77
NVIDIA Highlights The Shortcomings With Wayland Screencasting (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In addition to showing the need for unifying DRM driver-side APIs within the Linux kernel, NVIDIA's Linux graphics driver team at XDC2025 also showcased the shortcomings of screencasting under Wayland.

Doğukan Korkmaztürk of NVIDIA presented on the issues that persist with screencasting under Wayland from both the compositor and client perspectives. From the state of explicit synchronization to performance differences compared to X11, there are some pain points that ultimately still need to be addressed for a better screen casting/capturing experience on Wayland.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Afaik, their drivers support GBM today so it’s kind of outdated.

Well, of course. I literally said this was a fight over years, so of course in the past. You wanted to one example of why the hate and I gave you one example of why the hate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

    Not learning from the past means repeating the same mistakes. I see little evidence that NVidia's overall approach changed. It's always that everyone has to adapt to their way of doing things and rarely that NVidia seek collaboration first. That's why it has taken years and three entirely different memory management technologies.

    With NVidia it's always "This is the last piece of technology and then everything will be perfect." ExplicitSync is only the latest episode. Now that ExplicitSync is there, compatibility on Linux is still a crapshoot with NVidia.

    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.

    Where is the closed source user space of Intel and AMD drivers? It doesn't exist because they use Mesa for the best possible compatibility. NVidia don't. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent