From: David J. <dj...@ho...> - 2001-09-27 19:29:35
|
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P><BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: Gareth Hughes <GARETH.HUGHES@ACM.ORG> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>To: dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Radeon 8500, what's the plan? <DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:05:13 -0700 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Dacobi Coding wrote: <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>> <DIV></DIV>>>But are they planing to, or have they allready releaced the specs <DIV></DIV>>>for the new Radeon chips? And I mean full specs complete <DIV></DIV>>>with V/P Shaders and TL? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Did they ever release specs for the original Radeon? No. One would <DIV></DIV>>guess the same policy will apply in this case as well. <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They did release specs (under NDA) to many people (including yourself through PI/VA Linux).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>David</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html> |
From: David J. <dj...@ho...> - 2001-09-27 20:02:34
|
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P><BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: "Daniel Vogel" <VOGEL@EPICGAMES.COM> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>To: <DRI-DEVEL@LISTS.SOURCEFORGE.NET> <DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: [Dri-devel] Radeon 8500, what's the plan? <DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:51:31 -0400 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> > They did release specs (under NDA) to many people <DIV></DIV>> > (including yourself through PI/VA Linux). <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Keep in mind that ATI was paying VA Linux to develop Radeon Linux drivers at <DIV></DIV> <P>>the time. </P> <P> </P> <P>Sure, but they weren't paying Xi Graphics or Be (whose Radeon driver never made a public release due to the demise of BeOS).</P> <P> </P> <P>David</P> <P> </P> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>- Daniel Vogel, Programmer, Epic Games Inc. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>_______________________________________________ <DIV></DIV>>Dri-devel mailing list <DIV></DIV>>Dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html> |
From: David J. <dj...@ho...> - 2001-09-27 20:19:55
|
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P><BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: Gareth Hughes <GARETH.HUGHES@ACM.ORG> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>To: dri...@li... <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Radeon 8500, what's the plan? <DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:56:53 -0700 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>David Johnson wrote: <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>> <DIV></DIV>>>They did release specs (under NDA) to many people (including <DIV></DIV>>>yourself <DIV></DIV>>>through PI/VA Linux). <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Sure, but not to people in the general open source community, and <DIV></DIV>>with the demise of PI/VA, I would say the chances of a driver done <DIV></DIV>>by anyone other than ATI are slim to nil. Isn't that what we're <DIV></DIV> <P>>talking about? </P> <P> </P> <P>Sure, that is a valid point but we need to remember that in the past ATI has not been adverse to supporting open source drivers or to releasing specs to qualified people. I have no clue what ATI's plans are for supporting Linux for new chips but should some 3rd party come along capable of producing a driver I think it is reasonable to assume they might make the information available.</P> <P>David</P> <DIV> </DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html> |
From: Peter S. <shu...@pa...> - 2001-09-27 21:57:11
|
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:19:46PM +0000, David Johnson wrote: > Sure, that is a valid point but we need to remember that in the past > ATI has not been adverse to supporting open source drivers or to > releasing specs to qualified people.=20 They are very friendly actually. They provided me mach64 and r128 docs (und= er NDA) within 24 hours after I registered with them (last week). Although I m= ust confess I've been recommended, it still shows that they are completely OK. I don't see any problems on the communication level, perhaps now that less people get paid for developing the drivers the pace will slow down, but not stop. What developers can do is to recommend ATI cards to end-users, so there is larger need for the drivers and larger chance someone would be willing to p= ay for them. Bye, Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <shu...@pa...>, ICQ 10236103, +436505= 122023 -- Dudes! May the Open Source be with you. |
From: Jeffrey W. B. <jw...@ac...> - 2001-09-27 22:18:12
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Peter Surda wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 08:19:46PM +0000, David Johnson wrote: > > Sure, that is a valid point but we need to remember that in the past > > ATI has not been adverse to supporting open source drivers or to > > releasing specs to qualified people. > They are very friendly actually. They provided me mach64 and r128 docs (under > NDA) within 24 hours after I registered with them (last week). Although I must > confess I've been recommended, it still shows that they are completely OK. I > don't see any problems on the communication level, perhaps now that less > people get paid for developing the drivers the pace will slow down, but not > stop. > > What developers can do is to recommend ATI cards to end-users, so there is > larger need for the drivers and larger chance someone would be willing to pay > for them. It seems to me that Linux drivers are an area where ati can claim some advantage over nvidia. If ati developed a really hot linux driver package for the 8500, and released the source code, they would probably claim a very large share of the Linux 3d and game market, such as it is. Today, there is absolutely no reason to buy the radeon 8500 if you use linux. 2d is barely there, 3d is definitely not there. If your choice was limited to geforce3 and the radeon 8500 for 3d, you would definitely go with the geforce, because it is the only one that currently works. Problem: I don't think the linux game and 3d market can support the driver development. Let's pretend that 1 full-time employee could produce the radeon 8500 driver in 6 months. Let us also pretend that it costs, in total, US$250,000 to employ this genius. Finally, let's assume that an open driver buys ati 100% of the linux market. Is that market big enough to offset the $250,000? Depends on ati's margins but my instinct says no, or maybe barely. -jwb |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-09-28 07:11:05
