On 1/10/06, Nicolas Capens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Wesley, > > Are today's CPU's not quality then? The FDIV bug would have happened with or > without peer review, simply because nobody outside the company has the tools > to test the hardware before it ships. > > For graphics hardware that problem is no different. And even when the > hardware has reached end-users, only a tiny fraction of them will take the > effort to do more than just reporting the bug. A couple weeks ago I bumped > into an issue in my software renderer that took me several days to solve. It > was seemingly simple to solve with a patch, but it actually required a > significant redesign to solve it for good. No expert would have done the > correct thing without spending a great deal of time getting to know my code, > and taking the effort to do more than was strictly required to fix the > issue. In fact I never ever got a good patch when it was still open-source, > despite sufficient interest. > > Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that claiming higher hardware quality > because of open specifications is flawed. Companies pay QA teams big money > to perform tedious jobs, and you can't rely on the community to make any > investments and be that rigorous. Driver quality for open-source operating > systems will be higher though, because it's more accessible.
Not only open specifications, but open RTL. A different kind of acessibility. > > Best regards, > > Nicolas Capens > <snip>
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
