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

Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

developer.nvidia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 415 posts

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#361

Post by rawoke083600 »

paisawalla wrote: post #57
samstave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Nvidia have always shipped closed-source drivers, despite AMD and Intel providing open source drivers for their GPUs. This made the experience on Linux second class to Windows, where while also closed source, at least you knew that bugs would probably get fixed. Various non-core features simply wouldn't have support on Linux, e.g. Optimus. Also, shipping closed source binaries would limit which kernel you could run t…

>If you just search the web for "Nvidia issues Linux" you'll see quite a few complaints.

I'd wager that is the BULK of the linux-power-user complaints. I'm definitely never buying NVIDIA again for my next PC. The last time I decided to go for Nvidia was because of their CUDA/ML eco-system.

Next time I'll just use the cloud for any ML/GPU-computing. The amount of time wasted by nvidia-driver nonsense is actually absurd !

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#362

Post by anthk »

messe wrote: post #64
anthk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the module can use MESA, good. If not, meh. >. Adding enough just emulation for the userspace driver would be a lot easier than maintaining a complete linux emulator. OpenBSD it's the best BSD on support for free (Intel) and semi free drivers such as the ones from AMD, they already adapted all the src from Linux, KMS included.

That's very different. The source code for the userspace portions of the MESA drivers for AMD/Intel are released under a permissive licenses, so OpenBSD (and other BSDs) have been able to modify them to compile under their OS (and get those changes committed to the original tree). With NVIDIA, the userspace portions don't use MESA, so would need some form of translation layer to work on an OS other than Linux. But, s…

KMS is from the kernel.

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#363

Post by tzs »

pornel wrote: post #84
throw0101a wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The module was a proprietary binary. Since a kernel module requires interfacing with the kernel API, it could be considered a derivative work and a breach of the GPL license. I never quite understood this logic: the same (?) binary blob is used for the FreeBSD and Solaris drivers. * https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ So how can it be a 'derivative' of the GPL Linux if it it also used on non-GPL systems?

Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.

> Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning

The license does not contain a definition for "derivative" nor of the similar term "derived" which it also uses.

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#365

Post by Qwertious »

account42 wrote: post #350
native_samples wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Drivers represent enormous amounts of work and large parts of the overall development/IP effort in a GPU. Asking why nVidia don't open source it is like asking why they don't just open source the entire GPU. Answer: because then they'd have a much smaller and less valuable business, if they even had a business at all.

> because then they'd have a much smaller and less valuable business, if they even had a business at all. This does not follow. While GPU drivers are a huge development effort, they are also very specific to the hardware. This is even more true with modern APIs that are closer to how the hardware works. AMD and Intel both have open source GPU drivers and they are still in business. Are you claiming that their busines…

>AMD and Intel both have open source GPU drivers and they are still in business. Are you claiming that their business would be much bigger if not for those open source drivers?

AMD and Intel are underdogs, and benefit from open standards. Nvidia has an outright majority, and as a result their incompatible "standards" benefit them, because it forces everyone to choose between supporting Nvidia (and therefore the majority of their userbase), or "open standards" (a minority).

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#367

Post by tzs »

throw0101a wrote: post #152
pornel wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.

Linus Torvalds: But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply b…

By that reasoning every program written to run on MS-DOS was a "derived work" of MS-DOS. Such programs were written with MS-DOS in mind, and often mucked around with fundamental internal MS-DOS behavior.

Same with pre-OS X Mac. Most Mac programs were written with Mac in mind, and it was not uncommon for programs mucked around with OS code and data.

What matters is how copyright law defines derivative work, and in the US that has nothing to do with whether or not your work was written with another work in mind or plays with fundamental internal behavior of another work. What matters is whether or not it incorporates copyrighted elements of another work.

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#369

Post by Qwertious »

eru wrote: post #209
SemanticStrengh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APUs are eating the market of novideo, see e.g. the performance of the M1 iGPU

Are APUs different from what we used to call integrated graphics cards?

Integrated video cards were integrated onto the motherboard. APUs/iGPUs are integrated into the CPU.

Re: Nvidia releases open-source GPU kernel modules

#370

Post by JonChesterfield »

anthk wrote: post #261
SXX wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMD proprietary driver actually has only few proprietary bits. Other than OpenCL that was already mentioned there are: * Proprietary shader compiler that can also be used for Vulkan * Legacy OpenGL driver optimized for closed-source workstation apps

Worse than I tought: https://rebatir.fr/post/2022-01-25-OpenCL_on_Linux_state_of_...

The rocm stack has a short list of supported hardware, but it'll run in YMMV fashion on other hardware.
Post reply on HN