Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Hardware Linux

NVIDIA Engineers On The Realities Of Linux Drivers 21

Posted by timothy from the not-at-this-time dept.
linuxquestions writes "LinuxQuestions.org recently interviewed members of the NVIDIA Linux team. The interview covers the internal use of Linux at NVIDIA, the current demand NVIDIA is seeing for Linux drivers, the biggest perceived obstacle in Linux becoming a mainstream gaming platform and the decision to maintain both an Open Source and closed source Linux driver."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA Engineers On The Realities Of Linux Drivers More

NVIDIA Engineers On The Realities Of Linux Drivers

Comments Filter:

  • Unified Driver Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:51AM (#10777098) Homepage Journal
    Much of the interview is the standard optimistic corporate smiley-face stuff you would expect. What I found interesting is the reference to a unified driver infrastructure. Apparently the bulk of their driver code is identical across platforms, so mostly what they need to maintain for Linux is a compatibility layer.

    This is what they cite in not open sourcing the driver--too much of the unified code is licensed by them from third parties. (Now why don't they ask their sources about a dual GPL/proprietary license?)

    The followup question that this raises is: Given that the base driver code is the same across platforms, are there any particular aspects of X or Linux that reduce performance?
    • "Now why don't they ask their sources about a dual GPL/proprietary license?"

      You think this never crossed their mind?
    • If the driver is so unified, i wonder why mac users don't get the same linux-x86 nvidia drivers.
    • WHat? Third party stuff? I call bullshit. Nvidia just didnt want their stuff to be GPL'ed.. Source..(cannot find original MS article)

      http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,210103 7,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]

      (QUOTE) An OEM is required to sort through a potential legal morass of licensing issues around the GPL if it wants to protect its intellectual property rights. This creates extra costs from both a development and legal perspective. An example of this risk can be taken from nVidia. An nVidia programmer, in the cou
      • You didn't read the article carefully. The nVidia programmer added GPL code to the driver, however doing so triggered the GPL clause where the entire driver needed to be released. Since third party licensed code is included in the driver that could not be released, the GPL code had to be removed.

        The only people that can truly comment on why the nVidia driver can or can not be released are internal to nVidia. So you have to take whatever nVidia says at face value. If they say there is licensed code in

        • """Because nVidia did not want to release the source code to its commercial software"""

          "Did not want to" implies that they CAN. Can not would infer third party reasons why they cant.

          SO.. YOu just didnt read it carefully enough. I know what Im talking about.
        • From the nVidia license agreement:

          "All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE ... are owned by NVIDIA, or its suppliers."

          This might be standard legalese, but it certanly states that code isn't necessarily all nVidia's.

          By the way, "yum update" is not a good idea on Fedora Core 2 if you have the nVidia driver installed.

    • Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @03:45PM (#10779778) Homepage Journal

      are there any particular aspects of X or Linux that reduce performance?

      Probably more so for X11, given its age.

      I'd be interested in having Someone That Really Knows tell me

      "Given the current trends in GPU speed, memory, system bus increases, 3D, scalable graphics and fonts, a clean sheet of paper, would it be possible to create a high-performance graphics subsystem that would last as long as X11 has?"


      "Could X11 be layered over the of the Y.NOT graphics system to speed its adoption?"
    • To me the obvious follow up question is: Okay, so you can't free the driver software. So be it. Can you at least open up the hardware specs, so that open-source people like the DRI boys can have a shot to compete with you?
      • They'll claim that their competitors will get a leg-up from it. My answer?

        "Said competitors have the labs, people and equipment to do stuff like electron microscopy if they feel the urge, and probably know more about how your product actually works than you do. Competitors can't steal ideas that are patented anyway. Not that unstable drivers are such a patentable idea. Your suppliers would probably be delighted if a competitor started licencing their technology, so they also have positive motivation to pub

    • I think that it was the driver itself. Recently, nvidia got out their new linux driver and, man, they got a perfomance boost so awesome that I cannot yet believe it. I am getting like 7fps more on Doom3 (from 21avg->28avg on demo1, 640x480), UT2004 goes way smooth and some IO hogging by the card was resolved (noticeable by clippy sound when playing games on certain versions of the kernel).

      In fact they're so awesome that I began to wonder if the previous driver releases were a bit fucked up. Still dunn

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close