On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:16:44 -0500
Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am the founder of the Open Graphics Project, a founder of Traversal
> Technology, and the moderator of the Open Graphics Mailing List.
Just tell here that you are founder and head of the OGP, anything
else is unnecessary information.
> We've made it our goal to develop new graphics hardware that is fully
> open architecture for the purpose of having fully open source drivers
> that fully support all features of the hardware. One of your list
> members pointed me to the discussion you have been having on a related
> topic and suggested that I put in a statement. I used to be a LKML
> member, but I had to leave once the OGML traffic got too high, so if
> you want to contact me, you'll have to email me directly.
Ok
> Having been faced with Linux hardware-support challenges many times
> myself, I've certainly thought of circumstances where allowing binary
> drivers would be a good short-term solution, but I believe condoning
> that is a slippery slope that will lead to the corruption of the Free
> Software ideal. I'm not the kind of purist that believes all
> proprietary software is evil, but Linux is great in large part because
> it's open source (and stays that way because it's free software).
Ok
> One idea I have seen is to develop a limited kernel ABI that goes
> between the ever-changing interfaces of the main kernel and some fixed
> interface. As the kernel chances, more kruft would be added to this
> abstraction layer, but it would be added ONLY to that abstraction
> layer. It's kinda like DRI, but more generalized. This would have
> the advantage of allowing paranoid hardware vendors to write "legal"
> closed-source drivers but also discourage them from doing it, because
> there would be unavoidable performance disadvantages. This sounds
> great, but it amounts to us bending to the will of the old ways, and
> the old ways are broken. The monent we give them that opening is the
> moment we lose a lot of ground in our progress towards ubiquitous free
> software. It is this open source requirement for Linux that has
> spawned so much innovation and sharing of ideas and is the only reason
> why you can use so many x86-specific peripherals on a PowerPC
> platforms. "Don't go there," I say, because if you do, you're
> shooting yourself in the foot.
Sounds good. Though i am not sure what you intend to say here.
> As for other graphics vendors like ATI and nVidia, I honestly don't
> fault them for their business models. To them, it's far more
> profitable to sell to Windows users, and Linux users are in such small
> number by comparison that it likely costs them more to support us than
> they make from selling us cards. Even if I'm wrong, businesses can
> hurt themselves by stretching themselves too thin and trying to make
> too many disparate groups happy.
Ok
> So why don't ATI and nVidia just release specs so we can write drivers
> for them? Because their drivers are a huge part of their competitive
> advantage. As a hardware designer, I always strive to strike the best
> balance between software and hardware. Hardware costs a lot of money,
> so when you can do something in software instead without it being a
> burden on the system, that's what you should do. For ATI and nVidia,
> exposing their interfaces would expose too much about the internal
> workings of their designs, thereby giving away too much information to
> each other and other competitors. It is the capitalist thing to do to
> compete in whatever way makes the most sense, and those secrets are
> all they have to compete with each other.
Ok
> For Traversal Technology, the Open Graphics Project is an interesting
> risk. To some extent, we can afford to do this, because we are small
> and have integrated ourselves into the community to a huge degree. We
> stand as a niche player, and based on that, we create a reasonable
> business model. What will sell our products is the fact that they are
> open architecture. Although the near-term business goals of ATI and
> nVidial make sense, the future goes beyond just open source. It isn't
> enough to just release source to your drivers. Other developers need
> to be able to understand them and add support for features in your
> hardware that you didn't. And they need to be able to use your
> hardware in ways that you didn't anticipate. (That's one of the
> funnest parts, IMHO.) Although I don't expect hardware vendors in the
"funniest"
> future to release the internals of their hardware, as Traversal
> intends to do, I do believe we'll reach a point where every piece of
> hardware we use has published specs with sufficient detail that we can
> write good drivers for them. That's the direction we need to be
> headed. Let's not delay that inevitable outcome by giving hardware
> vendors an excuse to slide back into the old ways of doing things.
Ok.
What i think is missing here, is a clarification what we intend
to do. There was a subthread discussing our abilty to compete
with ATI and nVidia. We should clearly state that we are not
going to compete with them on the 3D ground (as we cannot
do that with the amount of manpower/money we have) but on the
open specs/oss driver ground with full support for dual screen
and TV-out. Ie our target market are not gamers but desktop,
advanced desktop users and people who need high resolution
graphics.
Attila Kinali
--
wer soviel schoggi isst, kann sowieso nicht dumm sein ;-)
-- Sandra
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
