On 05/13/2005 02:43:12 PM, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Did you ask him? I did not ask Keith about this specifically, but I
get
the impression the only reason he does not complain is that he is
resigned to the status quo. I will ask him about your specific
point, if you like.
Sure, go ahead. But what matters is not whether Keith would like
to see a completely free hardware design, but whether he and the
other X developers would refuse to work on it if it isn't. And
by all the evidence available, neither the X nor Mesa3D teams
care that much about whether the hardware is free or not, just
whether the registers/device addresses/etc are documented.
Mike Harris on the other hand is quite vocal about the depressing
situation of closed 3D hardware. I will ask him your specific
question too, if you like.
Sure, go ahead. But my question is NOT "do you want the hardware
design to be completely free, unlike nVidia or ATI?", but "do you
want the information needed by a DRI developer to be free, unlike
nVidia or ATI?"
There are a bunch of Red Hatters in the former Cygnus office I happen
to
know are very direct in stating that the logic source for the card
should be open, and that they will work on it if it is.
Why don't they start their own project? We've already had one
bunch on this list tell everyone else that they were going away
to start a REAL free hardware project.
That is a little over the top, Hugh ;-)
Only a little? I must be getting slack :-)
I'm emailing from a box that runs on Linux, please do not call me a
zealot.
Which rather proves my point. We all know what a disaster Linux
has been because it runs on un-free CPU/disk controller/Ethernet
chip designs, and how few people are willing to contribute to
Linux because of that.
Hugh Fisher
DCS, ANU
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
