Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Catalyst 7.12 Linux Driver -- The Baby's In Surgery

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reverse engeneering

    Reverse engeneering is possible also from an XP-dll.
    Do you think that linux will never have hardware decoding of h.264 only because it is open source?
    H.264 is the future for DVB-H. Do you think that this future will not be accessible for open source only because some poeple interconnected DRM with hardware encoding?
    I'm not interested in DRM contents.
    Already now it is possible to have software decoding of h.264. There is no difference if this is done by hardware now.
    I think that linux has shown his good will to protect the copy rights.
    There is no real danger that this would change with a hardware decoder of h.264.
    Any way reverse engeneering will be done in the legal limits. There is no difference if this is done from XP (see ReactOS) or from an ATI-Linux codec.

    Comment


    • All you have to do is convince AMD legal that such RE'ing isn't a violation of the DMCA.

      Now...I don't care what anyone else does, but for my purposes the approach Fedora takes with the Fluendo codecs works for me. I pay the money, use licensed CODECs and life goes on. Maybe the same kind of deal could be worked out with h.264.

      Comment


      • Doing some kind of library is a possibility for non-protected video decoding. It's a non-starter for protected video because we need to protect the decoded output and that depends on the driver "vendor" being willing to put their signature on the driver and vouch for the robustness of the protected path (and of course there *is* no "driver vendor" for an open source driver), but for non-protected content we would only need to worry about tamper-proofing the module to prevent exposing DRM issues via RE.

        If you can RE it we can't ship it -- it's that simple.

        For clarity, I am *not* saying we're going to do anything like this, just that it's one of the options we will look at. Writing the module is a *lot* more than a week once you do enough performance tuning to make it useful on laptops and desktop cards with narrow memory buses. Making a working prototype might be a week's work but it's probably 50x that to get it to the point where it really works for most users, and it would probably take the same amount of work to get robust tamper-proofing in place on a useable module.

        I know it sucks but we didn't invent DRM despite what you read on Slashdot

        Comment


        • reactos.org

          On ReactOS.org you can read under which conditions reengeneering is LEGAL.

          So the only choice to have hardware decoding is reactOS or Windows?
          Or is there any hope that RadeonHD will have other conditions than catalyst?

          So it was a big mistake to buy Radeon HD 2600 XT because of UVD.

          I'd better have waited for a Penryn which has no problem to do all the decoding on software.
          (That's what INTEL praises Penryns for.)

          Comment


          • Just to be clear, I'm saying that we don't have a solution today for exposing UVD to open source developers. We have more options with catalyst.

            Any modern high end CPU can do the decoding in software -- I don't think you need a Penryn. We didn't bother including UVD in R600 because (within reason) anyone buying an R600 would also have a high end CPU and could decode in SW without a problem. UVD really adds value in laptops and midrange PCs which don't have the fastest CPUs or memory subsystems.
            Last edited by bridgman; 01-10-2008, 01:34 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              Just to be clear, I'm saying that we don't have a solution today for exposing UVD to open source developers. We have more options with catalyst.

              Any modern high end CPU can do the decoding in software -- I don't think you need a Penryn. We didn't bother including UVD in R600 because (within reason) anyone buying an R600 would also have a high end CPU and could decode in SW without a problem. UVD really adds value in laptops and midrange PCs which don't have the fastest CPUs or memory subsystems.
              in fact i'm looking forward to it for my laptop.... and maybe someday i'll be able to watch h264 high quality videos without killing the machine.... but maybe before that to happen i'll go with a new r600 or 700 mobile chip.

              ps. since sony bmg, last house to still support drm, is starting to drop it, will there be a chance for future amd gpus without that ugly stuff that only bothers the community sometime? i know that average linux users don't use that kind of stuff for their most free contents that they use, it wouldn't be so bad to have future gpus without its burden.

              Comment


              • You seem to be mixing two things:
                1) DRM on music. That is basically dead by now since most labels do also offer the songs with "just" some watermark.

                2) DRM used for video material. That is heavily used and will be used since it is basically part of the specification of Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. And the movie studios do not want to drop that, at least it does not look like they do want to, even though the copy protection is basically broken already.

                What the DRM issues amd/ati (and we as users, too) seems to be facing is basically related to DRM on video content. So it will take until DRM on video is just a bad part of history until amd/ati will really be able to free all the info about that part of hardware.

                I really do hope that they will find a way to open some specs so that the graphics card can be used for accelerating video decodeing (and maybe encoding too, that would be great...).

                Comment


                • Keep clean from DRM!

                  One good thing is that Linux user will keep clean from DRM content.

                  It is good that there doesn't exist any driver in Linux that easily plays commercial DRM's. Otherwise poeple would buy this commercialistic products. But if you haven't a High END PC, it is better to download bittorrents in divx. (There are enough converters anyway).

                  All this problems with ATI-UVD makes it clear: There is a big commercial force behind this DRM. They want to take money from us for every breath we do. They want to link every multimedia instrument to their commercial products.

                  The bad thing is that h.264 compression is missing.

                  Comment


                  • why don't you like DRM? if you pay you get, and if someone sells anything, you mustn't steal it, and DRM is just a way to prevent it.

                    correct me if I'm wrong but:
                    what sounds strange to me is that the security of this drm module implemented in ati cards, is based on the secrecy of its specifications.

                    if it's true, it's one of the worst things anyone can ever do! it's a general law that says: "the security of an algorithm (hardware or software) must be only related to the key, and not to the secrecy of the algorithm itself"

                    but this is not much in topic any more.

                    what about the issue I'm experiencing with this last version of this driver?
                    I'll paste the original post here:

                    Originally posted by Vighy View Post
                    Hi, I got a strange issue with this new release: when running the composite extensions (and a compositor manager of course) i get a swap of cold a warm colors.
                    with the previous releases didn't happen.
                    I'm using a M76 and running Xorg 7.2 on a x86_64

                    ah I forgot to say that without

                    Option "BackingStore" "true"

                    and composite enabled Xorg crashes in th first 30 seconds of activity.

                    finally, does anybody know how to turn on anti-aliasing for 32bit 3D apps under a 64bit environment?

                    Thank's :-)
                    bye! :-)

                    Comment


                    • Why I don't like DRM

                      There is nothing wrong about DRM if it is done on a honest way. If anyone wants to buy DRM contents, he may watch it. But if the industry blocks MY graphical card with ALL hardware decoding only because I don't want to look their stupid content I get very angry.

                      If anyone wants to use commercial content its his problem. But to contrain everyone to do the same is CRIMINAL!

                      I don't want to see anything of their stupid content. I want only my system to WORK!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Vighy View Post
                        why don't you like DRM? if you pay you get, and if someone sells anything, you mustn't steal it, and DRM is just a way to prevent it.
                        The main problem about DRM I see is that the user is no more in control of the content he buys. If you eg buy a normal DVD these days, there won't be any problem to play it in any player anytime and as often as you want. The same for a music cd and stuff like that.

                        But once DRM is on the content, the license is basically checked when ever you want to play it and it might be said "no, you are no more allowed to listen to this piece of music", where the reason might either be that the company who sold you the music is bankrupt or they want to sell it again. This problem does not only exist for music but for videos, too. With the new "copy-protection" used on blue-ray and hd-dvd it is possible to say "no, this player is not allowed to play me" and "no, you are not allowed to use the digital out to play the soundtrack of that movie" for the simple sake of "a user could make a copy of it".

                        So basically the DRM is used to allow the companys to control what the user does with media he bought and it is even possible to revoke the rights you should have gained by buying a product.

                        Simply said: the user is no longer in control of his data and where he is allowed to use things in which way.

                        Comment


                        • Other problem

                          So basically the DRM is used to allow the companys to control what the user does with media he bought and it is even possible to revoke the rights you should have gained by buying a product.
                          You're right and what DRM does is completely ILLEGAL in EU. And the complaints of users will have success at court.


