Did you hear about that project, where they use graphic cards for real-time sound proccessing? I think, that this would be much easier to accomplish with an open video card. This video card will be useable for much more than just 3d-accelarition.
One can use it's resources for everything you can accomplish by rewriting it's driver. And that's why I don't think, that is unrealistic, that with this card my window managers will be much faster than with any current video card.

It won't be really interesting for Windows users, tough. Only if it's possible to use these capabilites in shell replacements like bb4win or litestep.

I hope my text is understandable... I am quite tired right now, and it's a long time since I wrote really in english

That's true: modern graphics cards contain a ridiculous amount of silicon!

No they don't.

In fact, I'm pretty much positive that I can grind more sand into your eyes than is contained in a typical video card.

The DX8 Radeons had their specs released by ATI, hence the good drivers.

I like the idea of an Open Source graphics card, but I don't know if it will work. I was hoping for someone to make an FPGA based card so I can just download a new card whenever.

You do realize that a relative handful will even care about this. Hell, there are even members of this board think this idea is nonsense.

I follow that thinking.

I don't feel dominated by nVidia at all - in fact, I applaud them for their great support of Linux - I get to play many of my favorite games and they run smoother on Linux than in Windows. Their drivers work great and the installation is easy.

I certainly can't compare them with Microsoft who cheated their way to the top. nVidia has at least one serious competitor and they have earned their place - I remember when the original Riva 3d cards came out and they *sucked* compared to the Voodoo cards. Then their TNTs came out and they rocked. By the time TNT2 was here 3dfx was quaking in their boots.

Of all the companies to be pissed about, nVidia should be somewhere at the bottom of your list.

It doesn't matter how Nvidia compares to other companies. I'm comparing Nvidia's non-free drivers to free software.

Although I think Free Software is a good thing, I am certainly not of the mind that all software should be free. I've personally spent thousands of hours writing software for both myself and companies I work for, and if someone finds this work valuable and is willing to pay for it, there is no reason NOT to make money.

I'm not saying that Nvidia should magically decide to open up the source to their drivers. (although I would like it.) The decision is up to them, and I'm not attempting to force anything on them. However, as the end-user, given a choice between non-free software and free software, I take free software any time. And there are many reasons for this.

MS didn't "cheat" its way to the top. Ever heard of IBM? OS/2?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Who wouldn't??

Microsoft only cheated in an ethical sense. In a business sense, Bill made smart moves. Xerox didn't have the foresight to protect their development, and IBM didn't have the know-how to mass-market a superior operating system. Bill Gates, and in turn Microsoft, is a genius.

I don't find it surprising that you, Mystic, find this to be a laughible statement. An opensource "fanboy" (I only use that phrase because I can't think of another term that would be adequately strong in this situation, so no offense) consistantly sees Microsoft as an evil entity. The OS they develop isn't perfect. But you have to give them credit for developing something that *is* indeed functional, and serves its purpose. Anytime you develop something on as large a scale as Microsoft does, and hope to make it your entire livelihood, you can't open your source and allow people to copy your work. It's just a silly concept.

Not to mention the fact that Windows is only problematic 90% of the time due to user error. Sure the code has flaws, but if you're smart enough to use the OS correctly and take proper care to maintain it (even using the given tools built in -- let alone the 3rd party programs) it runs relatively smoothly and without problems.

The same goes for videocards. You're 100% correct in assuming that I only care that it works. I'm a hardware engineer / network engineer by trade and as such my entire goal is to be sure that it works, and works well. The stuff I develop gets tossed onto the shoulders of a software engineer to make it work in different ways. Oftentimes completely different from how the original device was concieved. This is the way of the world.

Open source is great. More power to you. But this will remain a small endeavor, and if it doesn't flop, won't reach past a very select group of individuals.

Jedi Gandalf: Exactly! That's why I want this project to succeed. But perhaps that's just wistful thinking...

Okay... time to break this down:

Originally posted by Yecti



Microsoft "cheated" in a lot of ways. Here is an incomplete list of things that they have done that gave them an advantage without improving the end-user experience.

