Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Spread the word: an open graphics solution is on the way!
12345
Spread the word: an open graphics solution is on the way!
2005-02-25, 8:44 PM #1
Hello. I am an advocate for free software and for open hardware standards. It pains me that I have to use Nvidia's binary drivers. Using non-free software, as RMS puts it, allows the user to be dominated by the owner. Like most people, I want to be set free from that domination. In the silicon graphics world today, companies such as Nvidia and ATI do NOT release specs anymore, because they are afraid that competitors will steal their innovations. New and powerful graphics cards with open specs and FOSS drivers are becoming harder and harder to find.

However, hopefully that will soon chance. The Open Graphics Project, sponsored by TechSource, is developing a 128 MB 3D and 2D accelerated card. The design puts an emphasis on open specifications and free, open source drivers! It will be able to handle most 3d games adequately. The emphasis is not on cutting edge performance, however. It is instead on stability and documentation of the specifications. Do not get the wrong idea, however. This card will follow the OpenGL 2.0 spec, and support OpenGL 1.3 and some of OpenGL 1.4.and onward. While this card will not directly compete with the latest from ATI and Nvidia, it should be more than enough to run most games at great speeds!

An optimistic release date is this summer, June 2005.

They need our support!

Please tell your friends to sign this petition, which will indicate to the Open Graphics Project and TechSource that we are a viable consumer market!

Here is the link to the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/3dc4rdlb/petition.html

Here is the link to the article on LinuxDevices.com: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9659653361.html

Here is the link to an interview with Timothy Miller at KernelTrap: http://kerneltrap.org/node/4622

Here is the mailing list: http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics

Feel free to copy this and post it on other boards! If we want this project to succeed, they need all the support they can get![/i]
2005-02-25, 8:50 PM #2
No.
2005-02-25, 8:53 PM #3
Right, and we all know it'll work REAL well.
2005-02-25, 8:56 PM #4
It will work well because the specs and drivers will be free and open. Anybody can contribute -- it is totally exposed. How do you think Linux has gotten to where it is now? This is the same type of thing.

Do you have any idea how much of a pain it is to reverse engineer closed spec cards, such as those by Nvidia and ATI? Opening the specs make it exponentially easier for driver developers! The open source Nvidia drivers for X.org / XFree86 can't even perform 3d opperations in hardware! Because of this, we are dominated by nvidia's closed source, non-free proprietory drivers.
2005-02-25, 8:57 PM #5
Except this is a pice of hardware, not just software. That's a huge leap that I doubt will work well.
2005-02-25, 9:00 PM #6
See above edited message.

I'd also like to mention that closed source device drivers like those from Nvidia cause numerous problems. For example, X Windows often freezes or crashes due to them, and it makes kernel debugging much much harder. Basically, any time something goes wrong, we have nowhere to turn, because we don't have access to the source code. In addition, a kernel upgrade ususally breaks compatibility, and a new kenel module has to be installed.
2005-02-25, 9:19 PM #7
I think you should just be happy that you even have drivers for Linux. Seriously, I'm not going to dump my 9600xt for some unknown card just to support open source.
2005-02-25, 9:27 PM #8
This is not just to support open source. This is to support free software -- freedom from domination by non-free software companies. This is to give graphics developers an open and modern platform for developing graphics for a free operating system. This is to overcome the dependance on a closed mouthed company. This is to overcome the problems that closed binaries inflict on the kernel!
2005-02-25, 9:38 PM #9
Online petitions! thats a sure fire way to get something done!
[01:52] <~Nikumubeki> Because it's MBEGGAR BEGS LIKE A BEGONI.
2005-02-25, 9:49 PM #10
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
This is not just to support open source. This is to support free software -- freedom from domination by non-free software companies. This is to give graphics developers an open and modern platform for developing graphics for a free operating system. This is to overcome the dependance on a closed mouthed company. This is to overcome the problems that closed binaries inflict on the kernel!

You dirty commie. Keep your red lies and get out. OUT!
2005-02-25, 10:15 PM #11
Quote:
Originally posted by MBeggar
Online petitions! thats a sure fire way to get something done!