                          But the problem HERE with the graphical card is much WORSE. The problem, you're speaking about, concerns users that want to buy DRM content.

                          But I don't!

                          I hate modern music! (It's only rhythm without soul. I'm singing gregorian chant myself.)
                          I hat cinema. I NEVER go to cinema. The world of hollywood is a completely artifical and insane world.
                          I never buy DVD's. I've even no player (but now I can play them with my laptop. I've tested and it works.)

                          I only want to look GOOD TV all over the world. (My local TV is miserable). DRM is FORBIDDEN for public TV in Europe. Also I want to look FREETV all over the world.

                          This will need h.264 in the future (DVB-H).

                          But the DRM industry blocks MY graphical card!!!
                          Only because of money. Money for films and music that I hate.

                          The only good thing is that they block themselfs on Linux. Linux users will look divX if there is no usefull h.264 decoder accessible. No Linux User will buy DRM content.

                          This will make GROW the piratery (with converted divX).
                          This will help Windows. Because there are no restrictions on hardware decoders.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ivanovic View Post
                            The main problem about DRM I see is that the user is no more in control of the content he buys. If you eg buy a normal DVD these days, there won't be any problem to play it in any player anytime and as often as you want. The same for a music cd and stuff like that.

                            But once DRM is on the content, the license is basically checked when ever you want to play it and it might be said "no, you are no more allowed to listen to this piece of music", where the reason might either be that the company who sold you the music is bankrupt or they want to sell it again. This problem does not only exist for music but for videos, too. With the new "copy-protection" used on blue-ray and hd-dvd it is possible to say "no, this player is not allowed to play me" and "no, you are not allowed to use the digital out to play the soundtrack of that movie" for the simple sake of "a user could make a copy of it".

                            So basically the DRM is used to allow the companys to control what the user does with media he bought and it is even possible to revoke the rights you should have gained by buying a product.

                            Simply said: the user is no longer in control of his data and where he is allowed to use things in which way.
                            well, i'll never buy a product that will let me play it just for some a limited number of times. if they'd want me to buy that crap i pretend to use it whenever i like it and every time i like it. also i do agree with them on not making backup copy if they'd ship me without any supplementary cost a new cd of the same album whenever the old one begins to play bad. if they want me to behave like that i pretend them to give me a full 24h-365(6) days service. if not, then go to h*** and have that crap sold to some other idiot. i'll go buy it on itunes or amazon without drm or i'll listen to it (with a little luck) on lastfm (i've recently discovered this service and it's a damn cool stuff). by the way, are there any other services like lastfm?

                            You're right and what DRM does is completely ILLEGAL in EU. And the complaints of users will have success at court.


                            But the problem HERE with the graphical card is much WORSE. The problem, you're speaking about, concerns users that want to buy DRM content.

                            But I don't!

                            I hate modern music! (It's only rhythm without soul. I'm singing gregorian chant myself.)
                            I hat cinema. I NEVER go to cinema. The world of hollywood is a completely artifical and insane world.
                            I never buy DVD's. I've even no player (but now I can play them with my laptop. I've tested and it works.)

                            I only want to look GOOD TV all over the world. (My local TV is miserable). DRM is FORBIDDEN for public TV in Europe. Also I want to look FREETV all over the world.

                            This will need h.264 in the future (DVB-H).

                            But the DRM industry blocks MY graphical card!!!
                            Only because of money. Money for films and music that I hate.

                            The only good thing is that they block themselfs on Linux. Linux users will look divX if there is no usefull h.264 decoder accessible. No Linux User will buy DRM content.

                            This will make GROW the piratery (with converted divX).
                            This will help Windows. Because there are no restrictions on hardware decoders.
                            i still do believe that h264 is awesome when compared to divx or xvid in terms of quality/compression. and i really think that in the future we'll see it hw accelerated also on linux, since it's some great format. when it will become a widespread format like divx was and it still is then someone will surely start rev-eng on the drivers either for osx, the most likely to work well since h264 is the official format adopted by apple and i'm sure that their drivers are using the hw acceleration for h264. i'm quite sure about this thing, since it would be damn stupid for apple not to use it; for what i've know their drivers are homemade and developed especially for the boards from the nda specs given by the gpu companies, but on this john might be of help on confirming this statement. so since i've seen some ports of apple hw from osx to linux i wouldn't be surprised to see in the future, when h264 would have killed the old divx and its competitors, some linux port or maybe some binary blob from the video companies for linux. i really hope that next year boards from amd, nvidia and intel would have a separate drm enabler not directly included into the video decoding module. this could be a way of handling stuff: a check on the hw inserted and if it is drm protected then the drm module would block its playing and it would playable only using sw accel. but for this we still need some time since blu-ray and hd-dvd have still a great cost and since the winner between the 2 hasn't been chosen yet, i think that the worse of the 2 will be the winner so that should be blu-ray in the end as it happened with the vhs vs betamax (how many memories this brings back).
                            Last edited by givemesugarr; 01-11-2008, 05:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • The question is now!!!

                              In the future every computer will decode h.264 by software. Someone who has the money for a HD3870 has also the money for a Penryn. And what is one without the other?

                              For future computers and GPU's(>RV700) UVD is ridiculous.

                              But if DRM continous boycotting open source operating systems they will lose those potential buyers NOW. DivX also makes progresses. In futur open source codecs will be equivalent to h.264. But the industry goes h.264.

                              DRM have to understand that the Open Source users are no more a little group. If DRM boycotts open source operating systems divX will EXCLUSIVELY be established in those communities. H.264 will be converted to divX. And this can be copied as many times as you wish.

                              Nobody will buy new films or music if he does convert it to divx any way. He can directly copy it from another divx. Only if DRM opens his policy there will be Linux users that buy their products. Without decoder it is nonsense to buy a h.264 media.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eigerhar View Post
                                In the future every computer will decode h.264 by software. Someone who has the money for a HD3870 has also the money for a Penryn. And what is one without the other?

                                For future computers and GPU's(>RV700) UVD is ridiculous.

                                But if DRM continous boycotting open source operating systems they will lose those potential buyers NOW. DivX also makes progresses. In futur open source codecs will be equivalent to h.264. But the industry goes h.264.

                                DRM have to understand that the Open Source users are no more a little group. If DRM boycotts open source operating systems divX will EXCLUSIVELY be established in those communities. H.264 will be converted to divX. And this can be copied as many times as you wish.

                                Nobody will buy new films or music if he does convert it to divx any way. He can directly copy it from another divx. Only if DRM opens his policy there will be Linux users that buy their products. Without decoder it is nonsense to buy a h.264 media.
                                Closed source DivX, and the open-source Xvid are codec implementations of the MPEG-4 (part 2) standards otherwise known as MPEG-4 ASP.
                                Open source x.264 and open source libavcodec are encoder and (contains) decoder for the MPEG-4 (part 10) standards, otherwise known as MPEG-4 H.264/AVC.

                                You can't compare a codec against a specification haha. ^^;

                                Currently, there's nothing stopping users from encoding and decoding H.264 encoded streams, so I don't see how the fact that DRM being applied to H.264 encoded video streams will make an impact on our choice of what we use. You said it yourself...eventually (when processors can handle it), the computers will be able to do it using software decoders. Thus, hardware assisted decoding will become optional, and it won't affect us much whether it will only play DRM content or not.

                                DivX the codec...or Xvid the codec...they never will match compressiblity offered by h.264 encoded streams either. DivX and Xvid as mentioned above, implement the Part 2 specs of MPEG-4. To match h.264, they'd have to move to implementing Part 10. Something that would (most likely) require them to start over again. I can also rant about other nice tidbits aside from compression that makes h.264 streams much nicer xD
                                Last edited by Uchikoma; 01-11-2008, 06:03 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X