfaces. Not sure what you're talking about either. I've never had to write a Linux driver, but it is a frequent complaint that one has to recompile drivers for new kernel versions. If the ABI was stable, that wouldn't be necessary.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    > one has to recompile drivers for new kernel versions. dkms requires compilation, but it happens automatically with kernel upgrade. Read more about its design: * https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_S... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Kernel_Module_Support * https://github.com/dell/dkms https://github.com/dell/dkms So not sure where you saw "frequent complaints", those are likely from people who have no clue what they are talking about.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      > dkms requires compilation So not a stable ABI at all then.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        Stable API, not stable ABI. Installation through compilation is normal. Those who complain about it have no clue what they are complaining about, because they don't even see it when dkms drivers are recompiled. So again, go learn about it, before saying it's a problem. Otherwise you are tilting at windmills.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        I don't think you're understanding anything I'm saying if you think that an API that requires recompilation from source of drivers on every kernel release is at all comparable to a multi-year stable driver ABI. What was this all about again? Oh right: Linux has bad support for some hardware, you blame the "driver manufacturers" for writing bad drivers, I blamed the kernel for accepting bad drivers. Here's the crux of my argument: If it is the manufacturer's responsibility to create and maintain drivers, then they shouldn't have to open source them and mainline them because they did all the work and took responsibility. However, the kernel devs refuse to provide a stable ABI for drivers, making this nigh impossible. They claim that this is because it ensures higher quality drivers that can be maintained without the manufacturer, but that is clearly false because many drivers are crap and not maintained despite being mainlined. So instead of taking any responsibility for bad drivers, people like you just blame everyone else. A tried and true practice of Linux Desktop evangelists.