Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Direct3D 10/11 Is Now Natively Implemented On Linux!

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

  • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Uhm, the commit message says:

    "Independently created headers for Direct3D 10, 10.1, 11 and DXGI 1.1, partially based on the existing Wine headers for D3D10 and DXGI 1.0"
    Yeah, I'm not sure what he's on about.

    But the big problem with this is that is uses Microsoft's HSLS compiler for compiling shaders. It actually downloads an executable, instead of using its own code (which it will need to eventually to ever be useful)


    Originally posted by fernandoc1 View Post
    Not every hardware support OpenGL in the same perfection as they support Direct3D.
    All graphics card companies, employ more work improving their Directx support than improving OpenGL, because their costumers care more about D3D applications than OpenGL.
    So if we can use D3D stack to improve OpenGL, we can support more hardware.
    That's not entirely true - most CAD software, a heap of software for film including compositing, grading, vfx apps, CG applications and so on use OpenGL, and those sell the really expensive cards, so there is a lot of work that goes into the OpenGL support that trickles right down the line (look at how fast nVidia supported OpenGL 4 in their binary driver, for instance.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      I can't find anything that claim it's using MS code.
      If I understand everything correctly, Luca Barbieri have read (following advice from msdn) d3d11TokenizedProgramFormat.h (from Microsofts DDK) and used shader and effect formats available there to make different implementation of DX10/DX11.

      Henri Verbeet claims that this kind of use of this particular header (DDK) might open Wine project or people involed to the legal action from Microsoft. He also claims that reading or using new implementation might have similar consequences.

      Apparently he is not willing to take any risk in this situation.

      I did my best to assure accuracy of this post, please correct it if something is not right.

      Comment


      • Why not contact Microsoft about this issue? Do it by physical mail and phonecall. Archive the phonecall by means of recording.

        If Microsoft sais: "You are not allowed to do that", then too bad. At least you tried.
        If Microsoft sais: "It's no problem; we will not sue you", then that's evidence.

        If Microsoft were to ever sue anyone, or present the project with a takedown notice, then Microsoft can get the best lawyers on the planet, but the case will be dismissed before you can say "anti trust".

        I am not a lawyer, so for be sure to contact one for details.

        Comment


        • Never underestimate the dirty tricks Microsoft plays, or is willing to play. This is why the Wine folk are quite stubborn about staying well clear of any possible, however remote, problem.

          Comment


          • PS: If Microsoft sais no then blow it up in the media. Slashdot and the European Union for all I care. This will spark a great deal of pressure and it will make Microsoft bow either way.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mirv View Post
              Never underestimate the dirty tricks Microsoft plays, or is willing to play. This is why the Wine folk are quite stubborn about staying well clear of any possible, however remote, problem.
              Dirty, but legal. Microsoft is a company with very smart people. No matter how you look at it; they have to stay within the boundaries of the law.

              Legal permission is legal permission. They can do whatever they want, but legal permission is unbeatable.

              Comment


              • Is the new code, a reversed-engineered version of MS code? Or, is it sneaked in from Ole MS?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Beiruty View Post
                  Is the new code, a reversed-engineered version of MS code? Or, is it sneaked in from Ole MS?
                  That's not the point The point is "what does it need to be" and then do that

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                    That's not the point The point is "what does it need to be" and then do that
                    Or who will use it? and for what applications?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Beiruty View Post
                      Or who will use it? and for what applications?
                      OK, first of all, this:
                      On 21 September 2010 13:13, Luca Barbieri <luca at luca-barbieri.com> wrote:
                      > Why are you claiming this?
                      > I assume it's because of the comment in tpf.h, which states that it
                      > has been written according to Microsoft's documentation, which is
                      > available solely from reading the d3d11TokenizedProgramFormat.h header
                      > in the DDK.
                      > Using the header, which is documented in the DDK documentation as the
                      > place to look for documentation of the format, as reference, doesn't
                      > seem to me unusual or problematic.
                      Probably virtual machine solutions will take a look at it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X