On 5/14/05, Hamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Timothy Miller wrote: > > > On 5/13/05, Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Thursday 12 May 2005 22:04, Hugh Fisher wrote: > >> > >>> At the recent LinuxConf in Australia Wayne Piekarski, augmented > >>> VR guru, said that he uses nVidia because they work, and > >>> that's the criteria that matters to a 3D developer. I don't > >>> recall Keith Packard complaining about "closed hardware" > >>> graphic cards either when he was talking about the future of X > >>> Windows. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > Until the OGP, I had never, EVER, heard an open source developer > > complain that they couldn't get RTL to the hardware they worked > > with. > > > > Maybe it's simply necessary to understand WHY they now complain then. > Personally I'd be disappointed. But why? Well I'm honest enough to say > it's because something was originally promised that may now take a > long time before I get my hands on it. (i.e. the RTL).
The RTL was NEVER promised to anyone. I made it painfully clear from the very beginning that the RTL was not necessarily going to be released. My recent statements about opening it after a time are improvements over the original statements. > The original > statements were everything open. Taking stuff away from people > disappoints & annoys them. I haven't taken anything away. I can't control what other people may have lead you to believe, but I have careful to distinguish what would be and what would not be released as open source. > Then you get poeple who say 'damn.. that > bit is slow... I could make it faster/better if I had access to the > VHDL & re-wrote a bit' and they get annoyed because their initial > thoughts were that they'd be able to do that, and now they can't. > > However even if the whole chip was just a little black box and we only > know what you put in it to get the results (i..e acompletely free & > open spec with register details etc) that would be a far greater > benefit than most other chipsets. BUT and it's a big BUT then you have > no differentiation between the OGP and an established company that IS > doing the same. e.g. Via. (see > <http://www.via.com.tw/en/resources/pressroom/2005_archive/pr050412_driversource.jsp> > and <http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx?PageID=2&Type=4> > > Just remember also that people will complain about lots of things. We > all doit. You'll never satisfy everyone. Trying to will jut drive you > mad. I'm told we have advantages over VIA. For instance, our documentation is better. Keep this in mind: The 'advantage' of having open source RTL is not an advantage if VIA can produce a chip but we can't. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
