LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > Linux - News > Interviews
User Name
Password
Interviews People Interviewed by LinuxQuestions.org

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-23-2004, 12:07 AM   #91
DragonWisard
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: MD, USA (D.C. Suburbs)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 95

Rep: Reputation: 53

I agree with you that Linux is a wonderful OS and I enjoy it an many of the free applications that run on it. However, I don't mind paying money for software that I feel is useful and fairly priced. I encourage people to donate what they can (money, code, hardware) to Open Source projects that they belive in. The programmers aren't necessairily doing it for the money, but they do appreciate the compensation and the less they have to worry about money and their "real jobs" the more the can work on the project you're supporting (at least in theory). Anyways, in many economic systems there exists the idea of a fair exchange towards the mutual benefit of both parties. You're getting a good piece of software so it makes sense to "give back" what you can to reciprocate.

This is my personal view and I'm sure some people will disagree with me. But this is one way we can move towards a system of free software and soften the economic blow to programmers who rely on software sales for income.
 
Old 11-23-2004, 02:03 AM   #92
ncrfgs
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 11

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
I agree with you that Linux is a wonderful OS
Linux isn't an OS, it's only a kernel. The OS you are talking about is the variat of GNU system based on the Linux kernel. Please, since in your posts you talk ofter about giving authors what they deserve, try to call things with their names.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
Quote:
Originally posted by ncrfgs
I don't know, ask it to Free Software developers
You aren't one?
I wouldn't call myself a software developer but anyway It just meant to be ironic. You asked what "could ever be" ( -_-;; ) the motivation for an author to write a work if he can't earn from licences selling. I just meant to make you to notice that there are already authors that often doesn't care about and that they aren't few. The authors I'm talking about are Free Software developers but they're not the only ones and not only in the software field.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
I didn't mean to imply that the software authors are more important than the users. I'm simply trying to defend their right to control the spread of their own creations.
The right? What right?I think that, once the work is developed, there shouldn't be anyone to tell how a user can or can't use that work. You call it a right, I call it an abuse.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
As you stated yourself, there is information that people might not want shared with everyone. The pin number to your bank account is as intangible as software and just as you protect that pin number some software authors may wish to protect the source code to their programs.
You seem still to miss the difference between RELEASED and UNRELEASED information. Once again, your example is non-sense. My social security number, credit card number, and the pin number to my bank account are information I don't want to be released. After a writer release a book IMO he doesn't have any right to say how a reader can or can't use what he wrote.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
I'm not familiar with that particular case but I will look into it as I am now curious about it. Since you called it "your Constitution" I assume you're not a US citizen, may I inquire where you are from? It's not important, but I'm curious about that as well.
Italy.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
I did read the web page (shouldbefree.html) and I both agree and disagree with parts of their argument. Free software in most cases does hat the potential to be more useful to society. However, they make the assumption that the programmers recieve the necessary compensation for their work. That is all that I'm putting in question, does this system have the potentail to always provide the necessary compensation for the programmers in every situation.
It depends on what do you mean with "necessary". If you mean that you want to earn as much as Bill Gates, maybe not but I think that nobody should be never allowed to. Bill Gates could buy a whole country. I don't think it's acceptable. If a system allows that, there's something wrong with it.

I'd like to make you to notice that Bill Gates isn't even a programmer anyway. =) This is the sad thing... Do you think that a Microsoft programmer earns a lot of money? I don't think so. And even it they do, think about all the programmers Microsoft made unemployed with its anticompetitive policy.

Furthermore If I say to someone "Linux" he immediately thinks about Linus Torvalds. If say "Windows" are could he tell me the name of a single Microsoft developer? I don't think so. And the proprietary software system is supposed to be the system that gives programmer what they deserve? Com'n... please don't make me laugh...

Proprietary Software provide (and not even always) compensation only for publishers, bloodsucker that the world should get rid of as soon as possible. Free Software would free programmers from publishers as well.

But I now ask you the question back. Does your proprietary system have to potential to always provide the compensation for the programmers in every situation? Please, if you want to be taken seriously, don't answer yes...


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
Also, trying to get away from a reliance on per-copy sales, many companies are developing subscription-based games (like EverQuest). If a subscription-based game were open-source, not only would they have to deal with issues of cheating, but also server-emulation. Think about it, if you wrote the EverQuest client, you wouldn't want another company to come along offering the players of the game a free or cheap alternative to the subscription-based servers you're offering them.
Well, I don't know about you, but I call this "competition", the thing free market should be about. If you don't want to lose subscribers than make your service competitive. If you fear to lose subscribers then maybe you have something to hide... What you say shows once again how the proprietary software is only great when you want to adopt anti-competitive policies. And yours is supposed to be the country of free market...


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
Further, open-source can be harmful to some types of games. For games that are played multi-player, an open-source game would be much easier to "hack". A player that is familiar with programming would be able to re-write their copy to give themselves an unfair advantage over other players. Ofcourse, the game could be written to reduce the potential for such cheats, but that would bloat the code or at the least make it more complicated and, therfore, confusing to read.
Fairy tales... Who said that a source in order to be safe has to be unclean, complicated and confusing? What planet do you live on?


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
Subscriptions pay for both the high-capacity servers/bandwidth as well as the programmers and artists who are constantly improving the game and adding content and also the dedicated support staff. Outside competitors would lag behind without the power a paid full-time staff developing for them but most gamers would still rather turn to the cheap alternative. In fact, it's possible that without one group controlling the source-code to the game you could wind up with numerous incompatible versions. Since the whole point of a MMORPG is the Massively Multiplayer part, the more you devide the community (amoung different servers or version of the game) the less fun it becomes for everyone. It ruins the experience of a persistant, player-filled world.
It ruins that only in a proprietary software system.

With Even if the source code is available you can't run the server on the every day computer. Thus there would be more competition between service provider, prices would be lower and people would be able to access more easily to a game and to try more games.

Communities and games that suck would disappear in a Darwinian way. The developers community would focus only on few games to make them better and who provides the game service would compete only on the quality of service field.

Thus with Free Software player experience would get better not the other way around.

Videogames (supposed that people need them, but I don't think so) would exist even without proprietary software.


Quote:
Originally posted by DragonWisard
I like free-software too, I've even written and contributed to some. I just don't think EVERYTHING needs to be open-source. Closed-source can add one more security defense against those who have less-than-honorable motives.
You argument is weak. The source code being closed because doesn't make a program safe. The security of a program relies in the security of its data strucures, not in its source closing. I don't believe in security through obscurity.

Let's think about OpenSSL. People use it for example to exchage very sensible data in a safe way. But its source is open and people use it anyway. Does this mean it isn't safe? I don't think so...


BTW, you can keep on arguing about how much software owners (not always programmers, that's a point you seem to miss) earn or about videogames. This won't change the fact that if you weigh the Rights and the Freedom of the users, they outbalance the privileges and interest and the abuses (because that's what you were talking about) of fews on the social usefulness scale.


It's a matter of control.

Computers are everywhere. We depend on computers. Computers depend on software. Then who control software control us. If there's a software owner who can control what a user can or can't do with that software, the software owner can use this power against users.

If the software is closed you can't know what that software actually does. What about voting machines? Proprietary software give too much power in the hands of few people that can control our lives. This is not acceptable. Free Software give users control back.


It's a matter of sharing.

The proprietary software make people to think that sharing is bad. Our society and our culture is based on sharing. Sharing isn't something bad, it's something that should be encouraged. Human culture developed with sharing. Free Software allows people to share again.


It's a matter of Freedom.

With proprietary software fewer people use the program, none of the users can adapt or fix the program, other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it.

With Free Software, there is a wider use of each program that is developed, the ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead of starting from scratch, a better education of programmers, the elimination of duplicate development effort.

