On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 04:05, Mike A. Harris wrote: > On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote: > > Yes, it is. But you missed my point. The point being that code > exists and nobody is hacking on it. I'm not *blaming* anyone. > Volunteers work on what volunteers are interested in working on. > That's obviously not Glide3. Point is, there is code and docs > that have been available to people that have not seen much > contributions at all except by funded development. Look at the > Intel i8x0 driver for example. The Intel specs are publically > available, and Intel funds development of the driver. The > hardware is readily available too. Yet there is not any major > contributions to the code at all other than what is produced by > funded development. >
I think the Intel 8x0 is also a bad example. Precisely because the XFree86 and DRI drivers are funded by Intel that volunteer work shifts to other areas (fbdev, DirectFB). Secondly, these old Intel chipsets are not a natural choice for doing 3D (70-100 fbs with glxgears :-). Not worth concentrating on with regards to 3D. AFAIK, there are at least 2 versions of the i810 framebuffer driver publicly available, both of which are not possible without the public docs. For the more popular cards, volunteer work exists, not in the hundreds, but significant enough to make a dent. Take Matrox for instance. A significant amount of code is contributed with regards to DirectFB and mplayer. Once in a while, people will request for specifications concerning ATI cards in various mailing list. Whether they'll spend significant developer effort is anyone's guess. I'm not advocating open sourcing hardware specs. If manufacturers do, that's excellent. If they don't, I respect that decision. Tony ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
