XvMC support

[duby229]

I understand completely. I can only wish that the right thing be done, but just like with everything else there is always some excuse as to why it cant be done. Its OK though, maybe someday when the content industry fails they'll realize they've been doing it all wrong, and give you guys the opportunity to finally document the technology they've been trying to push all along.

[bridgman]

Sure, but if we could do that then we would have already released the information to the open source development community.

[duby229]

The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.

And that is exactly what the problem is. Putting that code in the public under an open source agreement would solve this issue once and for all.

[Ex-Cyber]

The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!

An implicit commitment to continue supporting the interface?

[Kano]

The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!

[pingufunkybeat]

The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.

[duby229]

If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.

He might be saying that, but I'm definitely not. I think the work in progress code should be made available in a public git so that we can --see-- what work is being done. This is the only way to make it fair. If we could see the code then there wouldnt be any speculation.

[bridgman]

That explains your disappointment, but as you noticed by yourself, that has nothing to Bridgman's information. Where did you read this UVD announcement actually?

I would like a copy as well, please

The only UVD-related announcement we made was the statement that we did *not* (and I stress *not*) plan to open up UVD, however I did commit to looking into whether it was possible after we had the other core functionality in place.

On the fglrx side, Michael drew some perfectly reasonable conclusions from what he saw in the driver binaries and heard from his contacts around the industry; even if things didn't work out that way this time in general his guesses are quite good.

If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.

[Zajec]

at the time I bought a hd4850 ATI was claiming linux support, and also UVD support was announced.

now we know what it was worth

It's not about bridgman here, however I think the less ati talks about things that ati can't support right now or officialy at some point, the less arm it will do for ati image.

And probably phoronix didn't do anygood by anouncing stuffs based on the fact some lib was seen in some binary

That explains your disappointment, but as you noticed by yourself, that has nothing to Bridgman's information. Where did you read this UVD announcement actually?

[mirak63]

at the time I bought a hd4850 ATI was claiming linux support, and also UVD support was announced.

now we know what it was worth

It's not about bridgman here, however I think the less ati talks about things that ati can't support right now or officialy at some point, the less arm it will do for ati image.

And probably phoronix didn't do anygood by anouncing stuffs based on the fact some lib was seen in some binary