Hi again, list ! Le vendredi 13 mai 2005 � 12:04 +1000, Hugh Fisher a �crit : > I want a 3D graphics card with OK performance which anyone can > write a device driver for. I really, really, don't care about > whether or not the RTL/Verilog/hardware design would be "free" > according to the FSF.
Thinking in the "sustainable mode", affordable FPGA boards will probably not exist for OGP version n (n being small, but > 1). Hardly anybody will be able to test/load its full design modifications. While encouraging copying, a "free" RTL/Verilog/hardware design of OGPn will probably mostly be of an educational value to the community. To release it after some time, as Timothy suggested, preserve that value, and take back the risk. However, this also means that OGP is only really contributing to "free hardware" (as in freedom) with the first FPGA-compatible products. It may take advantage of the "many eyes effect" on hardware after that, but not really giving its hardware contributors as much freedom as in software. I don't blame Timothy's efforts here because - to begin with - open specs, drivers and OGP version 1 RTL are precious goals, and of course really the problem is the $2million needed to produce a capable chip. But I don't take that required amount of money as a fatality. After all, biological systems are producing a lot of bio-mips at the cost of a few bananas. Has a lot of investment has gone in that field ? Chip producers are big companies, keeping a high investment barrier is a good protection against new competitors. Furthermore top-of-the-art chips are not likely to be produced by compromise-driven cost-effective-for-small-series hypothetical new technologies. However, efforts are being made and ideas do appear. One of the most striking to my mind being making semiconductors on little silicium balls kept in clean-air small tubes and pipes ( http://www.ballsemi.com/NEW/BallTech/Wspherical/Wspherical.asp ). I don't want to start a discussion here on that particular technology, nor am I qualified to give any judgement on it. What I want to stress is that if the community wants "free" hardware, pushing companies like Timothy's to release quickly their RTL is probably not the right way to go - for the moment. Instead, more focus and support should be given to innovative silicium process or usage. Reviewing processes, investing money or helping developing software tools for example. Because OGP is not in the "given a design, how to burn silicium cleverly" field, I see no point for it to be over-opened. Instead, the "ENABLING sharing" motto could be traduced on the hardware side in some sort of commitment from OGP in the "lowering the investment barrier" direction. Anything could do : spreading ideas, encouraging support from customers, giving direct support, staying "FPGA friendly", jumping on new technologies when available... and of course OGP version 1 being a success ! Hope I'm not just adding to the mess here. Robin _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
