Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> In March your team submitted the LSARC fasttrack for OpenGL 2.0 for
> Xsun/SPARC. LSARC derailed it, since it was not obvious why this
> was being done first for the EOL'ed Xsun and not the preferred Xorg.
> ("Derailed" is not "denied", it's just "this isn't so obvious and
> non-controversial that it can be approved without discussion.")
>
> Instead of coming to LSARC and defending what you claim is a sound
> engineering decision, your team simply stopped communicating with
> LSARC and shipped without ARC approval. If it was that sound of an
> engineering decision, then it should have been no problem to explain,
> yet LSARC 2006/618 is *still* waiting for the team to come back and
> meet with us.
>
> Our team is already bearing the burden of your team's lack of resources,
> in having to ship a different implementation of OpenGL on x86 - from a
> pure resource management perspective, it would seem the best solution is
> to remove your team's OpenGL from Solaris altogether and ship Mesa on both
> platforms. This would also give customers the same OpenGL interfaces on
> both platforms, though without hardware acceleration on SPARC, much as x86
> users have had to suffer through for years, and would allow us to ship the
> open source OpenGL on both platforms for Indiana instead of relying on your
> closed source solution.
Wow, so closed source is such a sin now that it would be worth running
multiple orders of magnitude slower to be open source? I think you need
to get off your high horse.
You've been on a crusade against SPARC graphics for years. You act like
every decisions that the group makes is intended to defy you personally.
I wasn't involved with any decisions regarding OpenGL 2.0 and Xorg but I
can see why someone might not want to bother trying to argue a case in
front of Chief Justice Alan Coopersmith.
--
Paul Ramsey
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
877-242-2631
