Quoting: Eike

I'm not sure why you would want to do this, but you can run a Linux Wayland Compositor inside Minecraft to get various external windows inside the game.

Of course, I doubt the answer to this question always is: "Because I can!"

underscored by maniacal Laughing and lightning.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Corben

AI tools are great, [...] but use them in a way that is productive and makes for a better experience.
[...]
If you actually want to add value, [...] add some real value on *top* of what the AI did. Don't be the drive-by "send a random report with no real understanding" kind of person. Ok?

Some imho very true and well said statements. Though I think it's still not AI, just very sophisticated software that's really really good at guessing words and giving a good impression of being smart. AI is just the buzz word for LLMs.
Nonetheless, these tools can be really helpful. Like with any other tools, you need to learn how to use them. They can code, if it's good code, you need to understand what it produced. Back then we needed to learn how to google, which search words gave the answers we were looking for. This hasn't changed, today we need to learn how to prompt. Fooling an LLM is easy and even funny the first time. It can give you the right answer though too, if you know how to ask it properly. And reading code is easier and faster than writing code by hand. So using these tools can be helpful, if done properly. They won't replace creatitvity or create ideas. At best they can reproduce or mix something existing differently together. It can be good and maybe even a starting point, yet it will always need real humans to decide if it's useful and good.

What's apparently happening now is... hey I (= my AI that I prompted) found something! Look at me, give me credits! Getting attenting for the low hanging fruits. It always works in the very beginning, and will be consolidated over time. New technology creates new challenges, eventually the benefits will emerge out of this.

A thought that came up reading about the sheer amount of reports incoming reports was... maybe they should use LLMs to sort out the duplicates 😆

The sorting problem should be solvable with boring old testing suites, with CVE-access.
The problem is keeping from using this to clog up maintainer mailboxes.
Linus's solution to that is to immediately publish AI reports.
My solution is to immediately publish all duplicate reports, because they all suffer from the same fundamental issue.
Also appealing to AI developers to create variation in hunting tactics, but I'm not enough of an AI-developer to know the achievability of such a request.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah, although easily solvable with automation(automatically publish every duplicate and make an auto duplicate detector), mailing lists are in their nature pretty unautomated places.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

There're totally FDR patents. [External Link]
Also there's a generic HDMI patent. [External Link]
DSC is also patented. [External Link]

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and patent term extensions [External Link] and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple patent. [External Link]

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

There're totally FDR patents. [External Link]
Also there's a generic HDMI patent. [External Link]
DSC is also patented. [External Link]

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and patent term extensions [External Link] and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple patent. [External Link]

It isn't just patents since HDMI only have patents on the wiring and actual connector. Still you can have a GPU with a HDMI port (where you use a port from a HDMI licensee so the patent is covered) that will be destroyed by customs if your GPU is not on the list. They do similar to things like Raybans, Rolexes and other fashion brands and I have a hard time believeing that those are covered by patents (but I could be wrong).

And btw patent extensions are for drugs only, the reason being that it can take several years to get your drug approved so to compensate your patent can be extended.

In any case we are way past what the context was which was why they where against the open drivers in the first place and why they now changed their mind ;)

Not only wiring, but also some of the software implementation. [External Link]
For the fashion brands the infringing products are shipped with their logo on them, which is covered by trademark, although they do hold some design patents.

About the drugs. You're right oopsie.

For the reason to avoid open drivers.
I suspect that might have to do with HDCP and how it's protected by the WCT treaty(or DMCA if we want to be USA centric). In effect this means nobody is allowed to do research about their work unless they shared the code themselves, so it keeps a bunch of pesky security researchers at bay and their entertainment industry sponsors happy.

Edit:
On why they changed their minds. I suspect market access allowing access in the small, but growing Linux market without risking your latest products.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

There are no patents covering the parts that the driver is implementing, but pretending that there are I don't see the reason for your argument since that would still make open vs closed drivers a non issue for HDMI Forum since had it been covered by a patent then they would have even less to worry about.

