Direct3D 10/11 Is Now Natively Implemented On Linux!

[koenvdd]

[...]
Against the OpenGL 2.x / 3.x branches, sure, Microsoft was able to create a cleaner API since they effectively dropped the DX9 API. However, in the run-up to OpenGL 3.x, even Khronos admitted the specification was a little messy: Longs Peak should ring a bell to anybody who actually keeps track of OpenGL development.

That being said, according to the actual coders, the guys writing the software, such as Carmack at IDSoftware and the devs at Paragon Studio's, there's no performance difference between DX or OpenGL API usage.

Given that the guys writing the graphics code that leverages the processors to begin with say there's no difference in how the code should respond, I'm honestly finding it hard to believe that a driver developer says that the DX10/11 API is automagically going to be faster than the OpenGL API.

I'm sorry, but this just reeks of something Miguel de Icaza would pull. Let's face it, Mono is never going to be .net. It's never going to be as good as .net, it's always going to be playing catch up to .net, and Novell wasted a metric ton of money supporting a bad idea from the start.

A D3D driver on Linux? Is going to be the exact same situation. It's going to distract developers and cause resources to be focused where resources have no reason to be focused. I'm sorry if people out there disagree with this, or somehow think a D3D driver is magically going to change commercial game developers points of view on Linux, but I'm just going to point to Mono as proof of just how catastrophically bad an idea a D3D state Tracker for Linux is. Mono has done nothing to convince .net developers to target Linux. Period. Stop. End of Story.

Hear, hear.
While I like the idea to have it in Wine, please do not use D3D when OpenGL is an option, especially on linux. If you want to develop for WIN I won't stop you, but if you want to develop for Linux, please keep with the linux spirit and use the free tools provided. I mainly see trouble coming from this driver.

[sobkas]

Citation (or link) needed.

Some informations about this problem.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel/80892/focus=80909

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2010-September/003136.html

[RealNC]

Some informations about this problem.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel/80892/focus=80909

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/003136.html

I can't find anything that claim it's using MS code.

[Kazade]

I can't find anything that claim it's using MS code.

The DDK is from MS.

[Plombo]

I can't find anything that claim it's using MS code.

You're right. Luca Barbieri has explicitly stated that it doesn't contain any Microsoft code.

[fernandoc1]

I don't see any problems on using DirectX infrastructure on Linux.
We can create wrappers to OpenGL and accelerate our applications.
All comparisons of what is happening to Linux now with what happened to OS/2 are not reasonable, since OS/2 was proprietary and Linux is open.
No one will be able to kill Linux, as long as our community exists.
Every code contribution that can benefit our community with new possibilities are welcome in my opinion.
Linux has already passed through Dark times and it still strong enough to survive.
We cannot benefit of D3D directly, but with some work, wrappers can be built on top of it and our OpenGL stack can be improved.

[Plombo]

I don't see any problems on using DirectX infrastructure on Linux.
We can create wrappers to OpenGL and accelerate our applications.
All comparisons of what is happening to Linux now with what happened to OS/2 are not reasonable, since OS/2 was proprietary and Linux is open.
No one will be able to kill Linux, as long as our community exists.
Every code contribution that can benefit our community with new possibilities are welcome in my opinion.
Linux has already passed through Dark times and it still strong enough to survive.
We cannot benefit of D3D directly, but with some work, wrappers can be built on top of it and our OpenGL stack can be improved.

Building an OpenGL stack on top of D3D would be anything but an improvement over the existing approach.

[RealNC]

The DDK is from MS.

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"

[Plombo]

The DDK is from MS.

The new Gallium-based Direct3D implementation doesn't use any DDK code.

[fernandoc1]

Building an OpenGL stack on top of D3D would be anything but an improvement over the existing approach.

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.