The project has already been under development for some time, and is already being funded. The petition is just to generate good karma with TechSource so that they realize that this is not a commercial endeavor that will flop.
2005-02-25, 10:16 PM #12
Quote:
Originally posted by tofu
You dirty commie. Keep your red lies and get out. OUT!


We are not against capitalism. We are against domination! Think free as in freedom (like freedom of speech!), not free as in beer.
2005-02-25, 10:28 PM #13
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
We are not against capitalism. We are against domination! Think free as in freedom (like freedom of speech!), not free as in beer.


Isn't communism about fighting the domination of the upper class? Therefore, saying you are against domination is not proof enough that you are not against capitalism....

...COMMIE!
2005-02-26, 3:19 AM #14
It will cost them billions of dollars to develop a 3D accelerator card that is competitive in performance as well as features. Anything else would just be a waste, since we already have opensource drivers that work on DX8 Radeons.
2005-02-26, 5:36 AM #15
If they can pull it off IF (and this is a big if) it will be really, really cool. It'll have a limited market, but it'll have a market, and it'll probably appeal to a lot of people in the open source scene.

We'll see.
D E A T H
2005-02-26, 5:52 AM #16
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon`C
It will cost them billions of dollars to develop a 3D accelerator card that is competitive in performance as well as features. Anything else would just be a waste, since we already have opensource drivers that work on DX8 Radeons.

^^^ He's got a good point.
2005-02-26, 5:53 AM #17
I think their time would be better spent lobbying the hardware vendors, Microsoft, Apple and other UNIX groups and vendors to adopt a uniform driver model. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel we should be trying to reduce development time for drivers and make porting as seamless as possible. As-is, hardware vendors need to worry about a plethora of incompatable security models and various other annoyances.
2005-02-26, 8:33 AM #18
Interesting point.

Has ATI released the full specs for the DX8 Radeons? Or are those just reversed engineered? If the open source drivers are so good, why do people even bother with ATI's binary drivers? I am skeptical. ATI and Nvidia are no longer releasing any specs. This card will be fully documented and open. The drivers will be a community project that will likely be ported to many many platforms.

Bear in mind that the objective of these cards is not to compete in terms of performance. They are not intended to be primarily used as games. (But they should do just fine.) Their primary goal is to support new and emerging 3d accelerated interfaces using APIs such as cairo and glitz, like Quartz for the Mac OS X.

This is not reinventing the wheel. This is a new market, where there is currently no competition. The market for a new 3d card that has completely open specs and free as in freedom drivers.

Here is an important update from the mailing list:

Timothy Miller wrote:
Quote:
I had mentioned earlier that I've been tied up with the business
aspects of the OGP, and I thought some of you might be interested in
hearing about what's going on and have some discussion on it.

Our research indicates the best potential for success is with a
two-pronged approach. One is to sell an ASIC in bulk for embedded
systems, and the other is a PCB-based version for retail. As such, we
have turned our attention, for the moment, to the embedded market
where we and others feel that we can sell the highest volumes. To
compete in that market, of course, we will have to develop an ASIC.
As such, that will likely be the new primary direction of the OGP.

The retail graphics board will be affected such that the board will
now sell with a much lower retail price. Furthermore, we're looking
into the idea of selling the retail board through partners who
specialize in that so as to further reduce the price. The result will
be a MUCH less expensive retail product. There is also a likelihood
that we'll have greater freedom in terms of power consumption versus
speed.

At the same time, we don't want to leave behind those who would like
to tinker. In any case, we will have to design a prototype board, and
so our plan is to sell that as a product in its own right. Some
changes to it include possibly separating the host controller out into
a separate chip so that you can reprogram the main FPGA as you like
without affecting your ability to reprogram it again. Putting it
another way, the prototype will be designed with features that lend
themselves more effectively towards experimentation. The lower sales
volumes of this product will increase its cost relative to the
original plan. If, however, we get higher volume than expected, the
price will go down, especially for bulk orders.

