Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mixing open and closed source

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

  • bridgman
    started a topic Mixing open and closed source

    Mixing open and closed source

    Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
    IMHO AMD should drop the development of fglrx for some time and focus on doc and code releasing. Last fglrx driver seems to be quite nice already so people shouldn't complain if they know that AMD for the time being is focusing on the docs and open drivers...
    The skill sets are surprisingly different. We do horse-trade resources back and forth but in general we need people with legal and IP background to work on doc and code releasing.

    Originally posted by val-gaav View Post
    In the long run AMD should drop fglrx for good and just develop some blob module for open drivers for things that couldn't be opened like h.264 hardware decoding or other DRM things... It's a waste of resources to develop both open and closed drivers.
    This sounds great and it's an option we do consider, but so far it's not looking that good. Might be possible to have some of the display driver code relying on open source, but most of the acceleration stack (drm, xv*, opengl) will need to be closed source in the future for a couple of reasons :

    1. If we're ever going to play protected video (DVDs, HD/BD) then we have to protect the decoded bitmaps all the way to the frame buffer, and we can't do that in an open driver.

    2. For workstation business we invest a lot of money in performance-related driver work and wouldn't want to open source that because some of that work *is* useful to competitors.

    Since we're not playing protected video today we could convert to use more open source in the short term, but by the time we finished that it would probably be time to start converting back

    IMO the best strategy is to have open AND closed drivers and use each one where it fits best.

  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by Porter View Post
    It's a totally broken system, but it will continue until the hardware vendors finally wake up to the fact that they will have to stand up to the content companies and by doing so, protect the consumer. It used to be that government was in the business of protecting consumers, but that went away with the exponential growth of corporate lobby power.
    It'll continue until either that or the consumer decides to start opting out of the whole affair.

    They have the "power" to do these things because we keep handing them the money to do it and people keep buying into it or contributing to the network effects that are brought about by either buying it or infringing it.

    Just Say No. I have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    I think the content provider position is that they don't view *you* as a thief, it's the other guy
    Unfortunately, unless you're one of them, you're "the other guy"... After all, if you're not paying (and paying, and paying, and...), you're stealing from them- even if it's all legal and on the up and up.

    Seriously, this is a chicken-and-egg situation right now. OEMs are starting to get more interested in Linux, and one of their big questions will be whether BD playback is important for their products. If the decision is "yes", then one or more player apps would probably show up fairly quickly. Without an obvious market, though, it's not worth it for the player app vendors to make a releaseable product.
    Heh... The other route is to get the media companies to wise up on DRM in the first place. Not that I see the latter that I mentioned happening in the near future.

    Anyhow, my take is this... If it were as simple as software players, John, we wouldn't BE having the conversation we're currently having on the subject- the DRM would be a seperate piece of the accelerator and wouldn't be intermeshed with the video decode portions, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Porter
    replied
    Originally posted by anduke View Post
    @ Porter
    Sure, you have a point
    But hardware vendors will need to sell (me and others) their new hardware (video cameras, HD tv's, BD-burners, etc., ATI's cards ). Today I can easily burn my marriage footage (for instance) on a dvd-r and throw it in a player; if there won't be an equivalent of SD chain also for HD video, hardware industry will choke on content providers' greediness: else who'll need some useless hardware? (me not > no new ATI video card to play accelerated HDvideo, no new HD video camera, no BD burner and so on)
    The content providers don't care one iota about the hardware vendors' business models. As far as the content providers are concerned, the technology vendors only exist to create outlets for the content providers' product. They don't care whether users are prevented from using the devices they've purchased because of content-protection schemes that don't make good sense. All they care about is protecting their bottom line and controlling the traditional supply chain model.

    It's a totally broken system, but it will continue until the hardware vendors finally wake up to the fact that they will have to stand up to the content companies and by doing so, protect the consumer. It used to be that government was in the business of protecting consumers, but that went away with the exponential growth of corporate lobby power.

    Leave a comment:


  • anduke
    replied
    @ Porter
    Sure, you have a point
    But hardware vendors will need to sell (me and others) their new hardware (video cameras, HD tv's, BD-burners, etc., ATI's cards ). Today I can easily burn my marriage footage (for instance) on a dvd-r and throw it in a player; if there won't be an equivalent of SD chain also for HD video, hardware industry will choke on content providers' greediness: else who'll need some useless hardware? (me not > no new ATI video card to play accelerated HDvideo, no new HD video camera, no BD burner and so on)

    Leave a comment:


  • Porter
    replied
    Originally posted by anduke View Post
    Hello all
    Reading this thread there's one aspect I'd like to point out about HD video acceleration; maybe I'm wrong, but from this discussion it appears that the only benefitted from HD video acceleration would be blueray discs (with the obvious concerns revolving around media protection)... My point instead is: what about self product home movies? I mean, with HD video cameras lowering in price, it won't be long that a lot of people (me too) will start messing with HD video on their pc's. At that time I'll want HD acceleration from my video card, regardless of BD...

    Bye
    The short answer is that the content providers don't care what you want, and they'll strongarm hardware vendors into restricting legal use by any method available to them until they've totally consolidated their control over consumers' ability to view or experience any kind of content on any kind of device, worldwide.

    I have free tinfoil hats available for those who are interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • anduke
    replied
    Hello all
    Reading this thread there's one aspect I'd like to point out about HD video acceleration; maybe I'm wrong, but from this discussion it appears that the only benefitted from HD video acceleration would be blueray discs (with the obvious concerns revolving around media protection)... My point instead is: what about self product home movies? I mean, with HD video cameras lowering in price, it won't be long that a lot of people (me too) will start messing with HD video on their pc's. At that time I'll want HD acceleration from my video card, regardless of BD...

    Bye

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    I think the content provider position is that they don't view *you* as a thief, it's the other guy

    Seriously, this is a chicken-and-egg situation right now. OEMs are starting to get more interested in Linux, and one of their big questions will be whether BD playback is important for their products. If the decision is "yes", then one or more player apps would probably show up fairly quickly. Without an obvious market, though, it's not worth it for the player app vendors to make a releaseable product.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Can you tell my why somebody would need to RE the DRM part? I don't think anybody would spend time for that because it is not needed at all to view unencrypted data - and thats basically the one and only way to watch hd content currently without using Win. When you look at LinDVD - that player is REALLY old and I don't think that there will be an update for BD in the near future. Or did you hear that somebody is working on a new closed source player for BD?
    I certainly have little desire to play BD's- while they're nice, clear, and all, they're not worth the price in DRM I'm having to pay to watch them. Sure, when there's no DVD's I'll have an issue. But it's a smallish one.

    If they want to view me as a thief. Fine. I'll just quit buying. Just like with any other business that treats me that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by agd5f View Post
    DRM aside, the UVD block only provides acceleration of a small part of the video decode and rendering pipeline. With shader programs and textures we could still provide decent acceleration for video, HD or otherwise.
    Heh... Which is why I want OpenGL and GPGPU capabilities first and foremost. With the right muscle in the card, while it'll be less efficient than the purpose built blocks, it'll do well enough with shaders anyhow. The rest is just nice. It's not needed if I've got comparable answers elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X