2 Hypothesis : You don't read all my posts or you don't understood all of what I said.

Quoting: Armand RaynalAMD refused to use CUDA, and it's seems normal for me.
If AMD used a proprietary software from a competing company for their hardware, they would have no control on the performances and stability.

You don't know which APIs is best, and I tell you I know. OpenCL is best.
Because it is 'libre'. Performance isn't the more important point.

It is nVidia, that refused to use libre stantards, and prefered to make something by themself, for themself. Also OpenCL can perfectly be compilated for GNU/Linux. The thing is that developpers don't really care about physics.

CUDA is something bad for all users that want to use GPGPU for any purpose.
Firstly because such a closed format can't take off. It can't be popularized because it is anecdotic for developper, require more work, and work for only half of costumers. Sort of lost of time. And also sort of blackmail : play with our cards to have the complete experience.
Secondly because it is a try to impose them on the market. And when the market is not equilibrated, price and offers are bad for costumers.
French economists say "concurrence pure et parfaite" which mean pure and perfect competition, and which is a paradigm of market where there would be plenty of little companys in competition. We only got 2 company on the video card market(for gaming), if furthermore one is much bigger than the other, the market will be horrible for costumers.

Finally, if you truly like the ideology of GNU/Linux, I beg you to say GNU/Linux, and not just Linux. GNU is precisely the ideologic part of GNU/Linux systems.

If you had not seen it yet, watch this brief talk about "libre" software :

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ag1AKIl_2GM" data-youtube-id="Ag1AKIl_2GM"></iframe>

It look obvious to my eyes now that english is not your mother tongue.
Also I'll bet my arm that you're under eighteen, your avatar is a big hint.
I'm sorry to tell you that, but I tried as long as I can to be gentle, comprehensive and explain my of view, so now I've to tell you that you're only here to have reason, and you DON'T want to understand what WE are telling you.

Read all the conversation again, rewatch the videos of Mr Stallman, try to undersand if it is what you really want, but I can't do anything more than I already did.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DeformalI listented it. And I found, that your position is inconsistent.
All programm must be free (for free conception), but almost all games are not free, and steam is not GNU. So, what are you doing on gaming site?
And still, from philosophy point of view, linux users are not completely free, because they have restrictions of GNU.

Teodosio answered in part to your comment. I'll add that closed source games damage the freedom of users, but at least it protect to creation of developpers. Sort of blessing in disguise. So I accept it, even if i would prefer libre games.

But for PhysX is is different, it provide very few adventages that only few will be able to appreciate for, huge disadventages for all users and costumers.
Read my posts above for explanation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DeformalHa-ha. Linux is not freedom itself. Freedom gives chance to choose Linux or Windows or FreeBSD or ChromeOS or MacOS or whatever you want. This is true freedom.

You understood nothing of the speech of Richard Stallman, or you just didn't listened it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: IvancilloHello Armand.

I like to say only a little thing about this debate.

While I like Linux for their ideology and I would prefer an OpenPhysX that would run flawlesly on all cards of all vendors than a restricted closed source solution, I see that nVidia it's not guilty in this case for release its SDK.

nVidia is filling an empty hole. Before nVidia's release there wasn't another open source alternative avaliable that we are aware (in Linux).

Now it would be nice that game developers start to make use of it to make games gain more realism, and graphic cards open source developers try to implement it in their drivers.

As for the people who were angry with nVidia for making PhysX avaliable only on nVidia hardware, I remember that one directive at nVidia (I don't recall if was Jen Sung itself) a long time ago propose AMD to use CUDA (needed for PhysX) on its chips too, to make a coherent development and standarization of the API.

But they refuse at AMD. They argued that they plan to use Bullet API and OpenCL.

So it was AMD who didn't want to implement either CUDA nor PhysX on its cards.

Which API it's better I don't know.

It's up to the game developers to make the best aproach that make happy their customers, while benefit for the extra features and performance for each card, thought.

Hello Ivan.
AMD refused to use CUDA, and it's seems normal for me.
If AMD used a proprietary software from a competing company for their hardware, they would have no control on the performances and stability.

You don't know which APIs is best, and I tell you I know. OpenCL is best.
Because it is 'libre'. Performance isn't the more important point.

It is nVidia, that refused to use libre stantards, and prefered to make something by themself, for themself. Also OpenCL can perfectly be compilated for GNU/Linux. The thing is that developpers don't really care about physics.

CUDA is something bad for all users that want to use GPGPU for any purpose.
Firstly because such a closed format can't take off. It can't be popularized because it is anecdotic for developper, require more work, and work for only half of costumers. Sort of lost of time. And also sort of blackmail : play with our cards to have the complete experience.
Secondly because it is a try to impose them on the market. And when the market is not equilibrated, price and offers are bad for costumers.
French economists say "concurrence pure et parfaite" which mean pure and perfect competition, and which is a paradigm of market where they would be plenty of little companys in competition. We only got 2 company on the video card market(for gaming), if furthermore one is much bigger than the other, the market will be horrible for costumers.

Finally, if you truly like the ideology of GNU/Linux, I beg you to say GNU/Linux, and not just Linux. GNU is precisely the ideologic part of GNU/Linux systems.

If you had not seen it yet, watch this brief talk about "libre" software :

View video on youtube.com

Quoting: Deformal

Quoting: Armand Raynal

Quoting: Deformal

Quoting: Armand RaynalWHY DO YOU PREFER GNU/LINUX ?

That's the question.

If it's not for the ideology, why ?

I am not prefer Linux, but I like it. And I want to play on steam os in the future. And I want equals of all platform.

