More devs need to start doing AGPL with other licenses available for a licensing fee. Or better yet, price it based on revenue with the LGPL/GPL/Apache version free for orgs under $1bn annual revenue, and everyone else has to pay up.
The OSI was a mistake. They were wrong, Stallman was right. How long until open source devs finally accept this?
Where is the closed source user space of Intel and AMD drivers?
They're not in user space, they're in the firmware of the GPUs. It's embedded in some chip somewhere on the card or in the motherboard. The open source components communicate with that closed part.
Nvidia previously implemented nearly everything in their nonfree kernel module driver. Today, they've pushed enough of the parts they're protective of into the firmware, so that they can release the kernel module as open source/GPL.
they use Mesa for the best possible compatibility.
Mesa is just the userspace implementation of higher level graphics APIs like OpenGL or Vulkan, which communicate with the underlying drivers. I actually think its a good thing the Nvidia has their own implementation of this as it creates competition, and they're positioned to improve consistency across windows/Linux since they likely reuse a lot of code on both platforms.
I've read comments by people bashing the recent Baldur’s Gate 3 Linux release and being full of graphics glitches. Then they list their hardware as proof how great it is and they all have NVidia GPUs.
That's Larian's fault for releasing a buggy port. They probably only tested on AMD because they only care about the Steam Deck on Linux. GPU drivers are always buggy, even on windows. The only way to ensure compatibility is to spend the time and effort to test on all of them.
Sure, you get an A for answering the question, but my point was that the hate they get today on Linux is misguided because people only have vague or non-specific complaints. The only specific instance of assholery that I know of is the one you pointed out, which is vintage at this point.
When Nvidia announced that they were going to move the proprietary parts of their driver into the GPU firmware, and open source the kernel module, there was a lot of hate about how they're being assholes for not releasing the whole thing as open source, relying on proprietary blobs, etc. Yet that's stupid, because it's literally the exact same thing AMD and Intel do for their much beloved drivers. Because of the vague and non specific criticisms, people feel inclined to draw negative conclusions like that.
I took your original reply further up to mean that Nvidia does deserve that kind of response today, even though they haven't done anything particularly evil in the Linux world lately (AFAIK)
Can you give an example? There has been a ton of vague non-specific hate towards them in the Linux community ever since Linus gave them the finger. So for the sake of not being ignorant, I'd like to hear specific examples if you have them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hating on Nvidia for many different reasons. I've hated them since even before the AI and crypto eras.
Lazy headline from Phoronix makes it sound like Nvidia is just complaining about Wayland. It's a technical presentation aimed at Wayland developers to discuss shortcomings that make it difficult to implement screen casting. A talk like this from a hardware vendor who is an active contributor to Wayland, and develops/maintains drivers is very helpful, and the first step to addressing/fixing the issues.
I hate Nvidia just as much as the next guy, but they're currently a valuable asset for Wayland and Linux graphics in general. In case you aren't aware, Nvidia was the main driving force behind getting explicit sync support into Wayland, which is a feature that greatly improves performance for modern graphics APIs.
The same way you did, via the name of the member: my_test.test2.b = 'x';
The unnamed struct provides the type for a member named test2. Doing it this way saves you the trouble of defining the struct externally and giving it a name. It's identical to this, except in this example you can reuse the struct definition:
c
struct crappyname {
char b;
float c;
};
struct test {
int a;
struct crappyname test2;
double d;
};
I see, by PC you mean you don't want a traditional 'tower' PC, which is perfectly reasonable. I personally consider anything within the umbrella of "PC gaming" to be a PC, including laptops (even Macbooks).
Ackshually, the meme is encoded using progressively smaller images nested into the fourth panel of the comic. Each fourth panel is effectively a nested function call to the original comic procedure, which more closely represents recursion than an infinite loop.
For an infinite loop, one might instead lay out the 3 unique panels horizontally, and just memcpy them into rows below, creating a table. That's a regression in humor, but it'd fix the bug.
So I agree with @ryannathans@aussie.zone's review; The joke is about infinite loops, but the visual gag is about recursion.
Everyone knows that memory safety isn't the only source of security vulnerabilities (unless you're bickering about programming languages on the internet, in which case 100% of security vulnerabilities are related to memory safety)
This fascist wave is really bringing out all the cockroaches in our society. It's a good thing you can't erase anything on the internet, as this type of evidence will probably be useful in the future.
You'd better get in on a crypto grift, Kelly Shue of the Yale School of Management. I suspect you'll have a hard time finding work within the next 1-3 years.
struct test {
int a;
struct {
char b;
float c;
} test2;
double d;
};
I can't think of any particular reason why you'd want an unnamed struct inside a struct, but you definitely would want to be able to have an unnamed struct inside a union. I suspect the struct-inside-struct thing can become useful in some scenarios involving unions.
It's not that convenient. I can't even think of a situation where this would be useful for structs, only unions. And in the case of unions, you usually want to keep them as small as possible (or better yet, avoid them altogether).
But besides that, C is a language that tends to prefer minimalism. Using macros, you can accomplish a similar thing already, even if it's not as nice.
What kind of work do you do? Every time I read stuff like this, I find it hard to believe, but maybe the code/languages/frameworks I'm using just aren't as easy for LLMs as what other people are using. The results I've had trying to get it to write C++ have been atrocious.
I'm not against AI code assistance, and I like keeping an open mind. For the moment though, the only success I've had is with using it to explain some feature or API faster than manually looking up the documentation. But actually reading the docs, I've found, helps me remember things better.
More devs need to start doing AGPL with other licenses available for a licensing fee. Or better yet, price it based on revenue with the LGPL/GPL/Apache version free for orgs under $1bn annual revenue, and everyone else has to pay up.
The OSI was a mistake. They were wrong, Stallman was right. How long until open source devs finally accept this?