While prototypes and experimenter versions of the board will likely be
identical, they may or may not have the same sale price. There will
be more than one prototype board, because we'll support various
interfaces including PCI, AGP, PC/104, and some others used in
embedded systems. (PCI Express will be a follow-on; we expect to use
an external chip to help with that.) We need to guage how many
prototypes to make for the initial build.
2005-02-26, 8:35 AM #19
I saw the online pention, I laughed, I posted on this thread, I left.
Think while it's still legal.
2005-02-26, 8:38 AM #20
Last time I checked.

Graphics card drivers were free.
2005-02-26, 8:48 AM #21
Quote:
Originally posted by SAJN_Master
I saw the online pention, I laughed, I posted on this thread, I left.


I saw your post, I laughed, I realized you have no idea what we're talking about/why we're talking about it, and also that you wasted space on the database.

Mystic0--I'm fairly sure the drivers are Reverse Engineered, and they're REALLY good for the DX8 radeons...thing is, they're only for the 9000 and below I think (not sure if it encompasses the 9200s). Trust me, if anyone knows what they're doing in *nix and has a DX8 radeon, they don't bother with the ATi drivers.
D E A T H
2005-02-26, 8:51 AM #22
Quote:
I saw your post, I laughed, I realized you have no idea what we're talking about/why we're talking about it, and also that you wasted space on the database.


How can I have no idea what I am talking about when I didn't talk about ANYTHING?!

/sings the logic song
Think while it's still legal.
2005-02-26, 8:52 AM #23
The second that supporters of open-source software stop treating all closed-source developers as the devil and open-source as the saviour of humanity, I might start using some open-source software.

If I end up developing software for a living i'd like to be making my money from my product rather than operating a technical support hotline.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2005-02-26, 9:57 AM #24
If tests prove it is a reliable and stable card/driver I MIGHT buy it for my Linux machine. Heck, it'll beat trying to figure out what settings to use.

A question though (I cant be bothered reading everything), what is the chance of it been readily available and a competative price?
2005-02-26, 10:34 AM #25
Quote:
Originally posted by SAJN_Master
How can I have no idea what I am talking about when I didn't talk about ANYTHING?!

/sings the logic song


Read what he said again. You missed something important.

Read it slowly.
Little angel go away
Come again some other day
Devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say
2005-02-26, 11:22 AM #26
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob
Last time I checked.

Graphics card drivers were free.


Free as in money? Yes.

Free as in freedom? Noooo.... Besides, the most imprtant part are the specs, not the driver. As long as you have the specs, you can make your own drivers.
2005-02-26, 11:24 AM #27
Quote:
Originally posted by Berlick
A question though (I cant be bothered reading everything), what is the chance of it been readily available and a competative price?


Quote:
Furthermore, we're looking
into the idea of selling the retail board through partners who
specialize in that so as to further reduce the price. The result will
be a MUCH less expensive retail product.


The original slated price was to be under $200. If all goes well, we can hope that it is closer to $100.
2005-02-26, 11:29 AM #28
Quote:
Originally posted by DeTRiTiC-iQ
The second that supporters of open-source software stop treating all closed-source developers as the devil and open-source as the saviour of humanity, I might start using some open-source software.

If I end up developing software for a living i'd like to be making my money from my product rather than operating a technical support hotline.


There is only so much you can do with a closed source, closed spec card. When the specs and source are opened, the possibilities are dramatically increased. From an end user point, this is largly an idealogical thing. From a developer's standpoint, however, it is largly a practical thing. Having the spec of a modern card is a graphics hackers dream. Does I respect companies with proprietary software? Sometimes. But the fact is that closed source, non-free (think freedom) software is so limited turns me away. Free software simply sets the user free from domination by the company, and puts the control back into his hands.
2005-02-26, 11:33 AM #29
Quote:
Originally posted by SAJN_Master
I saw the online pention, I laughed, I posted on this thread, I left.


How typical. Please do not make up your mind before you know the whole story:

Quote:
The project has already been under development for some time, and is already being funded. The petition is just to generate good karma with TechSource so that they realize that this is not a commercial endeavor that will flop.
2005-02-26, 11:37 AM #30
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
Free software simply sets the user free from domination by the company, and puts the control back into his hands.

