Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's Bridgman Talks Open-Source

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
    i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people
    Actually it would be Hollywood the ones getting money from AMD in order for them to include this.

    We may not like DRM (and I suppose anyone who understood what it is, etc, wouldn't either), but the fact is that people keep happily consuming "protected" content, giving media companies a reason to keep doing it. There's no mass market backslash and stop consuming at all (and that includes not consuming piracy either). Piracy consumers usually do that due to the same reason media companies include DRM: Avarice, on the one hand you have companies that will not be happy until we "pay per play" and on the other there's the consumers that say "no I won't pay", but still want to play the content. It's a vicious cycle. Where one party gives reason to the other to keep doing what they're doing. Companies like AMD are simply caught in the middle and try to appeal to the masses with products such as these.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
      i just find it a tad ridicoules that AMD is prioitizing DRM support which is totally useless, given what its supposed to protect is already cracked, over actually pleasing their customers.

      i guess they are getting alot of money from clueless hollywood people
      The point being here is that even if DRM support is useless in the long run, and that DRM will be cracked in sufficient time as it comes out, it still doesn't change the status quo and agreements made at this current point of time.

      No company will drop it all to go open-source. The ramifications and financial repercussions would probably be a lot worse than any benefit gained.

      ...and how are they getting paid to do this?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Berniyh View Post
        Oh come on, this is not the point.
        It's like saying "I've stolen this car because someone would steal it anyway...".
        You can't do something you shouldn't or mustn't (like AMD opening the DRM stuff), just because you expect that someone else would do it if you don't.
        Even if it already happened.


        AMD? Why?
        no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
          no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.
          Read my post above yours.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
            no, thats not the same as saying i've stolen. the point is, the thing the DRM in-card is supposed to protect, has already been broken, that means that everyone that wants to steal, can already do it, so whats the point of applying the "protection" for people that already bought? they have already legally paid, so why punish them by encryption. And if they decide to infringe on the copyright, the DRM is not gonna make any bit of difference, since ANYONE can just decrypt it.
            It is the same, but I'll give you another example:
            David Airlie signed a NDA (maybe you'll remember that story) which he used to write a driver.
            Other people were reverse engineering the same hardware and writing a driver for it. If they finally succeeded he would still not be able to publish his driver code or talk about what he knew about the hardware, that isn't freely available, because he signed that NDA.
            The point is, in such a case (and it's the same with AMD vs. Hollywood) it's not for those to decide, that signed the NDA. Only those who gave the information away under NDA can decide this (which just has happened if I understood it right and which is the reason, that the radeon driver now supports r500).

            This means, if the whole DRM stuff has been made useless by some people you (or AMD) can go to the people that introduced that stuff and ask them to open up.
            BUT it's not the decision of those (in this case AMD), that only retrieve the information.

            Understood?

            Comment


            • #21
              you misunderstand. or atleast i believe its you who misunderstand.

              as i see it, what he is saying is that he will not publish docs, as it will supposedly let people circumvent the DRM(aka disabling or whatever), not give people special insights as to HOW IT WORKS(which is already fully documented and broken).

              so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..

              either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                you misunderstand. or atleast i believe its you who misunderstand.

                as i see it, what he is saying is that he will not publish docs, as it will supposedly let people circumvent the DRM(aka disabling or whatever), not give people special insights as to HOW IT WORKS(which is already fully documented and broken).

                so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..

                either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.
                They will not post any documentation for the UVD unless they can do so without exposing anything regarding the protection in place (DRM). So if that's what your saying then yes.

                The other part of this is that since OSS won't be getting any documentation with UVD until that is resolved (or DRM dies and the agreements disappear), then you'll have to stick with the binary driver.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                  so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..
                  It's a bit of both. Partly protecting info on how to disable it in our hardware, and partly to protect keys and key blocks. The actual DRM schemes are well understood and there are all kinds of interesting articles on the net about how to get around them.

                  Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                  either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.
                  As Uchikoma said, that is one of the reasons we are planning to produce both open and closed drivers.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    why not design the decryption and decoding as separate systems then? it would seem the logical thing to do.

                    in either case, for me, and i believe many others, the real reason to buy amd hardware has gone away. If i need to run binaryonly drivers theres nothing over nvidia - and yes, i know that nvidia doesent even provide the support in binary drivers, however their hardware is faster, and software is faster, and if one is willing to accept binary drivers(which i really do not want, and which is why i WAS so happy about amd's announcements), that certainly is more plusses going for nvidia alltogether.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                      and if one is willing to accept binary drivers(which i really do not want, and which is why i WAS so happy about amd's announcements), that certainly is more plusses going for nvidia alltogether.
                      I don't get it. So you do not want binary drivers but nvidia is geting pluses ?

                      -AMD/ATI is opening the specs... yes maybe not the decoding but really it's the DRM issue here. So in future you can expect to see a great 2d/3d open dirver from radeonhd.

                      -AMD/ATI is fixing their closed drivers. So soon it might be the same quality as nvidia ones

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Of course open source gfx drivers are good, radeonhd is a nice step, but it started a few years too late. NV did not open the specs, they wrote directly the 2d driver, Intel did not open spec, but worte 2d + 3d driver. So what is the best now? Well with specs anybody interested could help, thats of course the best way when you have got only a few own developers. Reverse engineering can take really long for graphics cards, but might be challenging. Maybe NV would open spec when radeonhd or the generic ati driver has fully 3d acc for latest cards and market is demanding that. Currently they could still sit in a good position and watch what is going on. When you want to buy a card as xmas gift you can't hardly get one of these new NV ones, depends ony view why that's the case. Maybe if ATI cards would be faster/better supported the things will change for next xmas. I really hope so, because is is a bit boring to bash only one major manufacturer. What I dislike most now is that now I want to get a 8800 GT it is out of stock

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Kano View Post
                          Of course open source gfx drivers are good, radeonhd is a nice step, but it started a few years too late. NV did not open the specs, they wrote directly the 2d driver, Intel did not open spec, but wrote 2d + 3d driver. So what is the best now?
                          IMHO It's :
                          1)Intel
                          2)AMD/ATI
                          3)nvidia

                          and that's if someone wants open driver and dislikes closed blobs... If a person has nothing against closed blobs sure choose nvidia. However Redeeman said he doesn't like using blobs so I'm a bit surprised with his comment.


                          when radeonhd will have acceleration it will top intel ... Intel didn't open specs, so in future those drivers may share the same fate as the open ones for r200 ATI... Here lack of specs was a problem for developers.
                          Last edited by val-gaav; 12-10-2007, 07:24 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X