On Sat, 25 May 2002, Keith Whitwell wrote: >> (IMHO: The specs should be accessible to anyone... While in certain >> fields this is happening due to the spread of Linux, 3D graphics isn't >> surely one of them. In any case we can't really blaim ATI, as they have >> been one of the most open and supportive in this matter so far... I hope >> that it won't step back though..) > >I don't think it would be at all difficult for someone who's got a track >record with some other chip to get the 8500 specs, but I think there's a >problem with lots of people requesting specs from ati & then not following >through. It just gives a bad impression I think.
I agree. I see many many people on this list and on other lists, frequently request specs for hardware, and a fair number of them haven't contributed any code to XFree86 or DRI. The bottom line is that hardware vendors don't give out specs to anyone merely because they would like to have them and would like to contribute. I would wager that the number of people who would obtain such specs after asking for them would result in very small number of people actually doing something with the specs and writing the code. IMHO, there are likely enough people who have the specs now that also have the skills to write the driver. Just having the specs isn't enough. And quite frankly, someone who is totally new to C, and/or new to programming at all, I don't believe remotely posesses the skills to write serious 3D driver code. Someone wanting specs for hardware simply has to realize that they need to seriously demonstrate programming skill firsthand, and that can be done by working on DRI or XFree86 code without obtaining specs first. Improve existing drivers, etc. What is the point of a vendor giving out their specs to every person who asks for them, to not actually see every person who gets the specs actually doing something with them? From the vendor's perspective - that is a risk. Vendors friendly enough to give access to their specs - to the RIGHT people, I think deserve to see something happen first before giving them out carte blanche to the whole world. By giving specs out to a number of people who then don't produce anything, I would think a vendor would wonder if giving the specs out in the future to others is worth the risks. Remember, it is THEM who perceive the risks of their IP becoming public, and they set the rules. Some vendors such as ATI have just been _very_ much more friendly than others about allowing access to their NDA docs. So far, the only major efforts outside the core DRI team that I see that have done significant work, are those working on the Mach64 project. I think right now, the most promising future of the Radeon driver is going to be enhancements done by Keith, Kevin, and others who have worked on it previously. Also, Ani Joshi has written 8500 3D support, and has mentioned that he will ask his employer if they'll allow him to open source the driver. If Pioneer allows him to do this, I think it might be a very good thing for the DRI project, and also to show that there are in fact others out there willing to contribute aside from the DRI core team. That may have an effect on easier access to docs in the future perhaps as well. -- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