YES. NVIDIA DOMINATES YOUR LIFE.
2005-02-26, 11:47 AM #31
Yeah, I read about it. And I am happy :) I will get it if it is useable. Even if my current one is faster.
My levels
2005-02-26, 12:00 PM #32
Quote:
Originally posted by Shintock
YES. NVIDIA DOMINATES YOUR LIFE.


Well, they do. You couldn't change the drivers if you wanted to. You have to trust that they will do a good job.
2005-02-26, 12:06 PM #33
Here is a particuarily good quote said by richk449 on http://forums.gentoo.org :
Quote:
There are two reasons to use OSS, in terms of software and drivers: (a) practical and (b) moral.

(a) The practical case comes down to two issues: (1) it is impossible to debug binary drivers, so if they are crashing, all you can do is wait for a company to fix them. (2) Your funcionality is limited by what is put into the driver: for instance, you can't use Xinimera with the ATI drivers, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

(b) The moral case can be looked at two ways: (1) The right to understand and control what you are running is a fundamental right, and no person should give up that right for the sake of faster graphics or easier computing, or (2) The overall computing experience is better when software (and drivers) are built on the OSS model, since information is shared and build upon (like in science), and we have a moral obligation to make the world a better place.
2005-02-26, 1:21 PM #34
Maybe I'm a heathen... but I don't see this as being something I'd get too excited or anticipant about. The drivers that get loaded into Windows for my 9600xt have almost never failed me. I'm not a serious programmer, nor do I see the bennefit of learning the specs of my card past marketed performance traits. Free or not, I wouldn't find any true bennefit. Nor would 90% of the world who uses a 3d acellerator. I don't care if I just have to have faith in somebody. That's the freaking world people. I run a techbench. People have faith in my guys to fix their computer problems properly.

Writing drivers for these closed-spec cards is a person's job. He had better damn well be able to do it properly, or you can safely assume that he won't have his job anymore. *shrug* /me tosses $.02
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
The OSC Empire
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On
2005-02-26, 1:32 PM #35
It's understandable that you don't appriciate this. Why would you; you only care that it works well. The target audience for this card is not the Windows gamer. The target audience is the GNU / Linux end-user and graphics hacker.

(Sorry if that sounded condescending... I didn't intend it to be.)
2005-02-26, 4:48 PM #36
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
It's understandable that you don't appriciate this. Why would you; you only care that it works well. The target audience for this card is not the Windows gamer. The target audience is the GNU / Linux end-user and graphics hacker.

(Sorry if that sounded condescending... I didn't intend it to be.)
If their end target is a card for hackers they'd be better off sticking a couple of fast xscale processors on an agp card and hooking them up to a fat internal bus
2005-02-26, 5:30 PM #37
Well, it's not just for hackers. Like I said, it's also for end users that want a free and seemless operating system. The hackers and developers want the specs and source because it enables them to make a better product, so that by the time it gets to the end user, the card and software work well together. Right now it is a pain to deal with proprietory binary drivers for developers, and sometimes for the end user. As I said earlier, having the driver as a binary makes debugging impossible, and it emcumbers the kernel with an exterior module and a seperate EULA. It also means that we have to depend on Nvidia and ATI to correctly impliment the driver. As we have learned with ATI, it is usually not in their best interest as a company to do so.
2005-02-27, 4:01 AM #38
ATI's getting better for it, very slowly.

This is fairly true, though. To date your best option in Linux for support is the ancient Voodoo series, becaues it's the best-documented.
2005-02-27, 4:30 PM #39
Okay, I'll admit it. I backstabbed you guys.:p I posted this same thread on the Gentoo boards. :o I had to link to it to show you how interestingly different the two responses are. I must warn you, however, that a couple of immature Gentoo people have degenerated the other thread into an argument about Ideology, but luckily that was split off. Anyway, here is the link:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-300692-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html
2005-02-27, 5:31 PM #40
Amazing.
12345

↑ Up to the top!