On 2006-07-12, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Should I infer from the silence that everyone thinks that the last
> draft I posted will get accepted? :)
I think it looks good. I will just second a few points...
o Why closed-source drivers are a problem
In my opinion stability is the most important point. When using a
proprietary driver for my current card, I have about 2 crashes a month.
That's weird to me, since I know the distributors pick out well tested
and rock stable kernels. Someone who is new to Linux may not have the
same expectation, and may never try to disable the proprietary graphics
driver, so Linux gets the blame.
o No programmable shaders, T&L done in software
Just curios, since vertex shading is in software, it can be
programmable, right? So, a fish-eye or panorama lens is doable?
BTW, I think this is also an important point, recalling the "we just
want 2D" discussion. OGA is smart in a modest way. And I think it's even
future-proof. It may take 10 years before CPUs can do what graphics cards
do today, but as the cores cell-divide, the OGA approach becomes more
feasible even for heavy 3D. Other GPUs may move towards more general
purpose vector processing. Maybe we'd first make an independent
co-processor board for scientific computing and, of course, for further
accelerating the OGC1 driver. The same core could eventually end up in a
future OGC card. Okay, I'm diverging from the talk, people will probably
want to hear about things that sound realistic ;-)
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
