Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa 10.0 Gets A Release Date, Branching Plan

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

  • Mesa 10.0 Gets A Release Date, Branching Plan

    Phoronix: Mesa 10.0 Gets A Release Date, Branching Plan

    Mesa 10.0 has many new 3D graphics features and we've known for a while the plan was to put out this next Mesa release in November. Now we have a better idea for when the Mesa 10.0 branching will happen and official release happen...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ5ODY

  • #2
    Flaws?

    Michael, please stop calling mesa "flawed". A flaw is a bug or bad design. Missing features are not "flaws", they are missing features. If you say "flaw" it sounds more like the mesa-devs produce shitty code, which is not the case.

    And thoose features will eventually be implemented, and judging by the pace of mesa it will be not take that long. Just sit back and wait und stop picturing every software that is not done yet as if it was a bad implementation..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by emerge-e-world View Post
      Michael, please stop calling mesa "flawed". A flaw is a bug or bad design. Missing features are not "flaws", they are missing features. If you say "flaw" it sounds more like the mesa-devs produce shitty code, which is not the case.

      And thoose features will eventually be implemented, and judging by the pace of mesa it will be not take that long. Just sit back and wait und stop picturing every software that is not done yet as if it was a bad implementation..
      You're being too pedantic. Missing features are flaws. If you buy a product but it doesn't have all of the features functioning then it's a flawed product.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mmstick View Post
        You're being too pedantic. Missing features are flaws. If you buy a product but it doesn't have all of the features functioning then it's a flawed product.
        That makes pretty much every product ever produced flawed and thus renders the utterence of the term pointless.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mmstick View Post
          You're being too pedantic. Missing features are flaws. If you buy a product but it doesn't have all of the features functioning then it's a flawed product.
          "all the features" indeed.

          What matters is what the product promised when you purchased it. My toothbrush is not "flawed" because it doesn't have an internal combustion engine. When I bought it, I didn't expect an internal combustion engine.

          If you expect OpenGL 4.4 when you download Mesa, then the problem is with you, not the "product". They are very clear about what they support.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            "all the features" indeed.

            What matters is what the product promised when you purchased it. My toothbrush is not "flawed" because it doesn't have an internal combustion engine. When I bought it, I didn't expect an internal combustion engine.

            If you expect OpenGL 4.4 when you download Mesa, then the problem is with you, not the "product". They are very clear about what they support.
            You're being too pedantic with this comment as well. The last time I checked, a toothbrush does not have nor need an internal combustion engine. That is not a feature of a toothbrush. Please try using proper logic next time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mmstick View Post
              You're being too pedantic with this comment as well. The last time I checked, a toothbrush does not have nor need an internal combustion engine. That is not a feature of a toothbrush. Please try using proper logic next time.
              OK, you explain to me how a "product" which advertises OpenGL 3.3 and delivers OpenGL 3.3 is "flawed".

              You would like it to do OpenGL 4.4. I would like my car to have 300 horsepower. But when I bought it, I knew very well that it didn't, just like I will know that I'm getting OpenGL 3.3 when I download Mesa 3.3

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                OK, you explain to me how a "product" which advertises OpenGL 3.3 and delivers OpenGL 3.3 is "flawed".

                You would like it to do OpenGL 4.4. I would like my car to have 300 horsepower. But when I bought it, I knew very well that it didn't, just like I will know that I'm getting OpenGL 3.3 when I download Mesa 3.3
                If it wasn't flawed, then it wouldn't still be in development... It doesn't matter what you advertise, your product still has major flaws of not being perfect at what it's supposed to be doing. Furthermore, it still doesn't matter if you are lucky enough to have a graphics card which supports Mesa's OpenGL 3.3 compliance when it performs like crap.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                  OK, you explain to me how a "product" which advertises OpenGL 3.3 and delivers OpenGL 3.3 is "flawed".

                  You would like it to do OpenGL 4.4. I would like my car to have 300 horsepower. But when I bought it, I knew very well that it didn't, just like I will know that I'm getting OpenGL 3.3 when I download Mesa 3.3
                  EDIT: This whole discussion is pedantic, but I think that Michael shits on Mesa too much. It has a lot to catch up with, it has dealt with unhelpful manufacturers for most of its duration, is pitted against teams of hundreds of programmers with all sorts of inside knowledge, and are trying to create the ONLY free and open implementation of the OpenGL (and other) spec.

                  What they are doing is monumental and should be praised. It's one of the most difficult things to do, period. There are few things in the Linux ecosystem which are more difficult and more important than this. And they are giving you OpenGL 3.3 for free, with the source code. More than half of GL 4.0 is finished, a lot of it started. It will come in due time, and it will be awesome.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                    If it wasn't flawed, then it wouldn't still be in development... It doesn't matter what you advertise, your product still has major flaws of not being perfect at what it's supposed to be doing. Furthermore, it still doesn't matter if you are lucky enough to have a graphics card which supports Mesa's OpenGL 3.3 compliance when it performs like crap.
                    If everything is flawed by definition, then don't only call Mesa flawed. Write "I am flawed" at the end of each post, to honour your philosophy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      I will know that I'm getting OpenGL 3.3 when I download Mesa 3.3
                      When you download Mesa 3.3 you will at most get OpenGL 1.2, since even 1.3 wasn't out at that time. Just to keep this thread pedantic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OK, just for the sake of argument, lets say you have a card which supports up to opengl 3.3 and the current version of mesa will support opengl 3.3 on that card, is mesa still flawed?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mmstick View Post
                          If it wasn't flawed, then it wouldn't still be in development... It doesn't matter what you advertise, your product still has major flaws of not being perfect at what it's supposed to be doing. Furthermore, it still doesn't matter if you are lucky enough to have a graphics card which supports Mesa's OpenGL 3.3 compliance when it performs like crap.
                          To quote one of Yahtzee's more colourful expressions: "That's not logic, that's fucking bat shit on a sandwich."

                          Mesa is "perfect" as far as it can successfully handle all of the things it advertises - and what it advertises is what it is "supposed to be doing". Nothing more and nothing less.

                          You projecting your own personal hopes, or anyone else's personal hopes, on what the project can be does not change the fact that it functions perfectly well at what it is supposed to be doing as of this moment; that does not mean that it can't be expanded to do more than what it is currently supposed to be doing, just that it is not flawed for only doing what it can at the moment.

                          And if you want to stop us being pedantic you can stop being obnoxiously intransigent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This.

                            And I would not have started this discussion, when Michael had written something along the lines that mesa still has a way to go before it has fully implemented all OpenGL versions, which they are planning to do but did not promise for this version yet. He could have written the opensource graphic stack of linux needs this to better compete with the proprietary drivers or other platform or something like that. But for now, it does not advertise that, and therefore it is not inherently flawed, it is just not yet at the point we all would like it to be one day.

                            I dont want to be overly pedantic with words, it is just about the sound of it: The Mesa devs have done a great job so far and deserve our greatest thanks and respect for it, not constant complaining about the obvious on every realese, as if they could not deliver what they promise. That just implies the wrong thing about what the "problem" is.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X