Proprietary Software take users' Freedom away. Free Software give the users their Freedom back.


Proprietary Software is a plague and shouldn't exist. People deserve Free Software.

Last edited by ncrfgs; 11-23-2004 at 02:14 AM.
 
Old 11-23-2004, 05:08 PM   #93
DragonWisard
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: MD, USA (D.C. Suburbs)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 95

Rep: Reputation: 53
Yes, when I said Linux I meant GNU\Linux. I assumed those reading my post would be familiar with the fact that GNU\Linux is often shortened to Linux for conveinence, not out of any disrespect.

Your view that it is abuse for programmers to try to control distribution of there programs is as exteemist as my view that it is their right. I'll just agree to disagree with you there, I'm not convinced it's abuse but I can see how you would disagree that it's a right.

I don't see everything as "RELEASED" and "UNRELEASED" I belive there should be such a thing as "LIMITED RELEASE".

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity.

I don't think that every company should be like Microsoft. I also think that Bill Gates has more money than he deserves. However, not ALL software companies operate as Microsoft does. I don't think it's fair to use the most extreem possible example to represent the entire group. And I don't think that a proprietary system ALWAYS provides developers with compensation, but neither can open source (unless we make changes to our economic system and society at large). Of the programmers whom I've talked to who worked either directly or indrectly for Microsoft, none of them ever complained about their pay. They got what they wanted out of their relationship with Microsoft because they knew who and what they were dealing with going in. If they wanted all the glory they could have found other companies to publish their code or they could have published it themselves.

My point is not that competition is bad, but I prefer to see competiton on the level of EverQuest vs. Dark Age of Camelot. Not Glient A of EQ vs. Client B of EQ.

Have you ever written a cheat for a game? Better yet, what experience do you have with anti-cheat technology?

The MMORPG market is already competetive enough. The few good MMORPGs availible are competing over a reletively small crowd and it's enough to worry about competing with other games without the threat of other servers or variants of your own game. If the subscription prices got any lower how would they be able to afford the 24-7 tech support and full-time staff who work to deliver new content, let alone the bandwidth and other operating costs.

I'm not saying that closed-source will make it more secure, just that it adds one obstacle. How would you pick a lock if you didn't know how the lock worked? OpenSSL is encryption software, security is it's job. Are you suggesting we add the overhead of strong encryption to a real-time, multiplayer game? The servers already have to compute enough already w/o wasting cycles decoding encrypted packets. And the system requirements for clients would jump if they had to run commercial-strenght encryption algorithms allong with the rest of the game's code. Counter-Strike (a mod for the FPS game Half-Life) can get 30 frames-per-second on a 266MHz machine, if that machine had to run encryption in the background the frames-per-second would drop to about 4. Have you ever tried to play a First Person Shooter at 4 frames per second? It's soo much easier to just hide the inner workings with closed source than to try to protect them with encryption.

Games may not be necessary software, but I belive someone else on this message board (or maybe on TransGaming's board) said, "It's unfortunate that the success of an Operating System lies it's it ability to play games." And isn't that why most of us use the nvidia driver instead of nv? Would you suggest that we stop playing and developing games because they aren't strictly "necessary" to the computer industry? Computer games have caused us to push the limits of technology and motivate many people to buy "better" hardware, which helps the hardware manufacturers. Would we wouldn't have software if we didn't have hardware so what's good for hardware is good for software.

I know that software owners aren't always the programmers who wrote that software, however the programmers who wrote the software still benefit when the company they work for has a good quarter.

On a more related topic, has anyone tried the nvidia driver on a laptop? Does it work as well on laptops as it does with desktops? ATI doesn't even release drivers for most of their mobile cards but nVidia uses that "unified driver model" so it should work rite?
 
Old 11-24-2004, 07:06 PM   #94
sdat1333
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: North Carolina, USA
Distribution: None right now :(
Posts: 149

Rep: Reputation: 15
Just a question, why cant closedsource drivers be integrated with an opensource OS? Not every part of linux HAS to be open source, considering a lot of ppl like me never mess with changing linux source code anyway.