Trademark is much stronger than what you believe, since they have registered HDMI as a trademark that will cover every single rewrite in that you cannot write "HDMI compatible" without using the words "HDMI". Also the "misleading" term will apply to every single item sold for video and audio usage since that is the very market where HDMI is registered.

Aka the "it did not mislead" only applies when you have Apple the Phone/Computer/Music company vs Grannies Apples that sells apples. The moment Granny tries to sell Cellphones, maskOS computers or music then she it cooked and will get sued out of oblivion.

E.g Microsoft is routinely using trademark to win over domains from scam companies and cybersquatters.

Many believe trademark to be weak because you can loose your trademark if you #1 don't protect it vigilantly (as compared with patents and copyright that you never can loose due to being passive) and #2 that you can loose it if the term becomes generic (which HDMI have no risk of since no one uses the term HDMI to refer to anything other than the actual HDMI connector).

There're totally FDR patents. [External Link]
Also there's a generic HDMI patent. [External Link]
DSC is also patented. [External Link]

I would actually argue that one's ability to maintain it is trademark's strength.
Trademarks are legit for as long the general public has a certain association with it, which is theoretically infinite. Copyright and patent both have temporal limitations as LEGO and Disney can attest.

Also you can totally lose patent rights, due to passiveness. You have to actively apply for patents and patent term extensions [External Link] and contrary to both copyright and trademark this costs a pretty dime.

In its nature trademark only protects naming rights. The AMD team could name this patch jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew and let people be happy jaoiewnainuewhiufhiuew worked with HDMI, since Linux HDMI FSR support isn't something you place in your advertisement. You say HDMI FSR, which you're allowed to do, because you're licensed on Windows.

On your reaction to @phebliac the answer is simple patent. [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Linux_Rocks

Quoting: Phlebiac

Quoting: Linux_Rocks

Quoting: LinuxwarperGoogle is increasingly a great example of a company that used open source like a cheap prostitute, excuse my vulgarity, and now they are shutting down Android.

One could also argue the same thing with Apple and macOS. As at the start, Apple were touting the open source origins of Mac OS X.

Not really the same. Apple butchered Darwin, sure (never mind CUPS, OpenGL support, and probably others), but it never covered anywhere close to what was under AOSP. All Apple cared about with Darwin marketing was attracting whatever Unix fans they could.

My bad, I just remember them being all like "*BSD this" and "open source that" with Mac OS X and software. I also remember there being a thing with the Yellow Dog Linux people at the Apple Store near me too. I was really surprised about that, even back then.

One of their tricks which sadly worked is swift.
MacOS is completely POSIX/UNIX certified.
This means it's completely possible to write forward compatible and platform agnostic code for MacOS, but if you actually want in the appstore or signed by Apple you've to use their completely separate functions set, which is neither of these things forcing you into their developer tools.

Wine succeeded, only because Apple needed it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PlayingOnLinuxphone

Quoting: LoudTechieIt's also scary, since I want to design complex tools and not be thrown under the bus next revolution.

Haha yes, that is also very true. But I think as long things are done with best will it is very unlikely. The revolution usually starts when something goes very very wrong.

I'm not saying I fear to be the one to trigger it(a little bit though, I've written some code with guillotine potential).
I'm saying I fear to be one the people taken down with the ones to blame.
Mobs aren't really known for their discerning eye in who to take down.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

If its based on existing HDMI work it can break copyright and patents can still be wielded.
Trademark is weak, because its legal coverage much more limited and its punishments are much less bad.
For trademark the infringed party needs to proof the trademark infringement is misleading to consumers and you can't use it to get an existing product from the market, just its marketing.
Also dodging trademark can sometimes be as easy as not describing your product as "HDMI", but "HDMI compatible" or simply using the same shape as HDMI for your port.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: suchSo with all those reviews not one tested durability?

Well not by throwing it through the room, maybe crushing it with a rock?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

View this comment - View article - View full comments