4 ms·

"feature parity" is a poor choice of words, but nVidia builds their Windows and Linux drivers from a single code base. Keeping support for four monitors in the

by wmil 13y ago

"feature parity" is a poor choice of words, but nVidia builds their Windows and Linux drivers from a single code base. Keeping support for four monitors in the linux code probably meant adding a bunch of #ifdefs in various files. They just decided it wasn't worth the effort to maintain.

pyre 13y ago
That may be true, but they are presumably already maintaining a bunch of #ifdef's for the Windows-only features.
- eridius 13y ago
  Given the relative popularity of Windows vs Linux, it probably is worth the effort to maintain Windows-only features.
- 67726e 13y ago
  True, but Windows has the much larger market share so it becomes worth it.
- kbenson 13y ago
  Being able to assume the #ifdef for features go one direction can have some benefit in reasoning about the code it relates to. In other words, there may be benefits to keeping the windows features a superset of the linux features, most likely in preventing stupid programmer errors.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  > That may be true We'll never know. That's a binary blob on your machine.
  - pyre 13y ago
    This is true, but I fail to see the relevance here. This post just comes across as a "any chance to mention Free Software" type post. This thread is talking about if this decision by Nvidia makes sense. Trying to inject "well, we could all just ignore Nvidia if you were using Free Software," doesn't really contribute much to that conversation. > That's a binary blob on your machine. On my machine? It's less likely than you might think.
- subway 13y ago
  It goes (or at least at one time went) well beyond that. Last I heard, nvidia.o was shared across Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows.
  - ErsatzVerkehr 13y ago
    Don't these systems use different object-file formats?
    - subway 13y ago
      At the very least I can confirm the object is identical (same md5sum) across Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Past sources have indicated to me Windows shares his object.

by wmil 13y ago

pyre 13y ago

That may be true, but they are presumably already maintaining a bunch of #ifdef's for the Windows-only features.

eridius 13y ago
Given the relative popularity of Windows vs Linux, it probably is worth the effort to maintain Windows-only features.
67726e 13y ago
True, but Windows has the much larger market share so it becomes worth it.
kbenson 13y ago
Being able to assume the #ifdef for features go one direction can have some benefit in reasoning about the code it relates to. In other words, there may be benefits to keeping the windows features a superset of the linux features, most likely in preventing stupid programmer errors.
chris_wot 13y ago
> That may be true We'll never know. That's a binary blob on your machine.
- pyre 13y ago
  This is true, but I fail to see the relevance here. This post just comes across as a "any chance to mention Free Software" type post. This thread is talking about if this decision by Nvidia makes sense. Trying to inject "well, we could all just ignore Nvidia if you were using Free Software," doesn't really contribute much to that conversation. > That's a binary blob on your machine. On my machine? It's less likely than you might think.
subway 13y ago
It goes (or at least at one time went) well beyond that. Last I heard, nvidia.o was shared across Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows.
- ErsatzVerkehr 13y ago
  Don't these systems use different object-file formats?
  - subway 13y ago
    At the very least I can confirm the object is identical (same md5sum) across Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Past sources have indicated to me Windows shares his object.