| This is encouraging to hear. Have you heard any rumblings about where
| the common code base would come from?
I was thinking more about the intellectual-property issues than the
shared-code issues.
There has been some encouraging efforts by ARB members to share source
recently. nVidia,
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 15:49, Suzy Deffeyes wrote:
I sure hope the new rules from the Bylaws Working Group make life easier for
someone. ;-).
Maybe it will be easier now MS have resigned, although that puts them in a nice
position to avoid declaring patent interests and destroy OpenGL by
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:06:41PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
| Maybe it will be easier now MS have resigned, although that puts them in a
| nice position to avoid declaring patent interests and destroy OpenGL by
| submarine patenting games
Microsoft caught a lot of flak over their
On Saturday 01 March 2003 07:19 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
Old SiS - public
Trident - public
Drivers - none.
Old SiS - Utah-GLX. They had an alpha of a driver for that chipset (I
happened to have one, but not the time to pursue improving upon it at the
time...).
As for me and helping out,
Allen Akin wrote:
Microsoft bears a lot of
the burden for D3D by collecting and maintaining the common code (as
well as nontechnical stuff like patent licensing and sublicensing). SGI
didn't do that for OpenGL in the early days, and by the time it
understood the problem, most hardware vendors had
Hi, Jens!
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:52:58PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
| Allen Akin wrote:
| Microsoft bears a lot of
| the burden for D3D by collecting and maintaining the common code (as
| well as nontechnical stuff like patent licensing and sublicensing). SGI
| didn't do that for OpenGL in the
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 01:35:08PM +, Ian Molton wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:58:44 + José Fonseca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, thats arse backwards. It should be that the documentation
eases people into develpoing the code. not the other way round.
But there *are* specs
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:58:01 +
José Fonseca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get
back now to your dri-has-no-docs-and-developers/ihvs-are-elitists
speech for all I care.
No thanks. I'll just continue reverse engineering my e740.
---
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 02:58:01PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
...
An existing DRI driver has much more relevant information for a
developer than the hardware specs.
except for the fact that the dri cvs tree, seems to have some sort of
auto-applied strip for source code on commit.
As strip
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:34:27 -0500 (EST)
Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
OK but here is my take on it, people will work on what they are
interested in, so if someone wants to work on R128 and ATI does
give out docs for that chip then they should give
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
I'd love to see more vendors providing specs, and doing so more
openly, and preferably without NDAs. Ragging on vendors who do
permit access to docs under NDA to people of their choosing, for
not providing them to the world, is more likely to dry up access
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 04:56:18PM -0800, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simpler, more direct, infrastructure to the
low-level driver might help.
X has served us well for a long time but I just don't
think it is sufficient to be the standard video
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 02:38:09AM +, Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, if that was all, it wouldnt be so bad...
The project has no real documentation, theres no support from
anywhere, and there is little help from
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 06:47:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
| ...
| At some point that won't be true any more. And maybe it's just me, but
| with programmable vertex and pixel shaders it looks like the onus is
| shifting onto the _user_, and it's more likely that the hardware designs
| won't
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:57:42AM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote:
| On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Allen Akin wrote:
|
| Once you get rid of the legacy stuff in OpenGL, drivers are pretty much
| the same level of complexity for OpenGL as for D3D.
|
| I guess you also had to take away mandatory software
(oh, and please, I prefer being referred to by my first name.)
one Molton many Ian's g
From: Daniel Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Smitty [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? - why no one plays with
Glide3. Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:35:15 -0500
a V3
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 01:55, Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People were saying that ten years ago. They were
wrong then, and I suspect they are wrong now.
Looking out five years wouldn't OpenGL 2.0+ make a
better core graphics API for Linux than XLIB? Hardware
is
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 19:15, Allen Akin wrote:
| Once you get rid of the legacy stuff in OpenGL, drivers are pretty much
| the same level of complexity for OpenGL as for D3D. Which is one reason
| why several groups are able to use OpenGL subsets for embedded apps.
|
| I'll take your
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
OK but here is my take on it, people will work on what they are
interested in, so if someone wants to work on R128 and ATI does
give out docs for that chip then they should give it to him.
Whats the chance of ATI delegating some of this function to TG, ie just
Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look at the
Intel i8x0 driver for example. The Intel specs are publically
available, and Intel funds development of the driver. The
hardware is readily available too. Yet there is not any major
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:58:44 +
José Fonseca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, thats arse backwards. It should be that the documentation
eases people into develpoing the code. not the other way round.
But there *are* specs for the Voodoo 3, so what are you complaining
about!? I'm sorry to
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
The 3Dfx Voodoo 3 and Banshee specs are available, as are docs
for other 3D hardware. Who is working on that right now? 3Dfx
released the source code of Glide3 for example. I dont think a
single line of code has been written for Glide3 for 2 years now.
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 03:05:37PM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
a V3 gets smacked around by a TNT2,
Not with open source drivers it doesn't.
got some specs on how the V3 performs, with glxgears?
google only pulled up results from someone who said their
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:05:37 -0500 (EST)
Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look at the
Intel i8x0 driver for example. The Intel specs are publically
available, and Intel funds development of the driver. The
hardware is readily available too. Yet there is not any major
Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
Which is probably why Molton is trying to instigate a divorce
from Glide for the V3.
I certainly support that move. Anholt was working on Glide3
recently a bit as well. I dunno how far he got, but I've been
meaning
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:56:42 +0200
Smitty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is probably why Molton is trying to instigate a divorce from
Glide for the V3.
Well, more a merge of glide into the driver, at least short term.
(oh, and please, I prefer being referred to by my first name.)
I have two
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 04:05, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote:
Yes, it is. But you missed my point. The point being that code
exists and nobody is hacking on it. I'm not *blaming* anyone.
Volunteers work on what volunteers are interested in working on.
That's
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 07:11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On 2 Mar 2003, Antonino Daplas wrote:
AFAIK, there are at least 2 versions of the i810 framebuffer driver
publicly available, both of which are not possible without the public
docs.
I don't think that answers Mike's criticism that
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 23:11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Quite frankly, DRI is the project from hell when it comes to getting
into it, and I think that's largely because you have to have all the
pieces in place to get something working, and you have to understand a
wide range of different issues
On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 20:28, Philip Brown wrote:
got some specs on how the V3 performs, with glxgears?
google only pulled up results from someone who said their setup seemd to
not be configured properly.
(68 FPS)
On the voodoo gears is a fine way to measure your monitor refresh rate. The
On 2 Mar 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
Thats one reason I'd love to see the C++ framework proposed. Hell I can
draw triangles on my SiS6326, its just there isn't a way to plug that
code into an existing framework yet.
I think this is the perfect example of hard to get into. A person who
knows what
--- Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A simpler, more direct, infrastructure to the
low-level driver might help.
X has served us well for a long time but I just don't
think it is sufficient to be the standard video
platform for desktop Linux over the next ten years.
We're not going to
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 00:56, Jon Smirl wrote:
X has served us well for a long time but I just don't
think it is sufficient to be the standard video
platform for desktop Linux over the next ten years.
People were saying that ten years ago. They were wrong
then, and I suspect they are wrong now.
--- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People were saying that ten years ago. They were
wrong then, and I suspect they are wrong now.
Looking out five years wouldn't OpenGL 2.0+ make a
better core graphics API for Linux than XLIB? Hardware
is certainly trending towards the 3D model.
I'd like
On 2 Mar 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
Since XFree 4.0 you don't have to touch the core code, you
don't have to duplicate a ton of stuff and you don't need
to know zip about DDX, MI and the other core layers.
Yeah, I don't think regular X is problematic. The Xv stuff used to be
quite messy, but
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
I'd like to see Linux turn XFree inside out. Instead
of OpenGL/DRI being bolted onto X, bolt X onto
OpenGL/DRI.
It might not even be that painful to try. X largely should support things
like that simply thanks to the fact that people have already
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 03:11:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
|
| ... you have to understand a
| wide range of different issues (you can't just understand hardware, you
| also have to have some understanding of OpenGL).
| ...
| Look at the size of a
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Allen Akin wrote:
This is largely because there's a *much* greater emphasis on performance
in the 3D world than in the 2D world. There's too much competitive
advantage to be gained by exposing hardware peculiarities and by
avoiding certain kinds of abstraction.
Well,
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
X has served us well for a long time but I just don't
think it is sufficient to be the standard video
platform for desktop Linux over the next ten years.
We're not going to replace X overnight, but we need a
path to slowly evolve it. I am amazed at the rate of
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite frankly, DRI is the project from hell when it comes to getting
into it, and I think that's largely because you have to have all the
pieces in place to get something working, and you have to understand a
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Allen Akin wrote:
Once you get rid of the legacy stuff in OpenGL, drivers are pretty much
the same level of complexity for OpenGL as for D3D.
I guess you also had to take away mandatory software fallbacks and the
imaging subset. In reality though, every IHV I've talked to
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:57:42AM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote:
I guess you also had to take away mandatory software fallbacks and the
imaging subset. In reality though, every IHV I've talked to stated their
OpenGL drivers being far more complex to maintain.
The question is does that really
42 matches
Mail list logo
