On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 23:11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly, DRI is the project from hell when it comes to "getting
> into" it, and I think that's largely because you have to have all the
> pieces in place to get something working, and you have to understand a
> wide range of different issues (you can't just understand hardware, you
> also have to have some understanding of OpenGL).
In addition even if you know the pieces its a lot of work to make it do
anything - but getting better. DRI now has credible documentation but it
still has stuff like each card using its own vertex arrays, texture
manager and the like.
Thats one reason I'd love to see the C++ framework proposed. Hell I can
draw triangles on my SiS6326, its just there isn't a way to plug that
code into an existing framework yet.
> Add to that the fact that for many of the common chipsets documentation is
> hard to get ("common" here not being in absolute numbers, but in the kind
> of hw that people who are really interested in 3D would want to buy), and
> it's no wonder that there aren't that many people working on it - there
> are just a lot of things working _against_ new people.
Old SiS - public
Trident - public
Drivers - none.
> I _suspect_ that the fact that most modern graphics cards are designed
> mainly for DirectX might make the whole thing slightly worse (ie just from
> causing some additional disconnect between what the hardware does and what
> the interfaces are).
DirectX affects 2D mostly - it means some of the line drawing hardware
is broken for X.
> A simpler, more direct, infrastructure to the low-level driver might help.
> I suspect that is why MS started doing D3D in the first place,
Mesa vertex lists seem suspiciously D3D like to me
-------------------------------------------------------
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
