Wim De Smet wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:32:37 -0700, Paul Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:<#secure method=pgp mode=sign> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wim De Smet <email@example.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 licensing.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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature