Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon Gallium3D Still Long Shot From Catalyst

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

  • #41
    JB, I just wanted to thank you for responding openly to my earlier query. I just had a chance to read an digest it.

    I would like to give the matter additional thought. My current opinion on the matter is that there is a free platform available that will run on 99% of commodity hardware, and nobody is currently leveraging it. Installation of this platform is so incredibly easy that it isn't even required (LiveCD/USB). If I were in AMDs position, I would put together a bare-bones distro (Kernel, X, Mesa, SDL, a steam-like-client, and the demos with the hot cg chick) and leverage it to showcase AMD's technology. The result would be that 'every' AMD powered PC becomes a console.

    I realize that this is a lot like what sony did with FreeBSD (cellOS) and GLES2 (libgcm/PSGL), the difference would be that you already have a huge installation base. Existing customers that have a positive experience on the platform continue to purchase AMD tech, customers of "the other tech and platform vendors" will look over the shoulder of your customers and say "Hey what's that? How can I get that?".

    I'll think more about what you said tonight, but as far as I can tell, a million bucks and two years could quickly turn into market domination for a tech vendor. You don't need Sony or Microsoft.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
      While GSoC is useful,unfortunately there seems to be a bunch of unfinished projects/tasks or unimplemented features happening with it.
      I believe that the same can be said of any org that funds software development. Not all pound puppies find homes. It's sad. I wonder if GSOC is statistically better or worse than other similar initiatives (and why).

      Now I'm sad about puppies. Look what you've done!

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Qaridarium
        sure but your argument about the kernel source size is still bullshit.

        20 years ago the kernel source was so much smaller maybe we should use a time travelling engine to go back in time to be sure the kernel source is smaller...

        this is just bullshit!

        and hey don't write code this makes the kernel source bigger ans we all know this is "bad" LOL

        Bridgman bullshit logic at work..

        every time you add code to the kernel, you increase the likely hood of bugs in the kernel.adding more bugs to a already enormous and buggy kernel, isn't the solution.

        Comment


        • #44
          That would great for the *BSD (and other) guys, I am sure they'll be thrilled to see more previously "generic" code move to be Linux specific.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by geearf View Post
            That would great for the *BSD (and other) guys, I am sure they'll be thrilled to see more previously "generic" code move to be Linux specific.
            My feeling is that they will be exactly as happy as the *Linux (and other) guys are when they see closed-source offerings derived from BSD (CellOS for the PS3 being a good example).

            Edit: A closer look at my PS3 reveals that the OS may be more Darwin-like than FreeBSD-like. My statement still stands though, despite the (possibly) bad example.
            Last edited by russofris; 03-27-2012, 08:02 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X