3d acceleration

28 réponses [Dernière contribution]
nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

os booting ok only if nomodeset is on. why? maybe os need some non free components? video card: radeon hd 2600 pro.

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

nomad said:
> video card: radeon

Worst GPU possible. All (AMD/ATI) Radeon cards are absolute crap with free/libre software. They all require proprietary firmware to do 3-D acceleration, and as far as I'm aware no significant group of people is trying to fix the problem by reverse-engineering.

If you have Intel integrated graphics (all recent Intel CPUs do), take out the Radeon card and just use that; Intel graphics have the best support with free/libre software. Otherwise, you may want to get an old Nvidia card (one that's supported by Nouveau), such as the one sold by Think Penguin:

http://libre.thinkpenguin.com

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

- They all require proprietary firmware
so, if i install it 3d will work?

Darksoul71
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 01/04/2012

- so, if i install it 3d will work?
Yes, but Trisquel is a free distribution which does not support loading non-free firmware. Performancewise AMD / ATI cards with the free radeon drivers are a good option but only if your distribution / kernel supports loading of non-free firmware.

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

-does not support loading non-free firmware
what it means, i cant install ATI drivers?

lembas
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/13/2010

The drivers are already installed, it's the non-free firmware that cannot be installed.

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

-The drivers are already installed,
i dont want this drivers, this crap dont work, i want non-free ati drivers. how i install they, just download from main site?
-non-free firmware that cannot be installed.
wow
such freedom
much liberty

quantumgravity
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 04/22/2013

Then why did you choose trisquel in the first place?
There are thousands of distros out there full of non-free stuff. You pick one of the few 100% libre distros and then complain about.

Think about this:
The number of options in your life doesn't equal the amount of freedom you have.
Your 3d accecleration won't work with trisquel, that's true, but in exchange you get control over your own computer.
But if you prefer a chain around your neck just in order to play with fancy 3d acc, then go ahead. It's your choice. You don't hurt anyone but yourself.

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

From my understanding, Linux-libre actively blocks known proprietary firmware somehow. I don't think this is a good idea. It's like if an OS scanned binaries to detect if they were known proprietary programs and refused to run them; it's a digital restriction mechanism. The blobs should just be taken out, not blocked (like Debian's de-blobbed kernel).

However, an anti-feature being present in a free/libre program doesn't mean you don't have freedom with it. You can take Linux-libre, remove the code that blocks non-libre firmware, and compile it.

Of course, the irony is the only reason to remove this particular digital restriction mechanism would be to sacrifice your freedom, so those of us most likely to use Linux-libre aren't going to care about it (after all, if you want to sacrifice your freedom, mainline Linux has you covered). The only reason I care at all about it is I think actively blocking the blobs makes the project look hypocritical to outsiders, and it doesn't do anything useful.

davidnotcoulthard (non vérifié)
davidnotcoulthard

Yeah, I do agree with you on that, especially with the FSF's (or at least RMS') stance on DRM, which effectively is what the block is, in my opinion.

Michał Masłowski

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/15/2010

Just removing the firmware would make the kernel log names of missing
firmware files. It is considered a recommendation of that firmware, so
it is changed. (Debian additionally disables functionality that works
on my machine without using the firmware and makes it print the nonfree
firmware package name for easier installation [0]).

It's known that the current solution in Linux-libre is unoptimal. It
will hash the firmware file names, so users can load them if they know
about them but the logs won't recommend them. It might get implemented
for 3.14.

I don't think it's DRM, it's just stripping functionality which isn't
useful without nonfree firmware and has issues preventing it from being
used as it is in free distros. (Choose any package that's missing from
Trisquel, gNewSense or Parabola for recommending nonfree software. Is
it DRM that the distro doesn't provide it or solves it by removing a
rarely used feature?) You can compile your own module and use it with
Linux-libre. DRM that I know about involves restricting a use of user's
data [1], "breaking" a program that normally uses specific data is
different.

[0] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/kernel/dists/trunk/linux/debian/patches/bugfix/all/radeon-firmware-is-required-for-drm-and-kms-on-r600-onward.patch?view=markup
[1] http://b.mtjm.eu/drm-free-software.html

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

Michael Maslowski said:
> Just removing the firmware would make the kernel log names of missing
> firmware files. It is considered a recommendation of that firmware, so
> it is changed.

Then you change the messages in the kernel log to not mention it, right? You don't need to actively block the firmware for this, it's a completely different thing. Or am I mistaken in thinking that Linux-libre actively blocks firmware?

Michał Masłowski

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/15/2010

It works by changing the firmware file name in the source to
/*(DEBLOBBED)*/ and making it special case that string so it is rejected
and prints an additional "Missing Free firmware" message. While
confusing (is there other firmware? is the removed firmware free?), the
message is probably useful.

I don't know the kernel firmware and logging infrastructure well enough
to know if just changing the logging calls would work or would have
other technical issues. There are also other drivers that have known
free firmware which could be missing due to e.g. not having the firmware
package installed, they should have their errors logged (so users go to
http://jxself.org/ath9k-htc/ and install the free firmware).

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

Michal Maslowski said:
> It works by changing the firmware file name in the source to
> /*(DEBLOBBED)*/ and making it special case that string so it is rejected
> and prints an additional "Missing Free firmware" message.

So, it doesn't block actual firmware, but blocks a special nonsense name and changes searches for non-libre firmware to searches for the nonsense name? If I've got that right, are the firmware names hardcoded in Linux or something, or is it actually possible for a knowledgeable user to load the non-libre firmware?

Michał Masłowski

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/15/2010

Yes, driver sources contain firmware file names.

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

Huh. What about assigning different names for the firmware files, then? Has that been considered?

Michał Masłowski

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/15/2010

The idea of using machine-specific hashes is exactly this and not making
Web searches for the exact error message show how to get the nonfree
firmware. Linux-libre mailing list archives should have much more
dicussion and design for this.

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

- then complain about.
what mean "complain about"? sound like choose free os it something hard and painfully like anal sex which you dont want.
-but in exchange you get control over your own computer.
kek, i have it now. i can turn it off, unplug wire, pull out some part etc. question is: can i work on computer? and answer: of course i can, if i have working os!
- It's your choice.
yes, i chose trisqel with non-free ati drivers. it absolute free os, and should be opportunity to install everything i want. it would be paradox if on non-free windows i can install free apps, but on free linux i cant install non-free apps.
-don't hurt anyone but yourself.
-chain around your neck
dont project your problem to me. and get some professional help, seriously. we worry about you, we all.

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

nomad said:
> it would be paradox if on non-free windows i can install free apps,
> but on free linux i cant install non-free apps.

Actually, no, that would be the expected circumstance, unless the free/libre OS is the more popular one (not the case when comparing GNU/Linux with Windows).

Free/libre programs can be ported and re-compiled by anyone. Proprietary programs usually cannot. So you can expect that just about every free/libre program is going to get a Windows port, while only a very small subset of proprietary programs are going to get a GNU/Linux port.

There's no connection between whether the OS is free/libre and whether it can run proprietary software. Whichever OS is more popular is going to be able to run more proprietary software, plain and simple.

davidnotcoulthard (non vérifié)
davidnotcoulthard

"it would be paradox if on non-free windows i can install free apps, but on free linux i cant install non-free apps."

No, it wouldn't. We we talk about Free Software, we talk about software that respects the 4 software freedoms ( http://www.rastinmehr.com/2009/03/01/the-4-software-freedoms-according-to-richard-stallman/ ). Nowhere in the 4 software freedoms does it say "Freedom to install something that lacks any of the other freedoms written in this (4 freedoms) text".

Adrian Malacoda

I am a member!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/26/2010

You are free to install whatever you want on your computer, including non-free programs, drivers, and firmware. However, no one on this forum will help you do so, because it directly contradicts our stance on non-free software.

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

-mah free linux
-scanned binaries to detect if they were known proprietary programs and refused to run them; it's a digital restriction mechanism.
HA-HA!
-and compile it.
i wont compile as well as i wont debug, refactor, disassemble etc. i not programmer, it is not my job to get thing work well.
-Nowhere in the 4 software freedoms does it say
but you wrong: 0. Freedom to run the program AS YOU WISH.
- no one on this forum will help you
such great community
so big cooperation

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

nomad said:
> -scanned binaries to detect if they were known proprietary programs
> and refused to run them; it's a digital restriction mechanism.
> HA-HA!

I hope you realize that was a hypothetical. No system does this.

Also please do see the replies to my comment. Linux-libre not being able to load the firmware isn't an intentional design choice, but stems from a questionable design decision in Linux: only being able to load hard-coded firmware files.

nomad said:
> -and compile it.
> i wont compile as well as i wont debug, refactor, disassemble etc. i
> not programmer, it is not my job to get thing work well.

Then hire someone else to do it for you.

The point of free/libre software isn't for software to be flexible, extensible, easy to use, or anything like that, though we tend to try to do that as much as possible. The point is you have the freedom to study and change it. You not being willing to study and change it, or find someone else to study and change it for you, doesn't mean your freedom is being taken away.

nomad said:
> -Nowhere in the 4 software freedoms does it say
> but you wrong: 0. Freedom to run the program AS YOU WISH.

You have that freedom. Linux-libre doesn't have a condition that requires you to not load non-libre firmware. It's a technical limitation of the program, which you have the freedom to fix.

nomad said:
> - no one on this forum will help you
> such great community
> so big cooperation

This is a free/libre software community. Why do you expect a free/libre software community to help you make yourself less free? It completely contradicts our mission and values.

nomad
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 03/12/2014

-Then hire someone else to do it for you.
dont tell me what to do, and i dont tell you where you go. besides all code is done, there no need of unnecessary programming.
-The point of free/libre software isn't for software to be flexible, extensible, easy to use
but at least it must be usable at all: 0. Freedom to run the program.
now os is useless, only thing i see is porridge from random pixels, and only way to fix it is install ati drivers. but you tell me that my freedom(to run the program as i wish, and i wish to run it with non-free component) is violate my freedom. what?
-Linux-libre doesn't have a condition that requires you to not load non-libre firmware.
yes it is. os not work without then properly. its like capitalism which in theory not requires you to get job but in fact do.

onpon4
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/30/2012

nomad said:
> but at least it must be usable at all: 0. Freedom to run the program.
> now os is useless, only thing i see is porridge from random pixels,
> and only way to fix it is install ati drivers. but you tell me that
> my freedom(to run the program as i wish, and i wish to run it with
> non-free component) is violate my freedom. what?

You're being hindered by a technical incapability, not from being mistreated.

Of course, the deblobbed Radeon driver isn't unusable as you claim (and it's an odd claim, since you never mentioned it before). It's just slower. Actually, my experience has been the opposite, though I'm sure it varies: I found that the proprietary Radeon driver caused the display to be all messed up, while the free/libre (deblobbed) Radeon driver is slow, but at least reliable.

You're spending so much time chastising Linux-libre for not supporting the blobs, apparently you're not even talking about your actual problems. If your display is messed up, the first thing you should be trying is updating the kernel (install the package linux-generic-lts-saucy).

nomad said:
> yes it is. os not work without then properly. its like capitalism
> which in theory not requires you to get job but in fact do.

No, no one is stopping or forbidding you from re-blobbing Linux-libre. You can do it. You're just unwilling to do the work to do it. By this logic, you don't have the freedom to climb mountains you're unwilling to climb because we don't have big carrying structures to help you. Get real.

Freedom doesn't mean everyone else caters to you.

quantumgravity
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 04/22/2013

@all
please don't feed the trolls

davidnotcoulthard (non vérifié)
davidnotcoulthard

"but you wrong: 0. Freedom to run the program AS YOU WISH."
I can run free parts Trisquel whichever way I want as I wish - but that hasn't necesarrily got anything to do with running other programmes in tandem, free or non-free, i.e. non-free firmware that are long overdue for some reverse-engineering work.

Anyway, take a look at a rather similar, but less digitalised, case, which I think has got something to do with the other (original) 4 freedoms: Based on the freedom to religion, isn't it OK for a country to adopt a religion that says "Kill all Buddhists in the country", but if that happens, then wouldn't that, in turn, violate the freedom to religion?

"its like capitalism which in theory not requires you to get job but in fact do."
Tell that to Robert Kiyosaki!

"now os is useless, only thing i see is porridge from random pixels, and only way to fix it is install ati drivers. but you tell me that my freedom(to run the program as i wish, and i wish to run it with non-free component) is violate my freedom." Because running the proprietary driver complies with <4 of the 4 freedoms. That's why it is seen as violating your freedom.

davidnotcoulthard (non vérifié)
davidnotcoulthard

Free software is (in the sense I'm using in this comment) about Legal Freedom. Freedom 0 is achieved when it's legal to run something (it's legal to hack linux-libre and run proprietary firmware with it), it's legal to study, share, and modify Trisquel.

It is, however, illegal to re-release it (or most of it) as something proprietary (it's what copyleft is).

It's also illegal to legally apply some freedoms in ATI's proprietary firmware (can you just call RMS and have him modify it?), which is why it's considered nonfree.

Michał Masłowski

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 05/15/2010

Old ATI firmware is freely licensed (under an MIT-style license like the
driver), while there is no source code nor documentation available. We
don't know what instructions there are nor what it exactly does, so we
cannot study nor modify it as easily as AMD can. New firmware (some for
R600, all for Evergreen and newer GPUs) additionally has a nonfree
license.

I think "legal freedom" doesn't make it easier to understand. Both
technical (lack of source code, lack of documentation, cryptographic
restrictions) and legal (copyright, anticircumvention laws, patents,
plain censorship) ways are used to restrict user's freedom and give
power over them to the developer.

A different issue started the thread: software being free doesn't mean
that it has all possible features.