On Sunday 09 July 2006 21:10, Timothy Miller wrote: > > o The problem and the need > o Why open source drivers are important > o Why closed-source drivers are bad > o Limitations of many open source drivers > o Ideology > o Debugging > o Stability > o Kernel upgrades > o IP issues (distro packaging)
Good, shouldn't be too long I think, most people know about problems
with closed drivers.
> o OGP, our goals, and our ideals
> o Who we are and our skills
> o Fully-documented hardware
> o Open Source drivers (GPL, BSD, MIT)
> o Open Source hardware! (GPL, in most cases)
> o Full support for all graphics engine features
> o Support for any OS, architecture, or platform (MorphOS,
> PPC, Alpha, *BSD, etc...)
> o IP licensing
I think this should be split in two, to put more of accent on economic
reality and to pre-empt the "we want everything Free" crowd somewhat. I
know that my first question would be "but who is going to pay for it
all?". There are probably a lot of technical people there, but even
technical people know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. So
perhaps something like this:
o In a Perfect World
o We (as a community) would love to have everything completely
open, like with our software
o Fully-documented hardware
o Open Source drivers
o Open Source hardware!
o Full support for all graphics engine features
o Support for any OS, architecture, or platform
o The Grim Face of Reality (or something similar :-))
o Hardware != Software
o Masks are EXPENSIVE!
o We're not going to get anywhere just on donated spare
time
o How to get this show on the road economically
o Our only asset is IP, so we'll have to use that
o But, we don't want to give up our ideals
o So, a compromise has to be made
o Note that hardware by nature can not be changed, and
thus falls outside the scope of the FSF-definition of freedom. We need
something else.
o Degrees of freedom (open interfaces, open drivers,
open hardware, and so on)
> o Our strategy
> o Design graphics hardware for Linux *desktop* (not games)
> o Minimalist hardware design
> o OGA (graphics engine spec)
> o OGD1 (FPGA-based graphics card development platform)
> o Formation of Traversal Technology, LLC to handle business
> and expenses
> o Viability of development model
> o Costs of hardware production
I think this should start with an explanation of the structure of the
OGP, and the relationship between the O(G|H)F and Traversal and some
discussion of how they solve the economic problem mentioned above. Then
once that is out of the way, we can move on to technical issues and the
things we're building. That can then serve as an example of how the
system works as well. For example:
o The Project: OGP, OHF and Traversal Technology
o Who does what, who controls what, and where does the money go?
o How open is this, and aren't non-TT developers ripped off?
o How does that work in practice? Two examples: OGD1 and OGA
o OGD1: we need something to work with
o Prototype board
o Almost all work done by TT "employees"/founders
o Outside developers allow TT to do proprietary licence as well
> o Basic Feature Set (OGA standard)
> o Quick intro to graphics system architecture
> o Rasterization layer of OpenGL 1.3
> o Transparency, compositing, texturing, image warping, 2D
> primitives, etc.
> o OGA specification based on community consensus
> o No programmable shaders, T&L done in software
> o Justifications for feature set elements
Sounds good. How technical is this supposed to be?
> o Our needs
> o Volunteers to help design hardware and write software
> o Legal counsel
> o Open Graphics Foundation (non-profit, handles donations,
> community votes, etc.)
>
> o Future
> o Get the basics done and become self-sustaining, then...
> o Start adding more modern 3D engine features like
> programmable shaders o Other open hardware, like high-end audio,
> networking, RAID, etc.
Perhaps these should be swapped around? "Our needs" is a call to action,
not a description, or at least it should be. Perhaps it should be
named "Our needs right now" then though.
As a recap, the overall structure would become:
o The problem and the need (why what we have now sucks)
o In a Perfect World (what we really want)
o The Grim Face of Reality (why we can't have that)
o The Project: OGP, OHF and Traversal Technology (how we're going to get
closer anyway)
o OGD1: we need something to work with (what we're actually building
right now)
o Basic Feature Set (OGA standard) (where we're going next)
o Future (and then...)
o Our needs (come help!)
Lourens
pgp9JUjUNq5MV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
