[gj_78]

> You don't think developers should be able to write C++ code for the GPU?

To be clear, I don't think nvidia-paid developers should be able to write C++ Code for a nvidia-sold GPU. The world will be better if any developer (paid by nivida or not) is able to write code for any GPU (sold by nvidia or not). It is not nvidia role to say how or when software will be written. Their hardware is good and that's more than OK.

AI/CUDA code written specifically for nvidia is useless/deprecated in the long term. A lot of brain waste.

[jki275]

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re free to write whatever you want. This is Nvidia providing interfaces to their hardware for those of us who don’t want to write them for ourselves.

It’s a gift. Take it or don’t. How in the world you can say Nvidia shouldn’t be allowed to write software for their GPUs makes no sense at all. Should the government stop them? Any developer can write anything they want - but Nvidia is obviously going to support their own hardware. How does it make any sense otherwise?

All code is “deprecated in the long term” for a long enough “long term”. That doesn’t equal useless. Your comment is nonsensical.

[blelbach]

> It’s a gift.

I wouldn't say it's a gift, though; it's part of what you pay for when you buy one of our products.

Sure, it's not listed as a spec on the box, but users expect that we're going to provide them with a good software stack and support it.

[blelbach]

> To be clear, I don't think nvidia-paid developers should be able to write C++ Code for a nvidia-sold GPU.

I'm not sure what you're saying here? You think another company or organization should write all the software for our hardware?

I don't think you understand the semiconductor industry.

Our business model relies on hardware and software engineers working closely together, as I've described in other replies.

We would not be able to produce a viable product that is solely raw hardware.

Also, what motivation does this other organization or company have to create software for our hardware?

> The world will be better if any developer (paid by nivida or not) is able to write code for any GPU (sold by nvidia or not).

This library is something that is designed to help you write Standard C++ code that runs on our GPU. Standard C++ runs everywhere.

> It is not nvidia role to say how or when software will be written.

Providing the SDKs and toolchains to program our platform is definitely part of our role in the ecosystem.

> Their hardware is good and that's more than OK.

Our hardware is useless without our software.

> AI/CUDA code written specifically for nvidia is useless/deprecated in the long term. A lot of brain waste.

I expect CUDA will be around for a while.

[jameshilliard]

I get the impression nvidia puts out a lot of their hardware supporting software themselves because they are hostile to open source community collaboration in general. This could be because nvidia is a big fan of vendor lock in.

> Also, what motivation does this other organization or company have to create software for our hardware?

Typically an organization like this would be a user of nvidia hardware, that's like asking what motivation Microsoft has for writing software/toolchains for Intel hardware. Maybe this attitude is why nvidia is notorious for having a terrible open source software experience for Linux graphics.

> Our hardware is useless without our software.

It's not(https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/) but nvidia is considered one of the worst hardware vendors when it comes to having proper open source driver/toolchain support. The situation used to be even worse but it's still not great now.

[dahart]

Aren’t we commenting in response to the posting of a new open source library that helps support a standard tool chain?

[jameshilliard]

From my understanding it's an open source library to support a Nvidia hardware specific partially(mostly?) proprietary toolchain.

[dahart]

All implementations of a standard are hardware specific. This library is implementing part of the C++ standard, and the source is open. I don't understand why you're complaining about lack of openness in response to increasing openness. Would you prefer that the library was closed and proprietary?

[blelbach]

> I get the impression nvidia puts out a lot of their hardware supporting software themselves because they are hostile to open source community collaboration in general. This could be because nvidia is a big fan of vendor lock in.

It's not hostility, it's about agility. More so than other hardware vendors, we rely on really tight integration between hardware and software.

In some situations, we find a hardware bug that would require another manufacturer to do a "respin" (e.g. restart the manufacturing process with a new, fixed design). Because we have tight control over the software stack, we can workaround that bug. It's faster for us to do this when we have full control. Also, sometimes these bugs have security implications, etc.