• Microsoft recently announced that telephone activation is now a requirement for all Windows XP re-installs. This is an example of the power a body can exert on the end-user with non-free, closed source software.
• Microsoft's BS "Get the Facts" campaign against GNU / Linux. Apparently Mircosoft thinks that Redhat is the only GNU / Linux distribution in existence.
• When a user searches for a file in Windows, Windows sends the search string to Microsoft. When a user plays a media file in Windows Media Player, Windows sends the name of the media file to Microsoft.
• Windows XP repeatedly shoves Windows Messenger, MSN, and Windows Update in the users face, so that even if they resist at first, they will eventually comply to get rid of harassment.
• Mircosoft has locked game development onto the Windows and X-Box Platform with it's proprietory, non-free DirectX platform.
• Microsoft's interface was a ripoff of Apple's interface.
• Much of Microsoft's product line is simply an array of renamed products that were assimilated into the MS brand when they bought out a company or three. (Examples: DOS, DirectX, MS Anti-Spyware, Halo, Virtual PC... the list goes on)
• Failure for Internet Explorer to comply to web standards. This forces web designers to write pages that only work in IE, thus killed off the other browsers.
• Ability for Microsoft to install closed-source, non-free software automatically and silently through Automatic Updates. (Yes, I realize this can be turned off. Whether or not average Joe knows to do this or not, I do not know.)
• The list goes on...

Free software fanboy. Not open source. The term open source was created to sidestep the moral aspect of free software and only recognize the practical aspect.



Windows has a well deserved reputation of being at times very disfunctional.... The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how good the product is, because well, they have a monopoly.



No it's not. When the best product in a market is free software, all of the sudden everybody is on equal footing. The competition has disappeared, and the companies have to compete elsewhere. Unfortunately, companies ruin this with unethical acts of bastardizing the free software with DRM and other non-free components, attempting to lock the user in while tempting them with exclusive features.



Sorry... that's wrong. Everyday in history class I glance over to my teacher's screen. Half of the time it is all blue.



Yes. The code has flaws. And you don't know what they even are, so you can't even begin to think about correcting them. You have to have "faith" that Microsoft will fix them for you. But then... what incentive do they have to fix a problem if it hasn't been exposed yet?



Yes it is. Nvidia and ATI's drivers are sub-par. (Don't tell me that Nvidia's GNU / Linux drivers have good performance. I don't care. The fact that they are non-free present a host of problems by itself.) A card that has open specs and free drivers allow the driver to be integrated into the mainline kernel tree and ported to any number of platforms. In other words, it would work better.



You may be surprised at the demand for GNU / Linux in embedded devices and in bulk orders for corporate vendors of desktops.

I'm sure there's a big enough market for this, but it's for sure not with gamers.

You're right -- no, this was never even indended to be a gaming card.

And yet, open source designers have an amazing consistent ability to alienate laymen users beyond wanting to use their software. The rampant inability for a lot of them to actually cater to a laymen is sorely disturbing. So don't tell me what Microsoft HASN'T done to improve the end-user experience, because what they HAVE done is why they're on top.

Um... they are on the top because they have a monopoly which was obtained and is maintained by unfair buisiness practices.

I find the GNOME Desktop Enviroenment to be very layman-friendly.

They are on top because they beat IBM to the punch in the PC market. IBM would be in Microsoft's position right now if they had managed finish OS/2 and market it to the masses before Windows. It's all about market share.

And I'm mostly referring to applications when I say that. Read this excellent article detailing why open source software sends most users screaming.

Er, setting up cups is a snap. Just start the cups daemon and point your browser to http://localhost:631/...

Freelancer, are you forgetting that time and again Microsoft has been accused of and found guilty of illegal and unfair business practices? Do you even remember like just a few months ago they were ordered to pay millions for infringing on others patents? I'm not saying everything they've done is 100% bad, but there is proof, on the record, of their illegal rise to monopoly and their abuse of that power once they got there.

The man in question is no technical dummy. Look at all the open source software he has contributed to and written. So there goes your theory of it being a rant against CUPS. It's a rant against crappy design inherent in a lot of open source software.

Brian, I am not disputing what MS has done after it rose to power, only how it got there. There was nothing illegal about how MS purchased Xerox's product and beat IBM in the PC race. I do acknowledge there have been problems once they became a monopoly.

Mystic: Freelancer is right. Windows may be a horrible, closed, non-free operating system, but the fact of the matter is it's aimed at people who DON'T WANT TO DO WORK TO MAKE THEIR COMPUTER FUNCTION THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO.

