Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It Looks Like The Open-Source GPU Will Fail Again

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

  • Kivada
    replied
    Also, I'd like to gloat this time and say I told you so to everybody that tried to shoot down my questions about how this project could ever make money seeing as far as I could tell there was absolutely no market for it and as such would have no funding backers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kivada
    replied
    Originally posted by ssam View Post
    Putting a link to the kickstarter page in the article might help.

    (Could someone make a firefox plugin that replaces internal links on phoronix pages with useful links to the projects)
    Originally posted by Mad Hobo View Post
    Stop linking to yourself phaggot
    Oh hi, you guys must be new here. Larabel only posts click bait and only links back to himself because you see it's far too difficult for him to make money running a legitimate site.

    Leave a comment:


  • [wrd]
    replied
    Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
    Have you perhaps heard of ISE Webpack?
    Yes I know of that. I don't know how Xilinx handles that, but it might be less bright on the Altera side.

    The gate count of the strechgoals will most likely exceed the free quartus versions. From what I got they're not targetting the cyclone FPGAs.

    Furthermore who guarantees that the free synthesis tools stay available?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ibidem
    replied
    Originally posted by [wrd] View Post
    In my opinion focus should be driven to open source tooling first. It's useless if single CPU licenses to compile the code cost >1000eur and the board to run the code just as much. Unless everybody who can afford a desktop can put 200eur aside and try it himself projects like this are doomed to fail.
    Have you perhaps heard of ISE Webpack?

    Leave a comment:


  • [wrd]
    replied
    who would sponsor that?

    I think this was a nice idea with the wrong timing, the wrong code and the wrong and the wrong estimation.

    There is a series of things I really don't about this project:

    - there isn't an open source verilog compilers that will synthesize this into an FPGA (gate count to big for the hardware)
    - hardware isn't being sold with the backing ( I mean it's not reasonable, there is not support except for VGA iirc and you need to use PCI instead of PCIe). there isn't any eval board or similar where you can run that thing out of the box. This is completely not "buy and use" it requires skills in board design fitting the code to your board and lots of other things.
    - the code base solves problems really old! it's not as if an fpga will produce anything similar to even an intel graphics chip.

    We seen in the past that code-dump projects (like open64?) are not likely to drive momentum to open source community.
    Furthermore FPGA based products are considerably more expensive than ASIC based solutions which are unlikely to be open sourced.
    On top of that FPGA designs are currently developing at quite a pace and are tightly coupled to their development environments.


    In my opinion focus should be driven to open source tooling first. It's useless if single CPU licenses to compile the code cost >1000eur and the board to run the code just as much. Unless everybody who can afford a desktop can put 200eur aside and try it himself projects like this are doomed to fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mad Hobo
    replied
    LINK

    Stop linking to yourself phaggot

    Leave a comment:


  • ssam
    replied
    Putting a link to the kickstarter page in the article might help.

    (Could someone make a firefox plugin that replaces internal links on phoronix pages with useful links to the projects)

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by BO$$
    Haha! Looks like the PR from the open source movement is finally working: put open source in the title and people run away.
    Another sad trolling attempt by BO$$.

    Leave a comment:


  • dee.
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    They wasn't even collecting funds to fund development.

    They already had the implementation already done since they used it in their proprietary offerings and now they were just looking to sell it as open source.

    So it wasn't "we need funds to make it", it was "we already have it, but if you give us money, we'll make it open source".
    So? It's a perfectly legit FOSS business model. There's two ways of funding an open source project with crowdsourcing,

    one: tell everyone how you have this great idea, and if they all give you money, you'll use that money to complete the idea and release it as open source (and to make some proft, because why not, and even open source devs need to eat). The risk is all on the customers' side: if the project fails for whatever reason, they possibly lose some or all of their money and get nothing.

    two: put in your own money (loans, investors) to develop a project, then tell everyone how you have this great product, and if they all give you money, you'll use that money to cover all the expenses you've had so far, and to make some profit. The risk is all on the developers' side: if they put in their money, and then don't get funded, or the idea fails, they lose some or all of their money and get nothing.

    three: something else? Sure you can come up with creative ways to fund projects... like sequential releases - get enough money, release part, get more money, release another part, rinse and repeat. But that only works on certain types of projects.

    In cases where the third choice isn't an option, and you want to use crowdsourcing (and not other funding models, like eg. advertising, data mining or service-based models), it basically falls down to two choices - either the developers or the customers have to take the risk. By all means if you have a popular project and can convince others of its greatness, it's fine to let the customers/funders shoulder the risk - if you can get them to do it, if they really believe in the project - and maybe you don't have the resources to do it any other way. But how exactly is it in any way inferior for the developers to shoulder that risk themselves?

    Leave a comment:


  • DMJC
    replied
    I think that this proves that for most people open source in their hardware isn't a priority. As long as their open source OS can run on most video cards, eg amd/intel/nvidia with solid open source drivers. Private individuals can't outpace the tech development/R&D of Nvidia/Intel/AMD so there hasn't been much point to trying to.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X