5 ms·

Well, CUDA is about the opposite of open source. It needs special hardware and a closed source driver. CUDA on Windows was already a big deal in engineering. S

Well, CUDA is about the opposite of open source. It needs special hardware and a closed source driver. CUDA on Windows was already a big deal in engineering. Scientists and academics preferred Linux (and python, and docker) and Windows is playing catch up there to become compatible with the tools that have grown in popularity over the last 5 years. Personally, as an open source advocate, I think competition (even from MS) is healthy. It drives everyone to build a better product.

jacquesm 6y ago
Yes, but that doesn't really contradict what I said. As long as manufacturers are willing to support Linux for their products even those that require special hardware, and in spite of having a closed driver this is possible and will work very well, so well that an entire profession can be better supported on Linux than on Windows. And that's very interesting, especially given that CUDA is an outflow of gaming hardware which was better supported on Windows.
alerighi 6y ago
Also Linux is becoming the new Windows, and is one of the reason I stopped using it. What is the point of using a system that on every release is more and more bloated and full of crap that it breaks? Docker for example, I hate it, it serves no purpose beside wasting disk space and slowing down your machine. BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. Wayland not only is bugged but even does less things than Xorg. Most scientists and academics then just don't know how to write software or administer operating systems, and if they program they write the worst crap of spaghetti code possible, no wonder they like Linux, Docker and python. I use macOS, at least I have a system that has a decent user interface, and for my server I started using whenever I can FreeBSD, much more stable, much more simple, good documentation, a good operating system.
- SXX 6y ago
  > Docker for example, I hate it, it serves no purpose beside wasting disk space and slowing down your machine. Docker is a deployment tool and obviously needed by enterprises and I don't think anyone sane using it for their own localhost. > BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. You don't really have to use it though. ext works flawlessly. > Wayland not only is bugged but even does less things than Xorg. Check out this video from one of major X maintainer of the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
  - andybak 6y ago
    > I don't think anyone sane using it for their own localhost Today I learned me and a heap of web developers I know aren't sane.
    - SXX 6y ago
      Okay I guess I just need to sleep and had to make it somewhat more clear: I never seen anyone using docker for deployment of any software for Linux Desktop. There are superior channels formats for this purpose. Web developers usually need docker on their localhost just so it's work the same way as production environment. Though when you compare Windows on desktop and Linux on desktop you not gonna use docker at all.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
  I do agree that Linux has been adding complexity at a good pace the last 10 years. I disagree about Docker. It's a good tool for reproducible development and production environments. What else should we use? virtual machines? Scientists and academics are not in general, professional software engineers. At least they are using open source tools! What you rather they write their spaghetti in? MATLAB? FreeBSD does not have the mindshare and ecosystem that Linux does. That actually does matter.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. It has bugs, but at least it supports copy-on-write files and making snapshots writable.
- ben-schaaf 6y ago
  It's funny that you list docker and wayland as linux bloat that freebsd doesn't have, when docker works just fine on freebsd and wayland support is also in the works. Personally I use Ubuntu as a daily driver. No docker unless you install it and comes with Xorg (as well as wayland, but you're not forced to use it).
  - anthk 6y ago
    >when docker works just fine on freebsd No, that's emulation. FreeBSD has something much better: jails.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  I saw here people argue about DLL hell and static compilation [1], you clearly have a point. Using Wayland... is it Ubuntu with their experiments? It's fine you found FreeBSD, but your choices is not Linux fault. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23453157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23453157
SXX 6y ago
WSL2 and all these features don't have anything to do with open source either. It's basically a shim for communication of two proprietary bits of software on both sides. Fortunately all these graphics and compute shims will never get merged into upstream kernel so they'll be second-class citizens like forever. Dave Airlie who is maintainer of Linux graphics subsystem will never allow to merge it since it's can only be used for proprietary software.
- mycall 6y ago
  Is this the wrong repository for what you are referring to, as this appear open source? https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel
  - SXX 6y ago
    This custom kernel only contain shim that needed to pass commands from proprietary component on Linux to proprietary drivers on Windows. When it's come to graphics drivers Linux upstream don't accept any code that can only be used for proprietary components. So all this Direct3D and CUDA shims never gonna be merged.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- bzb3 6y ago
  It's incredible that people like you are bitter because others are given a choice and they don't choose what you would want them to. And all in the name of freedom, no less.
  - SXX 6y ago
    I have no bitterness here, just facts. It's important to understand that none of these WSL features has anything to do with open source. It's exactly your standard "extend" stage. See: proprietary hypervisor runs OS with a patched non-upstreamable Linux kernel and then there is proprietary userspace drivers and libraries that able to talk to their proprietary parts inside Windows. Can any of it be used with different hypervisor? No. Can it be used with open source drivers? Again, nope.

jacquesm 6y ago

Yes, but that doesn't really contradict what I said. As long as manufacturers are willing to support Linux for their products even those that require special hardware, and in spite of having a closed driver this is possible and will work very well, so well that an entire profession can be better supported on Linux than on Windows. And that's very interesting, especially given that CUDA is an outflow of gaming hardware which was better supported on Windows.

alerighi 6y ago

Also Linux is becoming the new Windows, and is one of the reason I stopped using it. What is the point of using a system that on every release is more and more bloated and full of crap that it breaks? Docker for example, I hate it, it serves no purpose beside wasting disk space and slowing down your machine. BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. Wayland not only is bugged but even does less things than Xorg. Most scientists and academics then just don't know how to write software or administer operating systems, and if they program they write the worst crap of spaghetti code possible, no wonder they like Linux, Docker and python. I use macOS, at least I have a system that has a decent user interface, and for my server I started using whenever I can FreeBSD, much more stable, much more simple, good documentation, a good operating system.

SXX 6y ago
> Docker for example, I hate it, it serves no purpose beside wasting disk space and slowing down your machine. Docker is a deployment tool and obviously needed by enterprises and I don't think anyone sane using it for their own localhost. > BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. You don't really have to use it though. ext works flawlessly. > Wayland not only is bugged but even does less things than Xorg. Check out this video from one of major X maintainer of the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
- andybak 6y ago
  > I don't think anyone sane using it for their own localhost Today I learned me and a heap of web developers I know aren't sane.
  - SXX 6y ago
    Okay I guess I just need to sleep and had to make it somewhat more clear: I never seen anyone using docker for deployment of any software for Linux Desktop. There are superior channels formats for this purpose. Web developers usually need docker on their localhost just so it's work the same way as production environment. Though when you compare Windows on desktop and Linux on desktop you not gonna use docker at all.
etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
I do agree that Linux has been adding complexity at a good pace the last 10 years. I disagree about Docker. It's a good tool for reproducible development and production environments. What else should we use? virtual machines? Scientists and academics are not in general, professional software engineers. At least they are using open source tools! What you rather they write their spaghetti in? MATLAB? FreeBSD does not have the mindshare and ecosystem that Linux does. That actually does matter.
Dylan16807 6y ago
> BTRFS is a bugged imitation of ZFS. It has bugs, but at least it supports copy-on-write files and making snapshots writable.
ben-schaaf 6y ago
It's funny that you list docker and wayland as linux bloat that freebsd doesn't have, when docker works just fine on freebsd and wayland support is also in the works. Personally I use Ubuntu as a daily driver. No docker unless you install it and comes with Xorg (as well as wayland, but you're not forced to use it).
- anthk 6y ago
  >when docker works just fine on freebsd No, that's emulation. FreeBSD has something much better: jails.
sergeykish 6y ago
I saw here people argue about DLL hell and static compilation [1], you clearly have a point. Using Wayland... is it Ubuntu with their experiments? It's fine you found FreeBSD, but your choices is not Linux fault. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23453157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23453157

SXX 6y ago

WSL2 and all these features don't have anything to do with open source either. It's basically a shim for communication of two proprietary bits of software on both sides. Fortunately all these graphics and compute shims will never get merged into upstream kernel so they'll be second-class citizens like forever. Dave Airlie who is maintainer of Linux graphics subsystem will never allow to merge it since it's can only be used for proprietary software.

mycall 6y ago
Is this the wrong repository for what you are referring to, as this appear open source? https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel
- SXX 6y ago
  This custom kernel only contain shim that needed to pass commands from proprietary component on Linux to proprietary drivers on Windows. When it's come to graphics drivers Linux upstream don't accept any code that can only be used for proprietary components. So all this Direct3D and CUDA shims never gonna be merged.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bzb3 6y ago
It's incredible that people like you are bitter because others are given a choice and they don't choose what you would want them to. And all in the name of freedom, no less.
- SXX 6y ago
  I have no bitterness here, just facts. It's important to understand that none of these WSL features has anything to do with open source. It's exactly your standard "extend" stage. See: proprietary hypervisor runs OS with a patched non-upstreamable Linux kernel and then there is proprietary userspace drivers and libraries that able to talk to their proprietary parts inside Windows. Can any of it be used with different hypervisor? No. Can it be used with open source drivers? Again, nope.