P.S. I am a huge Nvida fan and have never purchased anything but NVidia. THANK YOU NVIDIA, You have my loyalty.
 
Old 11-24-2004, 08:01 PM   #95
reverendm
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Charlotte NC
Distribution: Win2k pro, Damn Small Linux, Mandrake Move, Mandrake 10.1ce, xandros
Posts: 52

Rep: Reputation: 15
it dose not HAVE to be anything. what we are reading are two very extreme view points. i tried to plant the seed of open mindedness and relax behavior without success. but one could consider me an extreme by own motivation.

i love nvidia too
 
Old 12-07-2004, 11:36 AM   #96
paulinimus
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: SLACKWARE10.0
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Obi-Wan_Kenobi
I can tell you that Linux drivers is the sole reason I buy nVidia, and ONLY nVidia. Congrats guys, you earned brand loyalty from me by supporting Linux. Many other Linux users feel the same way, and if anyone asks me what graphics card to get, you can be sure I'll recommend nVidia because of its good Linux drivers.

See, supporting Linux is profitable

-= Obi-Wan =-
Yep, you speak for me too : )
 
Old 11-01-2006, 02:02 PM   #97
clearer
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Denmark
Distribution: Fedora Core 3
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 0
Thumbs down Why it's bad to not release documentation

I for one don't care about the source code for the drivers that nVidia has already made.

One VERY valid reason why nVidia should release documentation for their chips is that if they do the drivers the FOSS community makes, can, and will, be included in the kernels and what-not (X servers) that the FOSS community creates. This means that nvidia hardware will be supported out of the box. It also means that if you decide to get a very uncommon processor, you will still be able to use the nvidia chips. This in turns means that if people want hardware that works, they will be more inclined too choose nvidia. System designers could add an nVidia chip to PDAs, multimedia devices and what-not.

GPU manufacturers are not bound to one CPU architecture. It would be very reasonable to add a GeForce 7950 GTX chip to an ARM based computer (it would be rather overpowered though), and if there where open source drivers, that 7950 GTX would actually work -- without those, nVidia would have too release a compiled version of the drivers, which requires the user to know if he is running his OS in big or little-endian (ARMs have an instruction that change their endianess), and if nVidia doesn't ship the right drivers -- well.. sucks to be you.

Documentation could also enable MS to make these drivers, which in turn would mean that nvidia would have an even larger advantage over competitors.

nVidia is not forced to stop making their own drivers. If they have some sort of secret killer way of doing something, it might be a good idea for them to make their own drivers, which could be faster. Possibly, even just releasing a firmware, to enhance the driver already made by the FOSS community.

Right now, I am having problems getting my hardware to do what I want it to. X crashes more than what is comfortable. My xrandr doesn't work -- it's been getting worse and worse for a couple of releases now, and because of the way their libGL works, I can't use my onboard GPU as well as my 7900 GT, at the same time (I have to completely uninstall the nvidia drivers).

I am considering getting a motherboard with an onboard GPU, which does have open source graphics drivers. I win on more than one point if I do this:
1) power consumption. My 7900 GT requires extra power from my PSU and that my PSU is at least a 400W PSU -- my CPU doesn't have those requirements.
2) Heat. My 7900 GT produces more heat than my +800 MHZ overclocked dual core CPU.
3) Money. I can sell my 7900 GT and get a bit of cash back from the purchase. Some of that I could spend on a new motherboard which has an FOSS enabled GPU (also, I save money from (1), and (very little) from (2) -- less active cooling).
4) Easy of use. It's just easier to use something that works, and that works out of the box -- don't you think?
5) Bugs. nVidia software for FOSS OS' are riddled with bugs. While FOSS software isn't perfect, it certainly is easier to find out what those bugs are and how to avoid them (if possible) -- have you seen a bugzilla for nvidia drivers?
6) Noise. My 7900 GT make a LOT of noise.
7) X support. X is going through a fase of change right now. AIGLX and XGL have just arrived. Some GPUs (FOSS all of them) works without any problems on AIGLX -- nvidia's doesn't (well, I haven't found anyone who has made compiz work on AIGLX with the closed source drivers). Personally X crashes on my computer if I load any modules while also loading the nvidia driver.

