Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mixing open and closed source

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    See above. I cringe every time I see an article implying that we invented DRM or are pushing it ourselves. I don't even like TALKING about DRM here for the same reason -- people start thinking it's our idea and we should "just say no". I wish it were that simple.
    I agree with you there, the HW manufacturers are NOT to blame for doing what M$ tells them to, but regardless of the cause, the consumer is still the one getting the shaft.

    Originally posted by bridgman
    Most of our sales are to big OEMs. OEMs want Windows WHQL certification from Microsoft. WHQL certification requires DRM support. If we say "no thank you, we don't want to participate in your DRM ideas" then OEMs will just buy from someone else, and the biggest chunk of our market disappears. It's possible that there might be a retail market that would accept uncertified Windows drivers and all the hassles which go along with them, but realistically I think we would be talking about Linux-consumer-only products.
    I've got another big market for you: Disenfranchised XP users. At my lan parties my friends who could afford them, are using high end NV/ATI DX9 series cards. If you'll look at the Steam Hardware Survey over 82% of people are using XP. Also notice that ATI is taking a HUGE beating on their current high-end vid cards. M$ had better be subsidizing AMD/ATI like crazy because nobody is buying their stuff.

    Originally posted by Zooko
    I can probably name a hundred people that I am friends with, or work with, or cooperate on open source projects with, who have substantially the same opinions and buying habits that I do, but I don't know if AMD has any process for learning about this subset of its customers.
    Perhaps AMD could create a web form where a person could input serial #'s from AMD/ATI products that they own (to show that they are legit customers) and leave comments/suggestions. If you got the word out about that, I'm sure you'd discover a big section of your market that is being turned off by recent hw trends.

    Comment


    • #32
      As you are from ATI and the Win drivers provide h264 encoding, how about that for Linux? That would be interesting as h264 encoding is really time consuming...

      Comment


      • #33
        In the proprietary driver -- no problem, just a question of priority relative to bug fixing, new ASIC support and other features. It's a fair amount of driver work though, unless MS brings DXVA to Linux so we can do a straight port

        In an open driver -- we're not sure yet so I'm saying "no" for now.

        Comment


        • #34
          a bit confused

          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          As you are from ATI and the Win drivers provide h264 encoding, how about that for Linux? That would be interesting as h264 encoding is really time consuming...
          Whenever the required support whatever that according to you comes in the driver then how can we use it.

          Will the simple daily build of mplayer svn use the hardware h264 decoding straightaway or will it require more work.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well decoding is possible using the ffmpeg - mplayer can use the built-in or external ffmpeg. Also there is a patch to use coreavc as decoder.

            http://code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux/

            No decoder is hw accellerated. But not only decoding would be nice to have, also encoding. Currently mpeg4 encoding is fast enough (could be always faster howerver) but h264 is really slow.

            Maybe somebody implements it for CUDA (NVIDIA 8 series), that would be a possibility.
            Last edited by Kano; 02-02-2008, 09:12 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              Well decoding is possible using the ffmpeg - mplayer can use the built-in or external ffmpeg. Also there is a patch to use coreavc as decoder.

              http://code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux/

              No decoder is hw accellerated. But not only decoding would be nice to have, also encoding. Currently mpeg4 encoding is fast enough (could be always faster howerver) but h264 is really slow.

              Maybe somebody implements it for CUDA (NVIDIA 8 series), that would be a possibility.
              Or CTM on the ATi side of things. I know that Cuda and CTM are operate at different levels, but it should still be possible to use CTM to code an h264 codec.

              Comment


              • #37
                First off, like many other users I was to thank Bridgman for listening to users' opinions. Its nice to know that ATI/AMD cares and is implementing changes designed to accommodate Linux users.

                My 2 cents are that the DRM issue should be pushed till later. The major area where work should go is into 3D support. Right now I find the 3D support for older cards better with the open source drivers, fglrx has major artifacting with my 9500 and 9700 Pro and has since 8.35 (I'm more than willing to help debug if there is interest). Also, compiz has never worked right for me with fglrx, but works fine (albeit somewhat slowly) with the radeon drivers. Since I also have X850s I'm fairly sure this is because fewer resources are going to supporting and regression testing older cards. Since you seem to suggest r300/r400/r500 ASICS share enough commonality, I'd suggest getting those specs out to the open source developers to be a priority.

                Another area which might help is getting in contact with the WINE developers. Basically they all use Nvidia cards since the opinion is no ATI/AMD driver supports enough OpenGL extensions for it to be possible to get games working. The head WINE Direct3D developer says this outright in his recent wineconf talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ-zyKR1N2A I think getting Windows games running under Linux is a much bigger priority than BlueRay since games sell graphics cards, not movies.

