Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
I must've missed that from in the post. Do you have more information on that?
Anti Commercial-AI license
One of the (now ex) maintainers by the name of Christoph Hellwig said that they don't want multiple languages in their area of the kernel because it becomes hard to maintain, and specifically called out the fact that it wasn't targeted at Rust - they would have rejected Assembly too. The Rust developer by the name of Hector (can't remember his last name) pushing the change took it as a personal attack, flipped his shit and quit after trying to attack Christoph and get him removed for describing the introduction of another language as being akin to a "cancer."
Then Linus came in, noticed that the change wasn't actually pushing any non-C code into the kernel and told the maintainer that it wasn't his area to block in the first place, and that he has no place telling others what to do outside of the kernel.
So we lost a kernel maintainer and a Rust developer over one issue.
You're not wrong, but that's not the part they quoted :)
Ahh you're right, I misread and thought it was about the rust drama. I need more coffee.
The article mentions the following ...
Also in the same article, there's a link to another article that mentions it a little bit more ...
I've also read something about it from other places, other articles as well ...
Basically, some/allot of the Nvidia "magic" is in their hardware/firmware, and that they are not open source.
Feel free to double check me on this though, that's just my interpretation based on quickly reading some articles over the last six months or so.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Thanks for the links. I'm not versed in drivers, but I expect most to talk to a proprietary firmware at some point. Most computers have a proprietary BIOS they have to talk to, though they do follow open standards. NVIDIA's GSP probably doesn't have open standards. Whether the API is documented might also be an area of concern.
At least this is a step forward. Good read 👍
Anti Commercial-AI license
I can't find the link to show you, but I had thought I read before where some of the Nvidia 'Secret Sauce' code that would normally be in the driver software was in the firmware, and that the firmware was not open sourced.
So it would mean extra effort for the open source driver coders to try to get the same kind of performance. Basically Nvidia not open sourcing their proprietary code that gives them the/partial advantage in speed.
I think I remember reading about it in a web article, but like as I mentioned, I can't remember which, or else I'd link it for you.
More than willing to admit I'm wrong about that interpretation too, but I remember it's sticking out in my mind at the time of reading, as a "Sneaky Nvidia!" type of thought.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Them being NVIDIA, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they pulled such shenanigans. Doubtful anybody wouldn't put it past them. (What a weird expression BTW, eh?)
Anti Commercial-AI license