While onboard GPUs rarely are great, I have had some that where competitive to PCIe based GPUs, and certainly if you consider the points I have made above. Usually a motherboard with an OK GPU is not a lot more expensive than one without a GPU at all, so all in all, it just means one less piece of hardware i have to consider. And yes, I am aware that onboard GPUs are not near that of the top GPUs, but they are, by far, enough to run the need of most people's, even gamers, today. I doubt that this trend will change -- so far it's been going towards more and more powerful onboard GPUs, relative to AGP and PCIe based solutions.
 
Old 11-15-2006, 11:40 PM   #98
rndinlinux
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
I Agree all the comments,

As i learn RedHat Linux[033], i want to get the job in linux Background, and i know Perl and Shell Scripting, But i am Working as Software Tester. will it possible to get job in Linux background or i do remaining 2 modules...

Plz Help me..
 
Old 12-18-2006, 04:23 AM   #99
Danny Lawson
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: 15
Wow that's great news.
I guess my move towards Linux has inspired a lot to others.
There are many more to come and enjoy Learning/using LINUX.
 
Old 01-13-2007, 07:07 PM   #100
xjlittle
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: fc6 sles9 & 10 kubuntu ubuntu-server
Posts: 240
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dummy-in-Linux
It is a bit funny that an operating system stands or falls with the availability of games.
That's odd.. I thought Linux was standing quite solidly as it is without being a major gaming platform. Funny when you think about it though-it's like saying Windows exists only because there are more games that will work on it.
 
Old 01-14-2007, 01:37 AM   #101
sidboyce
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Halesowen, West Midlands, UK
Distribution: SuSE 10.0/Mandriva 2006/gentoo
Posts: 86

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by xjlittle
That's odd.. I thought Linux was standing quite solidly as it is without being a major gaming platform. Funny when you think about it though-it's like saying Windows exists only because there are more games that will work on it.
I've been with Linux since Linus released the first kernel and have seen all the variations on the theme that Linux will never/will not until/can't/won't etc., etc. There has been zero impact from the negatives, the bogus studies and whatever dirt has been thrown at it - it still thrives, improves and expands. I couldn't care whether it's called simply Linux or GNU/Linux, it does the job admirably and is attracting wider and wider use.
I have relatives that I've equipped with Linux-only PC's and the only point that I have had to explain a few times is that when they buy a new piece of gear, the nice shiny CD's aren't necessary - the last time was when one of them got a new digital camera for Christmas and plugged it in, konqueror fired up and displayed the pictures he had taken, still he asked what he needed to do with the CD's, I told him they were (Windows only) useless with Linux, then installed and walked him through Google Picasa. His daughter was then handed the CD's to install on her Windows laptop. Petrol for petrol engines, diesel for diesel engines, that simple.
 
Old 05-16-2007, 10:44 PM   #102
ErrorBound
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 280

Rep: Reputation: 31
The newer Intel 915 cards are actually quite decent, the total opposite of the way integrated graphics used to be. Runs Beryl and Compiz quite nicely

Oh, and their 3d drivers are totally open sourced and integrated into the kernel. (AMD follow suit? please?)
 
  


Reply

Tags
documentation, nvidia


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calling all Engineers.... barton General 13 05-08-2010 03:24 PM
Who to Interview? jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 46 12-12-2004 10:56 AM
nvidia interview... why oh why.... trey85stang General 16 11-13-2004 02:13 PM
Interview with NVIDIA Engineers jeremy Linux - News 3 11-13-2004 08:03 AM
Next Interview - NVIDIA jeremy Linux - Hardware 1 10-12-2004 09:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration