Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's opensource lies exposed

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

  • #21
    damn edit bla bla

    the point being ,its long been known that If your a Hardware vendor, and providing OSS as saleable/PR tick etc then you better be sure you know and understand the 3dfx legacy IP lesson.

    and be sure to get co-ownership rights of all that OSS IP, or better yet get your in house developer's to write the core of that OSS IP code so you have a sell-able and long term Return On Investment, or even just the simple option to release that code under another licence as you please (leaving the small operator and end user to be your advocates as you keep them happier for instance)....

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by popper View Post
      the point being ,its long been known that If your a Hardware vendor, and providing OSS as saleable/PR tick etc then you better be sure you know and understand the 3dfx legacy IP lesson.
      Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS the "3dfx legacy IP lesson" is that it was a lot easier to support open source development before DRM was a big issue.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS the "3dfx legacy IP lesson" is that it was a lot easier to support open source development before DRM was a big issue.
        Maybe with AMD's hardware design that is true but on the flipside intel seems to be able to do it and they should have the same DRM concerns.

        Comment


        • #24
          I still don't get how accelerated video decoding should interfere with copyprotection hideous scheme. But the topmost of what I don't understand is how this crap landed on GPU "for free".

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            Maybe with AMD's hardware design that is true but on the flipside intel seems to be able to do it and they should have the same DRM concerns.
            Does Intel's video support actually handle decoding the raw h.264 streams, or does it just provide some helper blocks for decoding portions of the standard?

            Either way, Intel's hardware is simplistic shit compared to NVIDIA's/AMD's.

            AMD should totally make sure their DRM-enabled video decoder is "secure" and works entirely as a block box with an open public interface -- that's just plain good design for any hardware or software project, period -- but that doesn't make comparing AMD's hardware to Intel's any less invalid.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by elanthis View Post
              Does Intel's video support actually handle decoding the raw h.264 streams, or does it just provide some helper blocks for decoding portions of the standard?
              AFIK it is a fairly feature rich solution with mocomp, idct, deblocking, intra-frame prediction, vld and bitstream processing support.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICS the "3dfx legacy IP lesson" is that it was a lot easier to support open source development before DRM was a big issue.
                perhaps you are, then again it could be a bait and switch

                im not sure what Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) has to do with any of this as relates to "the 3dfx legacy IP lesson" , but you can blame the X Window System and UNIX before that if you have a problem i guess....

                Oh you mean Digital Rights Management i suppose as
                Data Reference Model, Data Resource Management, Digital Radio Mondiale, Distributed Resource Manager, Dynamic Rich Media, and Data Relationship Managementdont dont really fit ether

                well again that's your perspective as a professional (with interest's in open source Cottage and Self catering Caravan Accommodation. Mudgeon Farm ...? etc)

                "bridgman:that it was a lot easier to support open source development before DRM was a big issue"

                OC AMD,Intel,Nv etc are all big boys in the industry, well AMD not so much since your ex CEO sold off your chip fab etc while your executive board watched and a-greed but still.

                you all stood around twiddling your thumb's while the Digital Rights Management collective backed by Hollywood etc put up bogus reasons to push the US Digital Rights Management laws through your congress and so legal system....

                the long/short of it as David Birch said when it came to DRM you were all the tech industry's "girlie men" along side the telecom industry "You're too seduced by the content industry, Hollywood"

                http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6218.ars
                DRM and the tech industry's "girlie men"
                By Jon Stokes | Last updated February 20, 2006 1:25 PM

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by glxextxexlg View Post
                  The famous argument of AMD spec fanboys is that AMD will allways go on with providing full specs for their hardware while binary blob support can eventually break. In fact the truth is the opposite of it. It appears that the false opensource prophecy can break any time soon:

                  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00..._cost.html#oss

                  From that text:


                  Will opensource "drivers" from AMD support OpenGL 3x/4x and video acceleration in the future? Given the patented floating point support in OGL 3 and s3tc and these DRM arrangements, I've my doubts.
                  So amd linux users will have half-baked featureless opensource drivers when amd will drop binary driver support for r600/r700 hardware and another waiting period will start for these people to be able to play OilRush.

                  Wake up.
                  why are you even bothering to give trolls a bad name? What if you've got a laptop with an ATI gpu? This information helps nobody other than nvidia and their fan club score some sort of brownie points ( assuming everything you say is true ) go back to neowin plz or do/say something constructive at least

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I wish that kind of thread would get deleted on sight.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Patent-Haters Gotta Hate

                      Originally posted by Qaridarium
                      really no one care about the DRM(the bad one) stuff and no i don't care about UVD video acceleration because my cpu is fast to decode any video.

                      really drm/UVD don't care.

                      but the Patent stuff really hurt.

                      to not have openGL3/4 support because of Patent stuff (s3tc,floadingpoint) really shots down any hope for an better means opensource world.

                      be sure many more people think like this DRM(the bad) and UVD don't care but s3tc and floadingpoint graphics really care
                      And *none* of that is either ATI's fault, or AMD's fault.

                      If I recall correctly, that method of texture compression was never owned by ATI Technologies, or AMD (or even Microsoft, which also licensed it). It was, in fact, owned by S3 Technologies (which was in turn acquired by VIA Technologies). It was popular with *all* the major graphics players because it was easy to implement in both software *and* hardware (S3, even though it owned the patent, wasn't even the first to implement it in hardware; that honor went to ATI Technologies with the original 3D Rage graphics accelerator - on the software side, Microsoft licensed it in their DirectX runtimes, where it still appears today). What drives the patent-haters round the twist is that it has held on for so long.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X