                Comment


                • #38
                  bridgman:

                  theres just one thing i find so incredibly stupid.

                  all the drm crap is already broken, everyone that wants to copy this material already does.

                  i'd like to show a theoretical example:
                  I buy an ati card, ati has (THEORETICAL; REMEMBER) released fully open drivers. I now use my skills to modify the software stack to dump a movie. This takes a shitload of time.

                  and now for the question.. Why does it matter if i modify the ati software to do it, rather than going on a few torrent sites and getting the content? its even slower for me to do it by exploiting ati software, plus i gotta have BOUGHT the damn movie, so no matter how one looks at it, the content providers are better off with the ati driver allowing me to dump it, than without.

                  And giving the fact that it will realisticly only be a few people in the scope of the world that even has the ability(atleast few compared to all the people who has a bluray/hddvd movie), what does it matter that we now have an EXTRA, and more annoying, slower, method of extraction, which actually ends up earning content providers more money?

                  so now im about ready to make this claim: any content provider who would see these free drivers as something that should be stopped, are DIRECTLY STUPID, and doesent even know how to ensure their own continued stream of money properly.

                  And now, i have a question for you bridgman(and please keep in min that im not going after you personally, but rather AMD/ATI):
                  Does AMD/ATI feel they wish, and that its better for them, to babysit the complete and utter stupidity of some totally clueless and moronic content providers, to keep them believing in FALSE "truths", rather than directly giving their own customers what they want?

                  I already have a pretty good idea of the answer, but i would like for you to go to whomever is in charge around there in AMD/ATI, and ask them this question, because im really interrested in it, and this should clarify just how far AMD will be going, who their loyalties really is to, stupid content providers, or the customers who put the food on the table(well, ill bet some of those higher-ups of AMD gets alot of food on their own personal table from clueless content providers, but thats a different story).

                  Thanks in advance!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Reedman: Read post #20 of this thread.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      I hate to be a pessimist, but just like CSS, HDCP --will-- be hacked sooner or later and a decryptor licensed under the GPL will be available. It's not a chicken and egg matter. We all know the chicken came first. HDCP will be hacked and will be made available under the GPL.

                      I personally am a firm believer that if you dont support it, then they cant enforce it. Your actions of supporting DRM only strengthen it. If you didnt support play back of DRM in your drivers in Windows --or-- Linux, then it would be impossible to enforce.

                      Taking ATi's market presence into consideration, it may well be possible for them to kill off DRM by themselves simply by not supporting it in any fashion on any product using any operation system with any driver. ATi is big enough that if they ignored DRM they could single handedly kill it. That would win over the vast majority of the video market in your favor, becouse the simple matter of fact is that if most people knew what DRM actually was they would fight tooth and nail to get rid of it ASAP.

                      As a Video company it is ATi's duty to protect its customers --from-- DRM.... That means doing everything possible to actively look for protection mechanisms, and shutting them down, or bypassing them, or at the very least making it known to the user that the content they are trying to view is infected. But instead they walk away in fear from the content mafia, and strengthen it by weakening themselves.
                      then nvidia would support it and production companies would push out everything to that boards. only an agreement between hw producers to not support it would lead to its removal, but since amd, nvidia, ati, intel and other companies were the founders of drm the problem is that the one who will get out from it would simply lose market share and will die, unless it would come out with something that would lead community to stay tuned to it. for example the new display port seems wuite promising and interesting, but i don't think that it would strike down hdmi, since it has already been established in most of the hw present around the world, and if it's not 100% compatible with this hw, maybe through a phisical adapter, then it will lose and will be remembered as one of the great hw flops. the other problem is that there's on the market enough protected content that cannot be played without hw capable of doing it and that a lot of money was invested into it that it is almost unlikely to just be removed. what would you do if you're told that the bd film you've buyed for 50 or 60$ need to be changed in order to be played on your pc?!


                      I dislike DRM so strongly that I will tend to avoid supporting products which offer even *optional* support for DRM. For example, all other things being equal, I would prefer to buy a card that does *not* support DisplayPort, because the DisplayPort standard is tainted with the stench of DRM in my mind.
                      for what i've read displayport is the free alternative to the non-free drm protected hdmi, but i might be wrong on this. i need confirmation of this statement from someone who is better informed on the matter.