Why do you like it ?

Why do you want to play on steamos ?

Why would give just a single sh*t about what is on plateforme that you doesn't use ?

Why would you choose to work, or game, or watch movies ... on GNU/linux, better than on windows ?

The only real advantage of GNU/Linux against windows is the ideology of free(as in freedom) software.
Price, or possibility to choose your desktop is strictly nothing compared to the freedom that provide GNU/Linux.

Well, is it problem for you that I use windows and sometimes try Linux?
In my country only a few percents of customers have money to buy windows. I think, you understand, what i want to say....
Linux is interesting thing. Linux give opportunities, that windows can`t give (installing program with only one string of code using "sudo apt-get install" for example).
About open source. Noveau driver is bad driver because it open source. It has bad perfomance. I do not see a reason to use it. And I do not understand, why people don`t use proprietary drivers. They paid for videocard, so they get support with this driver.
And, as I say, if you like free ideology, why do you buy games? they are not free, they are not open source.
About steam os - there were promised, that their drivers will work faster, that windows.

Nowadays, you have more games, more software, better drivers(more stable, more efficient, that support multi gpu between others things), installation of software is very simple, maybe not as fast as on GNU/Linux with the exact name of the package but easy.
More peripherics run on it also. For exemple Mad catz RAT 7 mouse is a pain in the ass to configure it on GNU/Linux. It is also more difficult to have sound cards that work easily on GNU/linux.
etc.

Maybe you can find very few advantages for GNU/Linux for a nowaday gamer. But those advantages are ridiculous in front of the ton of argument in favor of M$ Windows.

For the rest of your comment, you can find my answer in the video i posted above.
Freedom > performance.
And If for you, Performance > Freedom, then you should stay on windows.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: IvancilloHello Armand.

I like to say only a little thing about this debate.

While I like Linux for their ideology and I would prefer an OpenPhysX that would run flawlesly on all cards of all vendors than a restricted closed source solution, I see that nVidia it's not guilty in this case for release its SDK.

nVidia is filling an empty hole. Before nVidia's release there wasn't another open source alternative avaliable that we are aware (in Linux).

Now it would be nice that game developers start to make use of it to make games gain more realism, and graphic cards open source developers try to implement it in their drivers.

As for the people who were angry with nVidia for making PhysX avaliable only on nVidia hardware, I remember that one directive at nVidia (I don't recall if was Jen Sung itself) a long time ago propose AMD to use CUDA (needed for PhysX) on its chips too, to make a coherent development and standarization of the API.

But they refuse at AMD. They argued that they plan to use Bullet API and OpenCL.

So it was AMD who didn't want to implement either CUDA nor PhysX on its cards.

Which API it's better I don't know.

It's up to the game developers to make the best aproach that make happy their customers, while benefit for the extra features and performance for each card, thought.

Hello Ivan.
AMD refused to use CUDA, and it's seems normal for me.
If AMD used a proprietary software from a competing company for their hardware, they would have no control on the performances and stability.

You don't know which APIs is best, and I tell you I know. OpenCL is best.
Because it is 'libre'. Performance isn't the more important point.

It is nVidia, that refused to use libre stantards, and prefered to make something by themself, for themself. Also OpenCL can perfectly be compilated for GNU/Linux. The thing is that developpers don't really care about physics.

CUDA is something bad for all users that want to use GPGPU for any purpose.
Firstly because such a closed format can't take off. It can't be popularized because it is anecdotic for developper, require more work, and work for only half of costumers. Sort of lost of time. And also sort of blackmail : play with our cards to have the complete experience.
Secondly because it is a try to impose them on the market. And when the market is not equilibrated, price and offers are bad for costumers.
French economists say "concurrence pure et parfaite" which mean pure and perfect competition, and which is a paradigm of market where they would be plenty of little companys in competition. We only got 2 company on the video card market(for gaming), if furthermore one is much bigger than the other, the market will be horrible for costumers.

Finally, if you truly like the ideology of GNU/Linux, I beg you to say GNU/Linux, and not just Linux. GNU is precisely the ideologic part of GNU/Linux systems.

If you had not seen it yet, watch this brief talk about "libre" software :

View video on youtube.com

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Deformal

Quoting: Armand RaynalWHY DO YOU PREFER GNU/LINUX ?

That's the question.

If it's not for the ideology, why ?

I am not prefer Linux, but I like it. And I want to play on steam os in the future. And I want equals of all platform.

Why do you like it ?

Why do you want to play on steamos ?

Why would give just a single sh*t about what is on plateforme that you doesn't use ?

Why would you choose to work, or game, or watch movies ... on GNU/linux, better than on windows ?

The only real advantage of GNU/Linux against windows is the ideology of free(as in freedom) software.
Price, or possibility to choose your desktop is strictly nothing compared to the freedom that provide GNU/Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

WHY DO YOU PREFER GNU/LINUX ?

That's the question.

If it's not for the ideology, why ?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hum, i meant, closed source to protect the creation of games developpers, ok, I can accept it. But closed source for monopolistic strategy on the hardware market, either on windows or GNU/linux it bother me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm not sur 'Linux Gamers' should be happy to see a new proprietary software as 'privative' as this one.

PshysX is a shame, it's truly an argue to NOT buy an nVdia card.

It's well nown, we could do all what whysX do with OpenCL. And better. On a lot more games. And for every one, not just for nVidia's card owner.

I wonder how some people can love GNU/linux and be happy to see soft like physX appear on it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Please Liam, create the steam groupe of people who don't buy games if they are not at least anouced for GNU/Linux.

With an article about it here, this groupe would grow fastly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments