Originally posted by Porter
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mixing open and closed source
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by myxal View PostI think you're underestimating the opensource community (look at the hand-optimized assembly code in Linux). The reason noone's doing any wild tweaking now is because there's practically no need to do so (scratch the itch, remember?). However, as soon as there are high-performance games/3D apps for linux, which are WIDELY used, people will get cracking at the radeonhd or whatever driver to see if they can come close/beat fglrx.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by myxal View PostHow tightly is the DRM functionality bound to other UVD (h264 acceleration seems to be the "most wanted") functions - that is, even if disclosinng docs would compromise DRM, would the source code itself compromise it as well?
Originally posted by myxal View Postworst-case scenario - none of the above is possible. Let's say someone REs the closed driver (either windows or fglrx) and writes a patch for the opensource driver which would bring the xv-* functionality - would this patch be accepted into the driver? What I'm worried about is yet more fragmentation, should the "patched" driver become succesful (don't believe me? look at via vs. unichrome vs. openchrome - not entirely the same thing - the code was there, but it was ripped out - but close enough)
I have to stress that we're dealing with a big stack of hypotheticals here. We aren't going to be looking hard at the video options until 2Q08, and until then all I can tell you is what we know today.
Originally posted by myxal View PostI think he's underestimating us as well...but it's as much a vicious cycle as anything else. We don't have anywhere near as much 3D stuff as we ought to because the 3D support was suboptimal in many ways. And if I had better resources and I didn't have the LGP stuff to do, I'd probably be working on driver coding like I did with the UtahGLX stuff.Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostOriginally posted by michal View PostI think he's underestimating us as well...but it's as much a vicious cycle as anything else. We don't have anywhere near as much 3D stuff as we ought to because the 3D support was suboptimal in many ways. And if I had better resources and I didn't have the LGP stuff to do, I'd probably be working on driver coding like I did with the UtahGLX stuff.
Originally posted by bridgman View Post...the risk of RE'ing a Linux implementation of UVD support is one of the reasons that Linux video support tends to lag behind Windows support.
So the content mafiaa is effectively pressing hardware vendors to cripple the consumer's experience and hardware vendors don't bite - what has this world come to?..
I realize it's WAY too late for DAAMIT (or anyone else aboard, for that matter) to back out of AACS. And, short of the GPL-ed OpenGraphics project miraculously becoming widely used on the desktop (yah, right...), I don't see a way this could be effectively opposed (well maybe if consumers turned back into customers, but that's wishful thinking).
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostSo far, yes. Even initializing the UVD is a problem.
Source would be a problem, unfortunately.
Windows would be fairly hard to RE, and the risk of RE'ing a Linux implementation of UVD support is one of the reasons that Linux video support tends to lag behind Windows support.
Comment
-
Originally posted by myxal View PostUhh, that wasn't me who said that, but does address what I was asking, so whatever...
Originally posted by myxal View PostWell that is truly pitiful, I thought REing was legal?!
Originally posted by myxal View PostAnd hardware vendors need to remember that it's the software that sells your hardware repeatedly - unsuspecting customers may buy a piece of hardware once, but as they find the software sucks/doesn't deliver the hardware features, they won't fall for the trick again and WILL do proper research next time around, likely circumventing that vendor.
The only thing different about AMD here is that we're actually willing to be open and talk to our customers about how copy-protection obligations affect our decisions -- I would hate to see Linux users punish us for that.Test signature
Comment
Comment