                      I think getting Windows games running under Linux is a much bigger priority than BlueRay since games sell graphics cards, not movies.
                      true. this is what ports people to linux. but here there's ne need of software houses that would step to linux. id has made its move and now i'm waiting for other houses like ubisoft and blizzard. i think that the moment in which gallium and opengl 3 will be here then we'll see a native support for windows/linux games with only one code and we'll see the end of directx. only when companies would drop directx and tune to opengl (which now is starting to be faster than directx in different games), and when there would be drivers like catalyst with a good part of code that is the same for different oses then we'll see a real passage of games to linux and a lesser domination of windows in the oem's plans. but for now this simply isn't the time for it.

                      ince you seem to suggest r300/r400/r500 ASICS share enough commonality, I'd suggest getting those specs out to the open source developers to be a priority.
                      the new specs would mean more driver work than implementing new code for the radeonhd driver, because from a programmer view it's simpler to write new code than modifying old code that wasn't written by you to have it fit to your needs. the one thing that after the read of this thread has gotten in my mind is a foolish thing:
                      why not concentrating for lets say 2 weeks on identifying the stuff that is equal in the chips and what is different. then take the equal stuff based on what it does and put it into a module, put another stuff into other module and so on. make a diagram of the various features and how they were implemented or not implemented yet, then take the driver and split it based on this new diagram. for example i'd put things like this:

                      1. base atombios, from which, based on the board reads you'll start loading its modules, named radeon_core.so
                      2. a module of 2d accel for r200, r300, r400 and earlier r500 boards that could be named radeon_2d_pre600.so
                      3. a module of 3d accel for r200, 300, 400 ecc named radeon_3d_pre600.so
                      4. a module of 2d/3d accel for igps named radeon_igp_accel.so
                      5. a module of 2d accel for newer r600 named radeon_2d_hd.so
                      6. a module for 3d accel for newer r600 named radeon_3d_hd.so

                      this would mean that developing of new features would hold down for some time, but there would start the integration of the code for the various drivers. from what i've read around the future is a single radeon driver that would be ok for all the boards, but with the differences in functionality and hw implementation this would require a lot of work and superfluous code just for compatibility issues.
                      the same fglrx could benefit from this developing by removing igp features and board detection from it. then the devs would use the atombios core module for initialization and then would put on their own 2d/3d module. for the igps, if their code is so different there's a good point of splitting them from the fglrx and readeon stuff and putting them as a single big module separated from the others. in this way the developing process would be faster in the future and there wouldn't be the need to deal with compatibility code and with regressions for older cards after the implementation of new features in the newer ones.
                      this would also allow amd to easily implement modules on top of various modules for a future implementation of hw hd decoding or of other features that wouldn't be opensourced if they'd want to go on that road in the future.
                      Last edited by givemesugarr; 02-03-2008, 10:20 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        That's interesting that you notice Phoronix discussions to be more reasoned. You are probably right -- I haven't read many Phoronix discussions -- but I do find LWN discussions to be well-informed. I tend to think of the LWN posters as being programmers and the Phoronix posters as being users. (With no disrespect intended, of course.)


                        I stopped reading slashdot long ago (I started reading slashdot when it was new -- a regularly updated news source targeted at geeks! It was just another miracle of that thrilling year.) but I have always been pleased at how the level of discourse on LWN.net has never descended to slashdottiness.


                        Hm... Actually I left this reply written but unposted overnight, and while I was away from my computer it occurred to me that you might find the Phoronix posters to be more "reasonable" because they are saying things that agree more with your prejudices. That's completely natural of course, but it is the kind of thing that you want to be wary of if you are trying to learn about previously unknown markets -- you don't want your filters to be too good at excluding "unreasonable" customers from your view of the world.


                        Regards,

                        Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn

                        P.S. I hope that you looked at those two LWN discussions that I referenced. You replied saying that LWN rarely focussed on GPU issues, and you are right, but those two discussions from last week did focus on GPU issues.
                        Last edited by Zooko; 02-03-2008, 10:20 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hm I 've read the full discussion here and really found it very interesting...

                          @bridgman:

                          I can understand AMD worries about all those DRM,BD,HD restricted stuff but don't forget that Linux and generally open source system by that way of thinking shouldn't even play commercial DVD's!
                          And I bet that DRM and so will be hacked extremely easy and fast from our hackers.
                          As far as I can understand DRM is an M$ (and generally movie industry's) weapon to open source communities cause they are really aware that they are loosing more and more costumers by the every day growing Linux and rest open communities.

                          I happen to know a lot of people really hate and become very angry with the fact that laptop OEM companies ship their products with M$ windows and have to pay about 100 or more Euros for a really crappy OS like Vista is.
                          Can you tell me why they don't sell their laptops without an OS installed??

                          Can there be closed parts within the open source based driver for the specific restricted problematic formats and patented designs?
                          Do we have to maintain a fully closed driver in order to play some restricted video formats (which would be restricted for very little time in Linux)??

                          And finally John great thanks to you my friend cause now we have someone from the company to discuss our thoughts and of course help as much as we can too. And AMD for change the policy about Linux users!
                          But also consider bringing up a driver for our FreeBSD brothers...

                          Best Regards
                          Jim

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by djdoo View Post
                            But also consider bringing up a driver for our FreeBSD brothers...
                            Jim
                            FreeBSD can already use radeonhd.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Tillin9 View Post
                              My 2 cents are that the DRM issue should be pushed till later. The major area where work should go is into 3D support.
                              No argument there. This thread is not about working on DRM today. There was a (perfectly reasonable) proposal from a few people that we re-architect fglrx to use a 3d blob over an otherwise open source driver, but that causes us problems in markets like workstation, or if we are required by our customers to implement DRM in the future, so I suggested that we stay away from that discussion for a while and focus on specific things like 3d and video.

                              Originally posted by Tillin9 View Post
                              I think getting Windows games running under Linux is a much bigger priority than BlueRay since games sell graphics cards, not movies.
                              My sense is that games sell midrange and high-end chips and movies sell low end, high volume chips, but I agree with you about Wine. When we had a totally workstation focus Wine wasn`t a consideration, but for general desktop users it does seem important.

                              Originally posted by Zooko View Post
                              That's interesting that you notice Phoronix discussions to be more reasoned. You are probably right -- I haven't read many Phoronix discussions -- but I do find LWN discussions to be well-informed. I tend to think of the LWN posters as being programmers and the Phoronix posters as being users. (With no disrespect intended, of course.)
                              I agree with the split, although lwn seems to be a mix of developers and slashdot-style ranters. The devs are fine (and you can see them trying to keep discussion on track) but for example if you look at the Intel article there was more ranting than reasoned discussion there. I agree that if you just read the articles it`s a real good site... I just don`t find the comments to be of the same quality you get here.

                              Originally posted by Zooko View Post
                              Hm... Actually I left this reply written but unposted overnight, and while I was away from my computer it occurred to me that you might find the Phoronix posters to be more "reasonable" because they are saying things that agree more with your prejudices. That's completely natural of course, but it is the kind of thing that you want to be wary of if you are trying to learn about previously unknown markets -- you don't want your filters to be too good at excluding "unreasonable" customers from your view of the world.
                              Always a risk, and something I constantly look out for. One of the reasons for being here (and other boards) is to make sure that doesn`t happen.
                              Last edited by bridgman; 02-03-2008, 12:16 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                then nvidia would support it and production companies would push out everything to that boards. only an agreement between hw producers to not support it would lead to its removal, but since amd, nvidia, ati, intel and other companies were the founders of drm...
                                Hold on there buddy

                                We are *not* the founders of DRM. We are the companies that are required to implement it in order to sell chips. Intel developed HDCP because DRM on the outputs was a requirement from content providers in order to play HD or BD on PCs. Macrovision and (I think) CGMSA came from outside the PC industry. The rest of the standards (CSS, ACSS etc.) came from content providers and consumer electronics groups.

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                ... the problem is that the one who will get out from it would simply lose market share and will die, unless it would come out with something that would lead community to stay tuned to it.
                                Bingo

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                the new specs would mean more driver work than implementing new code for the radeonhd driver, because from a programmer view it's simpler to write new code than modifying old code that wasn't written by you to have it fit to your needs.
                                The problem with starting fresh for 2d and 3d is that you effectively duplicate the code even though the HW is largely unchanged. Better IMO to have code splits based on hardware splits as you say.

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                why not concentrating for lets say 2 weeks on identifying the stuff that is equal in the chips and what is different. then take the equal stuff based on what it does and put it into a module, put another stuff into other module and so on. make a diagram of the various features and how they were implemented or not implemented yet, then take the driver and split it based on this new diagram.
                                We did that at the start of the project. That`s how we ended up with separate code for display and common code for everything else. I even have slides

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                from what i've read around the future is a single radeon driver that would be ok for all the boards, but with the differences in functionality and hw implementation this would require a lot of work and superfluous code just for compatibility issues. the same fglrx could benefit from this developing by removing igp features and board detection from it.
                                Here`s where it gets tricky. The display block is totally different between 4xx and 5xx, so it needs new code, but display implemented the way we wanted will be the smallest part of the driver stack once the other parts of the driver stack are added. Since display was implemented first the issue seems simple today, but once 2d, 3d and video get in the amount of similar hardware will be bigger than the amount of different hardware.

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                for the igps, if their code is so different there's a good point of splitting them from the fglrx and readeon stuff and putting them as a single big module separated from the others.
                                Actually, IGPs are not much different. The memory management setup is a bit different (which is a huge pain if you are RE-ing but otherwise not a big deal) and the 3d engines need vertex processing in software, but everything else is the same.

                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                this would also allow amd to easily implement modules on top of various modules for a future implementation of hw hd decoding or of other features that wouldn't be opensourced if they'd want to go on that road in the future.
                                It`s harder than that. Everything below the decoding would need to be closed source and tamper proofed. Between that and the closed source 3d everyone seems willing to consider, there isn`t much left.
                                Last edited by bridgman; 02-03-2008, 12:21 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X