Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For Those Interested In Direct3D Over Gallium3D

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by mdias View Post
    Most accurate post I've seen on the subject. Thanks for taking the time to write what I've always wanted to but had no patience to do so.
    I hope this post is enough to convince people that D3D is actually better than OGL.
    Now count me in on the "people who think we need a new open API" list.
    +++

    Historically, the reason why D3D became a cleaner API than OGL is that every single version was rewritten from scratch. The first versions were ugly but the API was gradually refined until it overtook OGL. OGL never did that (v2.0 was to be such a rewrite, as was v3.0, but both met resistance within the ARB) so we are stuck with bad design decisions from 15 years ago (even more if you count IrisGL).

    That said, I'm not sure a brand new API is the correct answer now. We took this approach for Linux audio and the results weren't the best.

    Originally posted by Thunderbird
    Let me clarify the concern we have in Wine. There is nothing illegal essentially with writing a Direct3D11 to 'something' wrapper where the something is OpenGL, Gallium3d or any other API. The concern is that some of Luca's shader code was inspired by Windows DDK headers. The DDK can be freely downloaded but you have to agree to a specific EULA and that's the potential issue. It might be fine to look at DDK stuff but until we know for sure, we as Wine developers want to stay away from this stuff. In Wine we do only black box reverse engineering and we do our best to stay on the safe side.

    Next, if this code was indeed 'bad' it could also taint us and other developers who just download and compile Mesa from source (which is what some of us do). It is much easier to claim that lets say Wine code was not inspired by DDK stuff if this code was not on your hard disk in the first place.

    In private work is being done to resolve the potential license issues. Until then it would be better to not have articles like this every day.
    Makes sense.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      ...
      That said, I'm not sure a brand new API is the correct answer now. We took this approach for Linux audio and the results weren't the best.
      ...
      Why not? (just genuinely asking)
      Now that Gallium3D is emerging I would like to believe it's perfect timing.

      Comment


      • #18
        +10 internets to Elanthis.

        Count me in the "a new Longpeaks API please" camp and keep me out of the "D3D 10/11 is needed on Linux".

        Comment


        • #19
          It's funny how people who claim that "Linux is about choice" (which is true) try to have the choice of using D3D in Linux removed.

          Why don't we let people choose what they like. D3D is just as viable as GL. You don't want to use D3D, then don't. No one's forcing you. But if some people prefer to use D3D, it's not up to you to stop them. Having D3D as a choice is nice, since, as you claim, "Linux is about choice."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            It's funny how people who claim that "Linux is about choice" (which is true) try to have the choice of using D3D in Linux removed.

            Why don't we let people choose what they like. D3D is just as viable as GL. You don't want to use D3D, then don't. No one's forcing you. But if some people prefer to use D3D, it's not up to you to stop them. Having D3D as a choice is nice, since, as you claim, "Linux is about choice."
            Let me extend this a bit, and add that if someone uses Linux(or other UNIX like systems) just because he hates Microsoft, he is doing it the wrong way...

            We should use whatever covers our needs. We should be using Linux because it is what we need, not because we hate a company.

            Windows(especially 7) is a wonderful OS with a vast collection of useful software. And it is by far the most advanced in graphical capabilities. Of course Microsoft is not a company of saints, but we are judging their product, not themselves.

            I am using Linux because i like it, and whatever Windows offers i do not need. If i wanted to game heavily, or was a photoshop professional, i would switch in an instant.

            Direct3D, is a really good API, and it is universally used. I would really like having it available in Linux.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm all for the choice and have no opposition to D3D in Linux. I have no concerns over it, be it legal (who cares about those things anyway? Arrrr) or from a philosophical point of view. I'm just among those who think that it won't really do anything beneficial for Linux as a desktop. Yeah, you may now be able to run your games and certain other applications; but how does that help Linux desktops as a whole? You may as well run Windows (the same argument I got against Wine).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3vi1 View Post
                @cl333r:

                Mono is a different situation all together: It includes library code that Microsoft actually wrote. Few people want to get elbow deep into it and have MS "extend" the library APIs like they constantly do and then not open source the new versions in order to "extinguish" the competition.

                But back to the D3D subject: Can anyone tell me what's so different, legally, between writing a directx-replacement DLL that passes calls to the Gallium state tracker vs. one that uses an OpenGL backend? Both are dlls that implementat the API, and neither use the MS-written headers or reverse engineering (right?). If one's infringing (which I don't believe to be the case), why wouldn't both be? I seriously would like to know.
                Stop thinking copyright and start thinking patent. A full and complete state tracker is liable to trip across a patent whereas if you've not got any in the OpenGL layer and you're just reworking with an abstraction layer in, say WINE, you're less likely to do so since most of the graphics work is done in the GL side.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                  It's funny how people who claim that "Linux is about choice" (which is true) try to have the choice of using D3D in Linux removed.