Personally, I work on computers all day. I fix problems caused by USER ERROR. It's not wrong. Windows is a relatively stable and suitable operating system when maintained properly. Yes it takes work to maintain it, but nowhere near as much work as it takes to understand and configure a linux distro.

I understand that Linux / Free Software isn't the most difficult thing in the world to understand. But it is indeed a more difficult process than point, click, done. The problem herein lies in the fact that YOU HAVE CONTROL over every aspect of the software. Most users don't want it. Most users would prefer to click a button and have it do what it's supposed to do automatically. Personally, I prefer it too.

Furthermore, it is silly. There's a need for competition. We live in a capitalist society. Jokes aside, I hope to be filthy stinking rich some day from my developments. I can only wish that I could have all the money in the world (figuratively speaking) to do with as I please. But I'm not going to get there by disclosing the work I do for a company developing say a new microprocessor to its competitor or to the world. It's just not a savvy business move.

I don't know what you intend to do with your life, but if you intend to be doing something involving the development of software / hardware for computers, you'll quickly learn in your coming of age that free software will get you nowhere with your pocket.

Contradiction.... besides, I find it far easier to update Gentoo GNU / Linux than to update Windows. Geez, imagine how hard it would be to do the equivilant of "emerge -uD --newuse world" on a Windows box.

It's much easier to maintain a Gentoo (or Debian...) box than windows, as long as you know what you're doing... and Gentoo happens to be very well documented and supported.

Normal people don't look at documentation, and don't use support channels. You'll find that most users will chuck their computers out the window before the thought even enters their minds. Furthermore, most don't know what they're doing, at all. It's just the way they are. Hence, they'll gravitate toward software that allows them to wallow in their ignorance.

For those idiots, I recommend the Macintosh OS X. It is user friendly and never gives random BSOD's. Too bad MS has a monopoly over distributing Windows on new computers....

You are absolutely right about that, Mystic. I agree 100%.

Technically not true. When i'm not using linux, I run XP Professional Corporate Edition. (never mind how I got it) This is basically xp pro with all the activation stuff stripped out. I can upgrade the hell out of this machine and change it's hardware every day if I wanted to (or was able to) , and I would never see an activation screen.

The only other alternative is for the user to download and run an activation crack if they are stuck with regular XP home or XP pro.

why call somebody an idiot? not everybody is like the select few of us who actually care to know how these damned things work. For most, the computer is a machine to get on the internet so they can 1)check email 2)play stupid spyware infested games 3)look at porn

There isn't any need to understand how to do anything else, and they don't need to.

The fact of the matter is that these "idiots" make up the majority, and if I want to get paid, I'll cator to them. Monopoly or not, Windows is user friendly, and runs all the software they want it to.

Too bad apple chooses to sell their machines with their PROPRIETARY OPERATING SYSTEM for way more than the average user is willing to spend. If macs were cheaper, or the MacOS were ported to PCs, I doubt Microsoft would be in so much of a position. Personally, I detest the MacOS, but it is ridiculously easy to use as long as you don't want to do anything more than the aformentioned internet pr0n searching.

Know what's funny? This thread has imploded in on itself because Mystic0 posted a bunch of nonsense without providing any evidence.

MYTH: "Microsoft 'locked' game development to Windows and hugeboxlol with their PROPRIETARY SDK DIRECTX OMG!"

TRUTH: This is a load of bunk. When DirectX was developed there were no -- repeat, no alternative sound and input libraries for Windows or any other operating system. DirectX was designed to fill a void.
Prior to DirectX, support for specific hardware was coded directly into the game. One of the key features was hardware independence. The onus was on the individual hardware vendor to develop a software driver, while the game developer didn't have to worry about whether or not his game would function.
DirectDraw was meant to replace WinG, GDI, and every other slow and kludgish Windows graphics API. DirectX was not originally designed to contain a 3D library, that functionality was expanded on the request of Windows developers.

Microsoft distributed their own OpenGL library with every version of Windows, at least since the original release of the Game SDK (DirectX 1). Native support for OpenGL was only recent withdrawn when Microsoft realized that OpenGL was being capsized by ATI and NVIDIA constantly bickering.

