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

Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

codyho.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 293 posts

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#201

Post by Dylan16807 »

15155 wrote: post #186
Dylan16807 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "case" does that mean you're rejecting the evidence of Phoenix technologies not getting sued along with all the other BIOS clones?

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. "Not getting sued" doesn't validate a legal theory - legal theories are validated in court where they become case law. Until then, they are plainly speculative. This "clean room RE" fabrication is also not something so obviously compelling that nobody would ever attempt to challenge it - it's just that nobody has cared to put dollars behind it. IP provenance cases are en…

Saying you won't believe it's effective at all until someone sues and loses isn't the most compelling argument. If nobody sues then yes that is some evidence of effectiveness. It's not an absence of evidence, you're misusing that line.

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#202

Post by Dylan16807 »

15155 wrote: post #187
mort96 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are plenty of successful projects which would probably have been taken down if it wasn't for clean room RE. I mean just look at the clean room IBM BIOS clones from "IBM compatibles" in the early days of the personal computer.

This is the same logic that the TSA uses to justify its existence. "We're so good nobody attempts it!"

The background level of software copyright legal actions is significant enough. If plane attacks happened that much then it would give us solid evidence of TSA effectiveness even if they never caught anyone directly.

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#205

Post by Akronymus »

charcircuit wrote: post #193
literallywho wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but they are one of the biggest DMCA abusers. They killed many fan projects. They killed game renting in Japan as a concept. They killed Yuzu (a Switch emulator). And they could change their mind at any time.

>They killed Yuzu (a Switch emulator). For the record Yuzu included code for circumventing Nintendo's DRM they had on game carts. It violated the DMCA.

yuzu also sold access to more recent builds which allowed people to play unreleased nintendo games early, afair

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#206

Post by Danox »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #115
MoltenMonster wrote: post #25

https://www.reddit.com/r/AsahiLinux/comments/1whecn1/comment... > The author was banned from Asahi Linux for hiding his extensive use of LLMs from us in another attempted contribution, and (more importantly) for concealing that he is a former Apple engineer with direct contacts to the people involved in Apple Silicon development. Make of this what you will.

The LLM use wasnt the part that bothered me so much, but having had an Apple contract is bad.

Who is getting really excited about the achievement and then you read that at the end it’s just slop, and the guy who achieved it was acting smug and you find out he’s a former Apple employee oh well, he ain’t Alyssa…

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#207

Post by Danox »

josephg wrote: post #75
MBCook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure it’s really easy when you can get help from the people who made the chip or write the Apple drivers.

Did you read the article? They didn’t get help from the people who made the chip or wrote the Apple drivers.

He lied about his background, kept it quiet…

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#208

Post by mitxela »

SXX wrote: post #121

Dear fellow humans from "Hacker News". Hacking a driver that in itself documentation to black box Apple hardware is not any different from hacking $10 4G LTE modem. Fact that a person who was not previously driver developer can achieve this in a few weeks is pure wonder. No matter what tools are used. Leave legal questions to Linux Foundation laywers or whoever is responsible to accept or not accept the patches. If A…

AI reverse engineering can be an amazing jumping off point. It's not production ready and someone still has to go over it with a fine tooth comb before it can be called production ready. It is okay to publish things that aren't production ready and they are much better than nothing at all, and we shouldn't harshly criticise the best thing in a category unless we make something better.

The difference between AI RE and non-AI RE, is being able to see AI_SubmitCommandQueue instead of FUN_92f475a1 when you are reading some other function, and knowing that function probably submits a command queue even if you haven't got to it yet. This makes it way easier to check the function you're currently in - for every function. There's still a good chance it's wrong, also.

At some point you get to AI_SubmitCommandQueue and have to verify it does actually submit a command queue, then you can rename it to just SubmitCommandQueue.

Or at least that's how I'd do it

Re: Building a Linux GPU Driver for the M4 Mac Mini in One Month

#210

Post by mitxela »

15155 wrote: post #152
bigyabai wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. Clean room RE is serious business, projects like Dolphin have to carefully vet contributors to remain legal.

Everyone says this, and then exactly zero cases are cited in support of or against this creative legal theory known as "clean room RE." No statute defines "clean room RE" and there's basically no relevant litigation establishing case law.

It's a defense. It's like having a moat around your castle. You don't need a moat to repel invaders since you also have a wall, and you might not get invaded anyway.

There's no law saying you have to do clean room RE. It's legal for me to look at a decompiled driver and write my own driver from scratch. It's not legal for me to just copy the decompilation, and a clean room environment is solid proof that it wasn't copied, but it's not the only way to not copy it, since I could also just not copy it.

Post reply on HN