                  Why don't we let people choose what they like. D3D is just as viable as GL. You don't want to use D3D, then don't. No one's forcing you. But if some people prefer to use D3D, it's not up to you to stop them. Having D3D as a choice is nice, since, as you claim, "Linux is about choice."
                  You'll find me not saying it has to be removed- only that it's a bad idea in the same vein as Mono, Moonlight, and apparently even Java (if you count that lawsuit Oracle ran up the flagpole lately...).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                    Stop thinking copyright and start thinking patent. A full and complete state tracker is liable to trip across a patent whereas if you've not got any in the OpenGL layer and you're just reworking with an abstraction layer in, say WINE, you're less likely to do so since most of the graphics work is done in the GL side.
                    But any patent that applies to a D3D implementation will 99% apply to an OpenGL implementation. Wine might get off the hook in this case but Mesa won't.

                    I'm talking about patents for things such as texture compression, floating point textures and whatever other graphics techniques might apply. I cannot help but notice that newer OpenGL extensions (such as geometry shaders) no longer list "IP status" in their text.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                      Let me extend this a bit, and add that if someone uses Linux(or other UNIX like systems) just because he hates Microsoft, he is doing it the wrong way...

                      We should use whatever covers our needs. We should be using Linux because it is what we need, not because we hate a company.
                      I use Linux because I like Linux. Under Linux, I mean the whole GNU/Linux/X/KDE/GNOME/Freedesktop/... ecosystem most of us use.

                      You can use Windows if you like it, and I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with turning Linux into Windows. If I wanted to use Windows, I would. You don't need to replace open standards with parts of Windows to prove that you don't hate Microsoft.

                      Linux should simply not DEPEND on any proprietary technology. There should be no single point of attack that a (hypothetical) sentenced monopolist could use to kill Linux if, one day, hypothetically, their CEO claims that killing Linux is their number one priority. Hypothetically.

                      So, cool technology, very cute, might help some interoperability and stuff, but keep it the hell away from me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                        You don't need to replace open standards with parts of Windows to prove that you don't hate Microsoft.
                        Could you elaborate a bit about what you mean with "replacing"?

                        Linux should simply not DEPEND on any proprietary technology. There should be no single point of attack that a (hypothetical) sentenced monopolist could use to kill Linux if, one day, hypothetically, their CEO claims that killing Linux is their number one priority. Hypothetically.
                        Who said things would now depend on it? It's just there if someone wants to use it.

                        So, cool technology, very cute, might help some interoperability and stuff, but keep it the hell away from me.
                        No one's forcing you to install or use the thing. So whom are you telling to keep it the hell away from you? You might want to call the police, it sounds like someone is going to get in your house with a gun at your head, shouting "install it."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                          ... Yeah, you may now be able to run your games and certain other applications; but how does that help Linux desktops as a whole?...
                          Simple: Attracts more developers.
                          More developers = More apps.
                          More apps = More users.
                          More users = More developers.

                          Overall the more users we have, the more interest there will be to improve linux desktop as a whole.

                          developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Those developers will focus on D3D. What will be the "thing" that will keep them on Linux? And don't say price, because Windows is basically free as well. Will Linux simply be a copy and cheap imitation of Windows?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              thanks for the info that the guy maybe looked over patent-minded files to get inspired for his code. So If thats true, this parts must be replaced at a minimum.

                              I was first happy to hear it, because I think Wine is not good enough, its maybe halfbacked good if you use Nvidia hardware + drivers but with something else it sucks.

                              And Opengl seems to suck nowadays too as far as I hear people which using it, so creating a new own library which gives the needs would be the best way for me. But having only Wine or Opengl is maybe good enough for some Desktop effekts but not for gaming. (It seems so)

                              So Linux donīt have to be able to play proprietary games, for me, because when I have a free system why would I want to run unfree software with it where rootkits and trojans and other stuff can be in it. (Sony rootkit)

                              For me the resolution is to seperate this worlds as strict as possible, if I want to run new games I have a seperate hd or best seperate pc for Windows and Gaming and a clean Linux most best on a other machine.

                              Itīs no problem for me that this get shipped with some distries, but for the distries it could be a problem.

                              Itīs not about Microsoft-hate, itīs about fear of corrupted Patentrights Trivalpatents, Logic-patents.
                              So I cannot blame the Wine developers that they are causios. But I have to say Wine sucks as it is in my opinion and Opengl seems to suck, too.
                              So writing a new good own lib thats over gallium plattform-independed would be in the long term maybe be the best.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                                Those developers will focus on D3D. What will be the "thing" that will keep them on Linux? And don't say price, because Windows is basically free as well. Will Linux simply be a copy and cheap imitation of Windows?
                                lol. This gives that saying about the elephant and the fly a whole new meaning...

                                At least try to keep the discussion serious :P

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X