[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: If ATI and nVidia don't support their own products, who does?

Wim De Smet wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:32:37 -0700, Paul Johnson
<baloo@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:

<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
Hash: SHA1

Wim De Smet <kromagg@gmail.com> writes:

You're looking at it wrong. Nobody really wants them to open source
their driver. Okay maybe because it's easier. But people really want
to be able to write their own driver.

And they can still do that, nobody's stopping them.  All we (at least
RMS and Iare in the same boat, and likely thousands of others) ask is
that we get those drivers under a license that meets the DFSG and
doesn't make us run through tons of extra hoops and user-hostile

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The whole reason that
there are no free drivers is that it is enormously difficult to
reverse engineer a display driver. 2D might very well be doable but it
takes some effort and you will probably never get the same speed a
nvidia engineer could (since he knows what is in the hardware).
Getting 3D to work (and work fast) is even harder and the same
restrictions apply. All we should ask is the information we need about
the hardware. But nVidia is afraid that this might give too much of an
insight into their techniques to ATI, and vice versa. There is a core
of truth in that.

Then ATI must employ some extremely crappy engineers.  I get better
3D performance using the open source DRI drivers (which, IIRC, were
written with no assisance from ATI) for every 3D app, except games
that make use of S3 Texture Compression.

I know the open source nVidia drivers don't come close to the
performance of the propritary drivers, but what is ATI's excuse?

-Roberto Sanchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: