Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chromium blacklists Nouveau

lists.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 411 posts

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#401

Post by atemerev »

alacombe wrote: post #386
altfredd wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nouveau and amdgpu were always barely working" — nah, you are spreading misleading information and lumping together completely unrelated projects at different stages of development. Noveau has been almost close to usable at some point... Until Nvidia started the whole signed firmware nonsence. Then it quickly became intolerable due to Nvidia, supplying no signed firmware or heavily crippled firmware. These days you…

I gave AMD a try with a couple different card, couldn't get them working properly. One was on a dual GPU setup, AMD failed, nvidia worked. Then I needed hardware accelerated HEVC encoding, bought a rv560, works great on windows, but AMD isn't playing fair with AMF on linux, once again failed by AMD, and I didn't want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers to use VDPAU, so that's a stalemate. Then I tried the AMD c…

How do you run 1060 with nouveau? My 1080 doesn't even boot to anything except black screen.

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#402

Post by geofft »

drb91 wrote: post #382
geofft wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Chrome is empirically quite user friendly - it's not installed by default anywhere and people choose to use it. It is true that Chrome isn't particularly power -user friendly for certain use cases, but that's different. Also, if you look at the bug report, it's quite clear they spent a lot of time trying to make nouveau work.

Well, people have always used bad software; popularity has never been a good metric of quality. Nothing about Chrome protects users from Google. This is a fundamental role of the browser.

That may be true but I'm not sure how that is relevant. Why would a browser not protecting users from Google be positively correlated with a browser not wanting to successfully render pages?

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#403

Post by Doxin »

apatters wrote: post #296
BurningCycles wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which is simply that Nvidia refuses to do a good job of supporting Linux in any way. I really dislike the way Nvidia makes it difficult for projects like Nouveau to reverse engineer an open driver, however I don't understand what you mean by poor support for their Linux driver, it's probably the one thing I can't fault them for as it is performing very well and stable. I'm with you on not buying NVidia products thou…

YMMV I suppose. Some people seem to have good experiences with their driver but mine have been terrible. I've used Ubuntu as my daily driver for 7 years now and Nvidia's driver has been the #1 source of crashes and configuration problems (half of the time I can't even get 3d accel working with it turned on, spend hours trying different versions that are reported on some forum to have fixed some problem but they don't…

You should give the SGFXI[1] script a try. it's a bit of a hassle to use video drivers from outside the apt-repos but that script basically always manages to set up a working driver for me.

[1] https://smxi.org/docs/sgfxi-manual.htm

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#404

Post by staktrace »

staktrace wrote: post #375
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this? This page disagrees: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drive... My unmodified Firefox stable channel on Linux has WebGL enabled OOTB and my distro does not have any specific flags specified for WebGL (or GL in general) in the package.

The page you linked to says: > GL layers acceleration is not yet enabled by default (see bug 594876). You can enable it by setting layers.acceleration.force-enabled=true in about:config. That means off by default. Also maybe relevant is that I'm on the Firefox Graphics team so I have some knowledge of this. If you want to verify, download a stock Firefox build from Mozilla, run it on a new profile, and check what it…

That should say "... Graphics section of about:support"

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#405

Post by PhasmaFelis »

drb91 wrote: post #383
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User-friendliness is usually understood as being about usability and interface design. Spyware-riddled software may be shitty, and that should be called out, but it's orthogonal to user-friendliness. Edit: You seem to disagree. Google "user-friendly" and realize that I'm not defending Chrome.

Just because corporate language doesn’t include any way of expressing representing consumer and user interests outside of what can be represented in a transaction doesn’t mean it isn’t worth expressing.

There's plenty of ways to express it. Call it exploitative, dishonest, money-grubbing, soulless. If you instead call it "non-user-friendly," expect people to be confused, because that's not what "user-friendly" means.

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#406

Post by monocasa »

vetinari wrote: post #332
monocasa wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPLv2 literally defines itself in relation to trees of derived works: > The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. The argument that I've is that even wh…

GPL defines itself by four essential freedoms. Your argument is, why some piece of software should (or should not) be relicensed to GPL. My argument is, that since that piece of software is currently not GPL licensed; avoids the relicensing topics and explores how to solve the current situation wrt distribution of the combined work. Use by the end-user is non-issue, due to freedom 0.

Their argument is that even if linked and distributed, there is no GPL violation for the reasons above.

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#407

Post by alacombe »

atemerev wrote: post #401
alacombe wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave AMD a try with a couple different card, couldn't get them working properly. One was on a dual GPU setup, AMD failed, nvidia worked. Then I needed hardware accelerated HEVC encoding, bought a rv560, works great on windows, but AMD isn't playing fair with AMF on linux, once again failed by AMD, and I didn't want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers to use VDPAU, so that's a stalemate. Then I tried the AMD c…

How do you run 1060 with nouveau? My 1080 doesn't even boot to anything except black screen.

It just worked out of the box with the last Fedora.

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#408

Post by sevensor »

xvilka wrote: post #348
sevensor wrote: post #89

NVidia comes out of this looking very bad. It's not as if a GPU can't have good Linux support (see AMD, Intel), but theirs doesn't. Although I haven't spent my hard-earned money on their hardware since 2005, I have several machines at work that are burdened with it. Some lock up with Nouveau drivers, others crash with NVidia drivers. I can only conclude that the hardware is unstable.

Then it is good. The worse NVIDIA public image is - the better.

The problem from my perspective is that a major GPU vendor seems to think it's appropriate to paper over hardware problems with proprietary drivers, and they get away with it. While their reputation ought to suffer for that, I'd rather see them mend their ways. I'd love to take NVidia off my blacklist.

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#409

Post by smueller1234 »

loeg wrote: post #400
smueller1234 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that different than the branding/trademark issue that Firefox also had for years? (Not bring cynical, I genuinely don't know.)

Yes, it's different. You can build trademark Firefox so long as you do not modify it at all. You cannot build Chrome from the chromium sources — there are components which are not present in the open source repository. It's not just the trademark, unlike Firefox vs Iceweasel.

Thanks for the explanation!

From reading more about it, it seems these are all benign (in the sense of Chromium couldn't ship h264 because it's licensed but Chrome can).

Re: Chromium blacklists Nouveau

#410

Post by bubblethink »

cmurf wrote: post #395
zanny wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a VAAPI build of Chromium, it isn't on by default. Arch has a PKGBUILD in the repo: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-vaapi/ and I think there are builds for most popular distros out there nowadays. If you are on Arch or one of its family you can get a -bin version in the AUR or use ArchlinuxCN that builds it in their repo.

The Chromium in Fedora's standard repo is built with it, and when I run it chrome://gpu does say video hardware acceleration is enabled. But at least with a handful of youtube videos, it doesn't matter, still uses 200%+ CPU, same as Chrome (no acceleration), laptop still gets hot and fans still run.

Are you on wayland ? That only works for X. See the comments section of https://fedoramagazine.org/chromium-on-fedora-finally-gets-v...
Post reply on HN