INTERESTING SIDE-NOTE: Fahrenheit was a collaborative effort on the part of Microsoft and SGI to create a sort of mutant crossbreed of DirectX and OpenGL, but it never materialized for a few reasons. A lot of the work that went into Fahrenheit can be found in modern implementations of D3DX.

Current efforts at unification can be seen in Microsoft's attempts to relabel DirectX as 'XNA', and offer the platform/API to other console providers. As yet there are no announced takers, but it's known that both PCs and the next Xbox will use the platform.

"Designed" you say? More like "bought" and 'evolved".... Does DirectX run on Unix? Is it free software? Can I see the source code? Hm, who owns it?

Oh nos! Microsoft won't release the source code for their own API to the OSS! They must burn in fiery pits of C++ horrors!

Seriously, if this is how open-source people are going to be, I want no part of it. I will be more than willing to wipe my Linux machine clean and stick on Win2K3. I need to learn the ins and outs of that OS too.

Hey guys in the OSS community, not every company is going to open their source just because YOU want it.

For real...

Gotta make money somehow.



And you know, with the bad things a monopoly brings, it also brings alot of GOOD things.



But really..

I'm going to use the OS what runs the majority of the software I use that runs said software with smallest amount of effort on my part. I don't want to spend hours getting something to work. I want it to work outright. 90% of the time, WinXP has done that for me. 10% the time Linux did that for me.

I mean, if I had a spare computer, I'd run linux on it just for downloading. Always did get wicked fast download speeds on linux.

I think times have changed. For "Joe Avarage" it's easier to set up a working ubuntu than Windows. I mean a Windows without any virus and without spyware that runs at a decent speed.

But usually Joe Avarage needs someone to set him up a decent system.


I set up three systems for users that browse the internet, write emails, listen to music, want to get their fotos from a digicam on the pc and chat. Since I set up ubuntu everything works without any problems.

Windows is different. I have to go to them and fix things every now and than.

Windows isn't the number one choice for noobs any more. Since they need someone to install windows for them, and if that person knows how to set up a good linux that can do everything they want that's the better choice for sure.

But Windows is the number one for people who have special needs - like gaming. I have some friends that are quite experienced pc users. They have more problems to use linux than the n00bs.

The friends I installed Linux don't play much. And if they want to play, Q3, UT2k4, NWN and the games that run with winex do their job.

Back to the video card. I think there are a lot of similarities to what I wrote about windows/linux.

If you want to play HL2 and other modern games, that videocard won't be an alternative.
But if you are an avarage user (again: Browse, Chat, music, digicam) you won't spend 200€(~$260) and more for a cutting edge video card like I did.

Less than $100 (75€) are much better And if it will run your desktop smoother, than i think it's a good alternative. But I think we will have to wait till it's released.

I will support it just for the sake of it.
Closed source isn't automatically evil. It's just the standard.

...Why would you need to see the source code of an API?

If you wanted to you could write your own set of DirectX DLLs. In fact, this has been done many times. Additionally, resources to write DirectX drivers are included in the Windows DDK.

Swing and a miss, Mystic0.

I REFUSE TO USE OPENGL BECAUSE ADOBE WON'T RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE TO ACROBAT READER AND THE OPENGL SPECIFICATION WHITEPAPERS ARE ALL IN PDF FILES AND THIS MAKES ME FEEL SAD RARRRGGHGHGH

Um, maybe I want the source code so that I know what it is doing? Would you rather depend on Microsoft and have "faith" that they will well document the API? And for all I know, it could be running survalence on me.

[/b]


Nice try, Jon. You act like only non-free programs, such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, are avalibile for reading PDFs. That's obviously wrong. You know even less than I thought. Ever heard of XPDF ?:rolleyes:

That API is most definitely well documented. You seriously think that Microsoft is just gonna throw out an API and say "here guyz have fun figuring this out!" Hell no. I ws able to play with DirectX libraries and functions. In fact, I'm actually going to have to use DirectAudio for my game programming class. And should you find the documentation from MS unsatisfactory, you think they are the only ones who documented it?

DirectX does surveillance eh? I would really like to learn how to use this part of DirectX. *Google searches "DirectSpy"*

Why does noone critizise me? Why am I ignored? I want to learn too...

Or is it just too stupid that it is not worth beeing commented?

Sorry, I am drunk