NVIDIA Engineers On The Realities Of Linux Drivers

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."

Comments

Unified Driver Infrastructure

[crow]

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?

Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure

[Stevyn]

"Now why don't they ask their sources about a dual GPL/proprietary license?"

You think this never crossed their mind?

Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure

[Creepy Crawler]

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

(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 course of developing a driver for one of its products, used a portion of code from a freely available video driver. The developer failed to realise the code was licensed under the GPL and would therefore require nVidia to release the source code for its entire driver. Because nVidia did not want to release the source code to its commercial software, the company incurred substantial costs to develop a new driver that did not contain the GPL code. (/QUOTE)

Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure

[Gogo Dodo]

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 their drivers that they can't release, then you have to accept that, as you are in no position to say "Bullshit! There is no licensed code." You don't have access to the source, so you wouldn't know.

Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure

[4of12]

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?"

Re:Unified Driver Infrastructure

[Smallpond]

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.

You'll get the same idiot reply out of all of them

[leonbrooks]

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 publish, which conflicts with yours. The only people you're really hurting are your customers, and consequently your own sales."

They'll ignore that too, but the first one to go truly open (XGI did that, but only with their 2D stuff, ATI did too but only with limited amounts of their older stuff) will see people doing useful tricks and performance enhancements with their cards that they didn't think was possible. Once that becomes common knowledge, the people with the wallets will follow too. By that time, the damage will be done and the other manufacturers will be chasing tail-lights.