> werewolf:/lib/modules/2.6.11-jam14/kernel/drivers/video# ll
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 4402072 Apr 14 23:18 nvidia.ko
> werewolf:/usr/X11R6/lib# ll /usr/X11R6/lib/*7174*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 485260 Apr 11 01:12 /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.0.7174*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7626156 Apr 11
werewolf:/lib/modules/2.6.11-jam14/kernel/drivers/video# ll
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 4402072 Apr 14 23:18 nvidia.ko
werewolf:/usr/X11R6/lib# ll /usr/X11R6/lib/*7174*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 485260 Apr 11 01:12 /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.0.7174*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7626156 Apr 11 01:12
On 04.21, Manu Abraham wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >
> >>Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
> >>is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
> >>back to my
On 04.21, Manu Abraham wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
back to my original example
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
back to my original example of the aic7xxx cards. The alternative to
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
> is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
> back to my original example of the aic7xxx cards. The alternative to
> their simple
>
> Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
> is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
No I rely on things I read from hardware review websites and from the
GPU manufacturers to wonder what they are doing, unless putting more
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:12 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
> > the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
> > implementation that nVidia does *not* want to release (in addition to
> > suggesting their
Dave Airlie wrote:
The main reasons they don't like open source is from where I'm
standing, their IP lawyers and probably not being able to do sneaky
hacks in the driver because people can see them..
Well . . . if *that* is a reason for disliking open source then the
problem is solved.
We
Dave Airlie wrote:
The main reasons they don't like open source is from where I'm
standing, their IP lawyers and probably not being able to do sneaky
hacks in the driver because people can see them..
Well . . . if *that* is a reason for disliking open source then the
problem is solved.
We
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:12 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
implementation that nVidia does *not* want to release (in addition to
suggesting their software
Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
No I rely on things I read from hardware review websites and from the
GPU manufacturers to wonder what they are doing, unless putting more
transistors
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
back to my original example of the aic7xxx cards. The alternative to
their simple
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:15:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Ha! That's the whole damn point Dave. Use your head. Just because ATI
is getting more complex with their GPU does *not* mean nVidia is. Go
back to my original example of the aic7xxx cards. The alternative to
> But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
> the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
> implementation that nVidia does *not* want to release (in addition to
> suggesting their software tricks). Why is it that people *assume* that
> just the
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:01 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> instead of keeping them secret for no
> good reason.
But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
implementation that nVidia does *not* want to
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 16:01 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
instead of keeping them secret for no
good reason.
But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
implementation that nVidia does *not* want to
But *that's* the point people keep ignoring: the specs for programming
the hardware, in some cases, reveals details about the hardware's
implementation that nVidia does *not* want to release (in addition to
suggesting their software tricks). Why is it that people *assume* that
just the
18 matches
Mail list logo
