[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upstream Default (FOSS) DDX Driver for NVidia GPUs is not Nouveau

The Wanderer composed on 2021-01-20 19:44 (UTC-0500):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Sven Joachim composed on 2021-01-20 23:18 (UTC+0100):

>>> the upstream Xorg server still uses a graphics card
>>> specific driver if available.

>> That was exactly one of my points. "If available" equates to they are
>> optional, not needed by primarily AMD, Intel and NVidia graphics
>> devices made since somewhere around 2010.

> This looks like another case (which I hadn't noticed before) of a
> difference in possible meanings of "default".

> Some people may read "the default DDX driver" to mean "the DDX driver
> which will be used unless something tells it to do otherwise". I'm
> guessing this is how Sven read it.

Above was mine.

> Other people may read it to mean "the DDX driver which will be used in
> the default case where no better one is available". I'm guessing this is
> how you intended it.

Others might, but not me as worded. The crutch word there is "better". That
language implies that the other that is available /is/ better. Without seeing
results of proper comparison testing, I don't see how one can be known or assumed
to be better. IMO, the (newer technology) Modesetting wouldn't have been made a
non-optional, non-discrete package if it wasn't roughly equivalent at a minimum to
hardware-specific drivers on the vast majority of current at the time hardware.

To me in this context default means the one that will be used, if supported, when
no /unneeded/ and thus optional DDX drivers drivers are installed, aka none of
xf86-video-* are installed. Because most mainstream hardware of the day, and
since, is supported, none of the optionals are /needed/ (as long as a
fully-functional DRM/KMS kernel module exists). The installation of the optional
drivers equates to something telling it to do otherwise.

>> Since a year or so of server 1.17.0 appearance, the GPU-specific DDX
>> drivers spend a bare minimum of time installed on the vast majority
>> of my PCs. Other than AMDGPU, the others occasionally get installed
>> only temporarily for quick testing and then are removed.

> One thing which I haven't been able to make out yet in reading about
> these modesetting drivers: how well do they work for 3D performance? Or
> for that matter, high-end 2D, such as you get with Dwarf Fortress?

I have no experience with, or interest in, any sort of gaming, computer or otherwise.

> The only positive statements I've found so far, that I recall, are that
> they work well for 2D acceleration on at least some (if not most) GPU
> models.

> If you're using them near-exclusively on most of your PCs, that could
> imply that they work fine for 3D etc., or simply that you don't tend to
> need those things on those PCs.

The latter. To me, 2D and 3D have no relevant meaning in a computing context. I
can't tell where 2D stops and 3D starts. 3D only simulates 3 dimensions. A screen
only displays 2 dimensions. What's the fuss?

When I want TV I use a TV and remote controller and an easy chair or sofa, not a
workchair and desk and rodent and keyboard and all the distractions of
multitasking. My computers are general purpose tools for getting work done. Most
videos are primarily time devouring entertainers, amusement.

a (as first letter as affects meaning of word): anti or not

muse: v: to think or ruminate upon.


amuse: literally not think or unthink
Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion,
	is based on faith, not on science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Reply to: