@ASiegel

Quote:

63 percent were laptops. The vast majority of them included no dedicated GPU from either AMD or nVIDIA but featured only Intel's "GPUs", which are not exactly known for delivering high levels of performance.

Do not underestimate Intel "GPUs". I use my cheap Core i3-5005U based laptop mainly as a game machine. Sure, I don´t play new games (Tyranny being the sole exception) and must lower settings (eg. antialiasing) in many games.

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @jorit2 But we are talking about a device driver here, which is stand alone element not linked to the exec / dos / filesystem parts but provinding service to them.

In that case, I ... trust your judgment.

Regards,
Evert

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --

@broadblues

Quote:

But we are talking about a device driver here, which is stand alone element not linked to the exec / dos / filesystem parts but provinding service to them.

Microkernels FTW!

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

Quote:

Microkernels FTW!

Hmm?

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@jorit2

Quote:

But I can imagine the kernel or other core parts of the system linking (statically or "shared) to whatever is derived of the snippet of code mentioned above, which would have to be GPL as well. As a consequence, the kernel (...) would have to be GPL as well. Releasing the code of libata (or whatever is derived of it) won't do.

The GPL is just a licence: a legal document that regulates the use of something between involved parties. As such, it enters the wider context of a particular jurisdiction or legal system, together with other legal documents. It's not a magic wand that makes things happen: the conditions stipulated in the licence may not hamper the effectiveness of other existing legal documents, valid regulations, or undeniable rights.

You're suggesting that a snippet of GPL'ed code used in the OS kernel would require the sources of the entire kernel be made publicly available. Based on what the GPL says, that indeed is the case - at least in theory.

The reality is a bit more complex. A thing such as an OS kernel has probably been developed for a few years, if not decades. The code written so far (and there will be a lot of code in a kernel) is the property of someone, be it a single or a collective entity. That someone owns the rights to the work by way of copyright law. Applying the GPL conditions in full here because a piece of GPL'ed code has been used in the kernel would effectively override the copyright law and infringe upon the rights of the people who have written the kernel. If taken to court, a sensible judge would readily dismiss this particular GPL claim and order some kind of compromise, such as: only make available directly related parts of the kernel code. Which makes a very good sense: for example, why on Earth should you give people the source code to Exec if the borrowed GPL code was related to a DOS device driver?

The reason why the LGPL came into existence was not that the GPL was too strict but, rather, because it was impractical: its provisions turned out to be difficult to enforce in legal reality.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@Trixie

Making abstraction of BroadBlues' clarifications about this case

Quote:

The reality is a bit more complex. A thing such as an OS kernel has probably been developed for a few years, if not decades. The code written so far (and there will be a lot of code in a kernel) is the property of someone, be it a single or a collective entity. That someone owns the rights to the work by way of copyright law. Applying the GPL conditions in full here because a piece of GPL'ed code has been used in the kernel would effectively override the copyright law and infringe upon the rights of the people who have written the kernel.

That is true. But there's always the option to NOT include GPL-code, if it poses some legal challenges.

Quote:

If taken to court, a sensible judge would readily dismiss this particular GPL claim and order some kind of compromise, such as: only make available directly related parts of the kernel code. Which makes a very good sense: for example, why on Earth should you give people the source code to Exec if the borrowed GPL code was related to a DOS device driver?

You're basically throwing one of the core provisions of the GPL out of the window

Evert

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --

@simplex

Eh.. no drivers in the kickstart folder, not part of the kernel, and AmigaOS don't use static linking, it has .libraries and .devices, this are loaded into memory, not liked at run time, and AmigaOS 4.1 support .so files, and this are also linked on run time, so there are many ways you use GPL code without breaking the license.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Aug-2018 at 09:33 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@broadblues

Quote:

broadblues wrote: @simplex Quote: Microkernels FTW! Hmm?

I sort of misspoke. Microkernels are definitely an example, but I had forgotten that some monolithic kernels can link and unlink to device drivers dynamically (e.g., Linux).

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Eh.. no drivers in the kickstart folder, not part of the kernel, and AmigaOS don't use static linking, it has .libraries and .devices, this are loaded into memory, not liked at run time, and AmigaOS 4.1 support .so files, and this are also linked on run time, so there are many ways you use GPL code without breaking the license.

Right, but AmigaOS is a microkernel, so it's an example of what I was talking about. In fact, I meant to be alluding to it.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@simplex

NVidia provided driver that possible to compile for Linux, but only part of it was open source. Some of it was a binary object file that was nvida copyright code.

1# This was good because it removed the issue of GPL header files and whatever issue might become hot potato.

2# Linux looks for drivers that linked to the kernel version, with proper API.

Sadly as binary blob was intel machine code, is was not usable on powerpc, but NVidia did care at the time.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 19-Aug-2018 at 09:43 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NVidia provided driver...

I'm not sure what you're replying to, or what your point is, really?

Nvidia drivers were notorious for not working very well, at least the first few years. You not only had to have the stars in perfect alignment, you generally had to sacrifice a virgin to your local Linux guru in order to find the right X.org setup. You had to compile against kernel headers as I recall (maybe you still do) and every time you downloaded a new kernel with a new ABI you had to recompile it anew.

As I recall, ATI/AMD provided fully open source drivers that actually worked. They just weren't as functional as the closed-source "Catalyst" driver. However, it has guaranteed that I try to buy an AMD or Intel chip henceforth, because I know I won't have to re-endure that nightmare that Nvidia basically guaranteed.

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@all

Good thing this thread has stayed on its controversial topic.

@jorit2

Quote:

You're basically throwing one of the core provisions of the GPL out of the window

I'm not. I'm just outlining a situation in which the said core provision might be difficult to enforce and defend in court. But of course, you are right that everybody has the option not to use GPL'ed code.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@ASiegel

You've disregarded the context with most of your points there though.

I was responding to things. Again,.... context.

The suggestion was that a modern new average pc can't push a modern graphics card.

I was simply saying that vs. something like the x1000 or x5000 it's like chalk and cheese. Absolutely different worlds and not remotely the same ballpark, which is what was implied.
That's what my response was about.

No idea how you've come up with those prices from Aus ebay. I recently bought 26x 2GB ddr3 so dimm modules. Kingston, brand new, still sealed. Cost me $50 for the lot including postage. I also bought 8x 4GB ddr3-1600 dimms. Cost me $12 with postage.

Im going to guess you had a quick browse, and saw a bunch of severely overpriced, sponsored or similar items?

As for unreal4 engine,.... it's downloadable and anyone can test for itself. Looks much the same on a cheap low end pc as it does in that video.

The whole part about me building my own pc and good for me part was just weird to be honest. It's not rocket science, anyone can do it. Heck, my completely computer illiterate sister did it after me challenging her to do it (I told her any moron can do it, they just need to actually try). She was amazed how idiot proof it is.

I would also propose that its you that has a skewered perspective of what a typical cheap pc is these days. Things move on and get more and more powerful by the day.

An absolute bottom of the barrel desktop pc these days , the weakest stuff you can buy new is something like a 3ghz quad core i3.

The whole Amiga scene is freaking weird. So few people seem to live in reality as to what computer hardware is these days.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 08:31 AM.

@fishy_fis

Sorry. I really should have known better than to reply in the first place. Your posts really speak for themselves.

Maybe one or two people found it useful to know that epic's state-of-the-art real-time raytracing demo will not run on their 3 year old computer at least.

@ASiegel

lol,.... that's funny.

What is it you're having trouble understanding?

AGAIN,..... anyone can download the Unreal4 engine and test for themselves.
But no,.... you said different with zero evidence,.... if you say so it must be true.
The fact that any and everyone can download and test pales compared to your scientific method of nothing.

EPICs own page has the following for suggested requirements

Desktop PC or Mac.
Windows 7 64-bit or Mac OS X 10.9.2 or later.
Quad-core Intel or AMD processor, 2.5 GHz or faster.
NVIDIA GeForce 470 GTX or AMD Radeon 6870 HD series card or higher.
8 GB RAM.

But no, despite the developers own suggestions and the fact any and everyone can test for themselves, your lack of anything other than what you decided is so scientific as to be undeniable.

And here is the unreal4 Engine running on intergrated IntelHD graphics.

In regards to pricing, and specifically Australian pricing, and even what a typical average pc is these days,..... just a suggestion, but maybe do a bit of real research before quoting garbage figures,..... you may just be trying to spin crap to someone that owns a franchise and multiple stores.

Yep, I do.

So Im pretty well versed in the reality. I don't need to make up figures.

Here's a few pics if you think that just because you make things up everyone does,.....

https://ibb.co/kioaYK

https://ibb.co/fOh2DK

It's just a box of 24 motherboards 100 so-dimms, 100 wifi cards and 24 1TB drives, but nonetheless don't even think about telling me what stuff costs or what the average person buys.
If I didn't know this inside out I'd starve.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 02:23 PM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 02:21 PM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 10:49 AM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 10:10 AM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 20-Aug-2018 at 10:04 AM.

@jorit2


"Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking." just saying ;)

_________________
Support AROS sponsor a developer.

"AROS is prolly illegal ~ Evert Carton" intentionally quoted out of context for dramatic effect

@terminills

Quote:

"Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking." just saying ;)

Who are you "quoting" in that statement?

It's rubbish anyway, sending messages packets between seperate componants launched from seperate binaries is no way equivalant to dynamic linking where individual functions calls with specific APIs jump from binary to binary.

If it were instaling one GPLed application with an ARExx port or that read data from the hard disk via a fileystem would render the entire OS GPL at a stroke, which is clearly nonesense.

Last edited by broadblues on 20-Aug-2018 at 10:37 AM.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@broadblues

Quote:

Who are you "quoting" in that statement?

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins

Evert

_________________
-- Posting for charity -- Investing €10 in a charity related to education or civil rights for every message I post --

@Trixie

Quote:

The reality is a bit more complex. A thing such as an OS kernel has probably been developed for a few years, if not decades. The code written so far (and there will be a lot of code in a kernel) is the property of someone, be it a single or a collective entity. That someone owns the rights to the work by way of copyright law. Applying the GPL conditions in full here because a piece of GPL'ed code has been used in the kernel would effectively override the copyright law and infringe upon the rights of the people who have written the kernel. If taken to court, a sensible judge would readily dismiss this particular GPL claim and order some kind of compromise, such as: only make available directly related parts of the kernel code. Which makes a very good sense: for example, why on Earth should you give people the source code to Exec if the borrowed GPL code was related to a DOS device driver?

Talking about reality. You know what's common with Samsung, Cisco, JVC, Bosch, Zyxel, Western Digital and quite few others... They have lost or settled GPL court cases.