That said, we've been moving in the direction of open source for a long time.

> It's not(https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/)

The other fellow was suggesting we should write no software at all. Nouveau's struggles is an excellent example of how difficult it is to write software for hardware without the engagement and interaction of the manufacturer of that hardware.

TL;DR you're talking about whether our software should open source versus closed source; the other fellow was suggesting we shouldn't have software at all.

[mambru]

I think Nouveau would be in better shape with a bit of collaboration from NVIDIA.

About libcu++, you guys would not be doing it if it weren't a differentiator thanks to Universal Memory. All that is OK until GPUs become a strategic topic for governments, then you may be regarded as monopolistic.

Painting it as 'OSS frienly' or 'open' or 'standards compliant', when code written like that is likely to remain NVIDIA-only for many years seems intentionally deceiving.

Also, there is an industry standard that uses standard C++ (Sycl), that you refuse to participate in or implement.

[jameshilliard]

> In some situations, we find a hardware bug that would require another manufacturer to do a "respin" (e.g. restart the manufacturing process with a new, fixed design).

Sure, but I think that's got less to do with the tight hardware/software integration and more to do with they type of bug and the skills of the engineers tasked with finding workarounds. When you can make changes to the entire OS by working with the community you can often workaround more severe bugs than would otherwise be possible.

> More so than other hardware vendors, we rely on really tight integration between hardware and software.

Which is fine when the software is reasonably open, plenty of software is tightly coupled to specialized hardware, but when a hardware manufacturer like Nvidia with a significant market-share does everything their own way and effectively refuses to work with the community in sufficient capacity when it comes to open source integration you end up with a situation where others are having to put in extra effort to make things work. This is a major reason why a lot of people are freaking out when it comes to Nvidia buying ARM, Nvidia has a pretty bad reputation among the open source community when it comes to these issues.

> Because we have tight control over the software stack, we can workaround that bug.

I really don't see why that tight control is necessary, Nvidia isn't all that unique here either, many vendors have hardware bugs that are ultimately worked around in the mainline Linux kernel for example.

> It's faster for us to do this when we have full control.

Participating in community/open development processes doesn't preclude Nvidia from directly distributing hot-fixes or even make distributing hot-fixes more difficult in any meaningful way. Mainlining proper Linux drivers can also make distribution of hot-fixes easier as they would get included in distro packaging systems and update cycles effectively automatically. One thing to keep in mind is that if Nvidia were to step up and dedicate a properly sized team to mainline open source driver development Nvidia would have a lot more control over the direction of the open source driver development for Nvidia hardware.

> Nouveau's struggles is an excellent example of how difficult it is to write software for hardware without the engagement and interaction of the manufacturer of that hardware.

Of course, that's really the big issue, Nvidia refuses to properly engage in community driver development, this lack of engagement is the source of a lot of animosity from developers. In general reverse engineered drivers like Nouveau are a last resort option usually only done when a vendor refuses to properly engage with the open source communities for development. Since graphics drivers are probably the most complex kernel drivers out there this is especially problematic for hardware like Nvidia GPU's.

> That said, we've been moving in the direction of open source for a long time.

Hopefully that is true, but it's something we've heard before, and to be fair things did look like they were on the right track for improvement but that seems to have stalled somewhat back in 2017 when Alexandre Courbot left Nvidia as he seemed to be the main developer who was spearheading engagement with the Nouveau project. A company of Nvidia's size can easily afford to dedicate a full time development team to open driver development, it would be great if Nvidia would step up to the plate and put in the resources to maintain the mainline kernel drivers for Nvidia hardware.

[dahart]

With libcu++, Nvidia is not saying how or when software should be written. Because the library is meeting the C++ standard, it does exactly what you said you want, it allows any developer to write code for any GPU (or CPU!) The library is doing the thing you‘re asking for. AMD & Intel can support the same code with only namespace changes, using their own version, because it’s open and written to the open standard.