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: >> What developers can do is to recommend ATI cards to end-users, so there is >> larger need for the drivers and larger chance someone would be willing to pay >> for them. > >It seems to me that Linux drivers are an area where ati can claim some >advantage over nvidia. If ati developed a really hot linux driver package >for the 8500, and released the source code, they would probably claim a >very large share of the Linux 3d and game market, such as it is. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with that, but I do want to point out something important. There currently isn't any large Linux 3D game market. Myself, and others reading this likely _want_ that to happen, yes. Hoqwcwe - there currently is no steaming cash cow of games in Linux, or general 3D in Linux - yet. I think the foundation is seriously there yes. DRI is IMHO one of the most successful advanced open source projects right now. For it to continue to succeed, people need to purchase products from those that are or were funding the development of DRI. >Today, there is absolutely no reason to buy the radeon 8500 if >you use linux. That is not true. And words like that are exactly what works _against_ progress of DRI and open source video drivers. >2d is barely there, 3d is definitely not there. The hardware is not publically available yet to my knowledge, except for developers, however fully functioning 2D drivers have just been submitted to XFree86 CVS by ATI. I have tested them, and find they work well. ATI did this open source work in house, and they contributed it to XFree86. That development definitely cost them money I would presume. The specs for that hardware is available to developers under the exact same circumstances of previous ATI hardware - no change. And the Radeon 8500 drivers work fairly well IMHO for being just released. There is no reason to believe they wont continue to be well supported. Support future development buy purchasing their existing well supported hardware. >If your choice was limited to geforce3 and the radeon 8500 for >3d, you would definitely go with the geforce, because it is the >only one that currently works. I would go with the Radeon 64 for 3D. It is open source. Different people have different requirements though. >Problem: I don't think the linux game and 3d market can support the driver >development. Let's pretend that 1 full-time employee could produce the >radeon 8500 driver in 6 months. Let us also pretend that it costs, in >total, US$250,000 to employ this genius. Finally, let's assume that an >open driver buys ati 100% of the linux market. Is that market big enough >to offset the $250,000? Depends on ati's margins but my instinct says no, >or maybe barely. While your numbers are speculative, I believe the point you're making in the last paragraph is quite accurate. It more or less boils down IMHO to - if people want _real_ hardware support either implemented by their vendor, or contracted out - there _has_ to be a market for that vendor to make money. In the case of 3D, that means there has to be a much larger 3D market in Linux. How big "much" is, is only known to each of the respective hardware vendors. Another thing to consider is this: How does a hardware vendor *know* what operating system and/or software you are using/buying when you purchase their hardware? In general, unless you tell them personally somehow, tell your distributor, tell your computer store where you buy all your hardware, etc. That info - 'marketing data' - does not make the connection back to the vendor. The only data the vendor gets (I am totally guessing here) that indicates actual hardware purchase for a given OS, is in premade preinstalled systems. Workstations and desktops. IMHO, before 3D is widely used in Linux on a largescale, 2D desktop and workstation usage needs to raise high enough that hardware vendors see themselves making enough money to more than cover their R&D costs of supporting Linux/open source. If we _all_ do do our part by supporting vendors that offer us good level of open source support right now, perhaps they wont offer the same levels of support in the future as they have in the past. I strongly recommend that everyone vote with their wallet. That is the best way to not only ensure the future of graphics in Linux, but to expediate it. Take care, TTYL P.S. The viewpoints, and opinions expressed above are solely my own, and do not reflect the views of anyone else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ro...@do...:~# rm -f /bin/laden |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-09-28 05:32:17
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Peter Surda wrote: >> Sure, that is a valid point but we need to remember that in the past >> ATI has not been adverse to supporting open source drivers or to >> releasing specs to qualified people. > >They are very friendly actually. They provided me mach64 and r128 docs (under >NDA) within 24 hours after I registered with them (last week). Although I must >confess I've been recommended, it still shows that they are completely OK. I >don't see any problems on the communication level, perhaps now that less >people get paid for developing the drivers the pace will slow down, but not >stop. > >What developers can do is to recommend ATI cards to end-users, so there is >larger need for the drivers and larger chance someone would be willing to pay >for them. I think your final comment here Peter really hits the nail on the head. In all honesty, *any* level of support for Linux from any hardware vendor - currently does not generate enough revenue to barely cover costs involved in developing the drivers. That may vary from vendor to vendor, but I'll bet it is more or less true. As such, if a vendor is going to support Linux at all - or more generally open source, everyone needs to be greatful to the companies that do provide the information needed to implement drivers - be it under strict NDA, minor NDA, or completely gratis no strings attached. And when I say NDA - I mean NDA that allows the resulting code to be released into XFree86, etc.. In general - for any vendor to allow a small but organized group of people access to information needed - who are well motivated, and proven capable of implementing drivers is fantastic. In order for a vendor to write drivers themselves, or fund development under contract - or even a 3rd party to fund such development, there needs to be some benefit to that vendor for supporting such an effort. If that happens, great! If a particular driver development does not get funded, it is entirely possible that whoever would be a potential funder of such - might not see a return on their investment. In other words. If any large group of people want any vendor to fund support for a given product, then support that company by buying their existing supported products, and be sure to mention that you are purchasing it for use in Linux. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ro...@do...:~# rm -f /bin/laden |
From: David B. <dbr...@li...> - 2001-09-28 06:20:33
|
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:32:16 Mike A. Harris wrote: > I think your final comment here Peter really hits the nail on the > head. In all honesty, *any* level of support for Linux from any > hardware vendor - currently does not generate enough revenue to > barely cover costs involved in developing the drivers. That may > vary from vendor to vendor, but I'll bet it is more or less true. If you look at it from a purely monentary point of view, yes, you are most likely correct. However, one has to remember that a LOT of people that run Linux are "computer people" that users rely upon for advice. What card will we suggest, a card whose manufacturer actively supports linux, or a manufacturer that's like SiS? Once you take this factor into account, there's a completely different kind of analysis needed. David Bronaugh |
From: Peter S. <shu...@pa...> - 2001-09-28 14:36:24
|
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:21:37PM -0700, David Bronaugh wrote: > If you look at it from a purely monentary point of view, yes, you are most > likely correct. Not only from monetary point of view. > However, one has to remember that a LOT of people that run Linux are > "computer people" that users rely upon for advice. What card will we > suggest, a card whose manufacturer actively supports linux,=20 Yeah, which one supports open source driver development more than ATI? This isn't a flame, I really want to find out, I need a card that has all the features I want supported (xv, tvout, 2d, opengl, video capture, DMA). Currently from my point of view ATI's card suit me the best. Video capture isn't there yet, but the developers do have enough docs and are working on = it. > Once you take this factor into account, there's a completely different ki= nd > of analysis needed. Well, the larger the userbase (of ATI linux users), the larger the potential developer base even if no money is in play. Developers get more bug reports and more beta testers. A month ago, I was a angry user that wanted some features supported, now I'= m a happy developer who actually did add some of them, and ATI supports me with docs. Sure I'd be happy if someone gave me money, but a lack thereof isn't going to stop my development. > David Bronaugh Bye, Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <shu...@pa...>, ICQ 10236103, +436505= 122023 -- NT, now approaching 23x6 availability. |
From: Carl B. <afn...@af...> - 2001-09-28 15:30:21
|
I have to disagree. If people are really concered about performance they should be using Linux anyway. What David said is also true. I'm not going to reccomend a company that doesn't support Linux. We also know that Online games require good bandwidth, and the Linux tcp/ip stack just tears up anything you can get from Microsoft. Linux could EASILY become the de facto gaming operating system. Mike A. Harris wrote: >On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Peter Surda wrote: > >>> Sure, that is a valid point but we need to remember that in the past >>> ATI has not been adverse to supporting open source drivers or to >>> releasing specs to qualified people. >>> >>They are very friendly actually. They provided me mach64 and r128 docs (under >>NDA) within 24 hours after I registered with them (last week). Although I must >>confess I've been recommended, it still shows that they are completely OK. I >>don't see any problems on the communication level, perhaps now that less >>people get paid for developing the drivers the pace will slow down, but not >>stop. >> >>What developers can do is to recommend ATI cards to end-users, so there is >>larger need for the drivers and larger chance someone would be willing to pay >>for them. >> > >I think your final comment here Peter really hits the nail on the >head. In all honesty, *any* level of support for Linux from any >hardware vendor - currently does not generate enough revenue to >barely cover costs involved in developing the drivers. That may >vary from vendor to vendor, but I'll bet it is more or less true. > >As such, if a vendor is going to support Linux at all - or more >generally open source, everyone needs to be greatful to the >companies that do provide the information needed to implement >drivers - be it under strict NDA, minor NDA, or completely gratis >no strings attached. And when I say NDA - I mean NDA that allows >the resulting code to be released into XFree86, etc.. > >In general - for any vendor to allow a small but organized group >of people access to information needed - who are well motivated, >and proven capable of implementing drivers is fantastic. > >In order for a vendor to write drivers themselves, or fund >development under contract - or even a 3rd party to fund such >development, there needs to be some benefit to that vendor for >supporting such an effort. If that happens, great! If a >particular driver development does not get funded, it is entirely >possible that whoever would be a potential funder of such - might >not see a return on their investment. > >In other words. If any large group of people want any vendor to >fund support for a given product, then support that company by >buying their existing supported products, and be sure to mention >that you are purchasing it for use in Linux. > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: >OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, >XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 >Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 >http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris > >Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... >General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >ro...@do...:~# rm -f /bin/laden > > >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-09-30 04:25:04
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Carl Busjahn wrote: >Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:30:11 -0400 >From: Carl Busjahn <afn...@af...> >To: dri...@li... >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: Re: Re: Radeon 8500, what's the plan? > >I have to disagree. If people are really concered about performance >they should be using Linux anyway. That is not disagreeing. ;o) I agree, people concerned about performance should be using Linux. >What David said is also true. I'm not going to reccomend a >company that doesn't support Linux. We also know that Online >games require good bandwidth, and the Linux tcp/ip stack just >tears up anything you can get from Microsoft. Linux could >EASILY become the de facto gaming operating system. Yes, it could become that. In order for that to happen though, certain things need to occur, including: 1) Companies such as Loki, and others need to have a large enough market to sell to in order to remain profitable. 2) People have to actually *buy* those games. 3) Drivers have to exist to push the hardware For it to truely be successful, drivers need to be released for the hardware at the same time as they are released for other platforms such as Windows. For that to happen, the hardware vendor has to believe they will see a return on their investments to write those drivers or pay someone to do so. If they do envision the market as being there, or at least recovering their development costs, then they wont likely write drivers. Simple economics IMHO. Any totally open source driven project to write such from the ground up, even with specs, is going to trail behind Windows-land in a game of catch up. There has to be a 'big enough' market to drive things to happen. I fully believe that Linux has the potential to become a screaming game platform, but that is something that is in the future - maybe 6 months, maybe a year, maybe 3 years. Who knows. Right now, there isn't a lineup of people outside Walmart running to buy Linux games though, and so it makes sense that hardware vendors are going to allocate less resources to making these things happen. Again, the potential is there, yes. The actual reality is that the people who are interested in Linux games succeeding right now seem to be a small group (yourself, and myself, and probably a number of people in the list here for example). Me and you, and the others who want to see games succeed, do not quite seem to stimulate enough interest, or revenue to make it worthwhile for someone to fund development. I have faith that this will indeed change. When is hard to say. What can we do to change this? 1) Buy all of Loki's games. If you plan on buying a new game, and a Linux version is available - get it instead of the Windows version. Same for other companies making games for Linux. 2) Buy hardware from vendors supporting open source, and let them know what you're using it for. The more people who do #1 and #2, the sooner the market will expand to a mass that is critical enough for hardware vendors to envision making some serious returns for their investments in writing drivers, or funding driver development. Just some more food for thought.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ro...@do...:~# rm -f /bin/laden |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-02 21:36:21
|
** well, let's see how many flames I can generate with this.. ** On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Mike A. Harris wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Carl Busjahn wrote: > > >Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:30:11 -0400 > >From: Carl Busjahn <afn...@af...> > >To: dri...@li... > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > >List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> > >Subject: Re: Re: Radeon 8500, what's the plan? > > > >I have to disagree. If people are really concered about performance > >they should be using Linux anyway. > > That is not disagreeing. ;o) I agree, people concerned about > performance should be using Linux. > > >What David said is also true. I'm not going to reccomend a > >company that doesn't support Linux. We also know that Online > >games require good bandwidth, and the Linux tcp/ip stack just > >tears up anything you can get from Microsoft. Linux could > >EASILY become the de facto gaming operating system. > > Yes, it could become that. In order for that to happen though, > certain things need to occur, including: > > 1) Companies such as Loki, and others need to have a large > enough market to sell to in order to remain profitable. > 2) People have to actually *buy* those games. > 3) Drivers have to exist to push the hardware > > For it to truely be successful, drivers need to be released for > the hardware at the same time as they are released for other > platforms such as Windows. For that to happen, the hardware > vendor has to believe they will see a return on their investments > to write those drivers or pay someone to do so. If they do > envision the market as being there, or at least recovering their > development costs, then they wont likely write drivers. Simple > economics IMHO. Any totally open source driven project to write > such from the ground up, even with specs, is going to trail > behind Windows-land in a game of catch up. > > There has to be a 'big enough' market to drive things to happen. > I fully believe that Linux has the potential to become a > screaming game platform, but that is something that is in the > future - maybe 6 months, maybe a year, maybe 3 years. Who knows. > > Right now, there isn't a lineup of people outside Walmart running > to buy Linux games though, and so it makes sense that hardware > vendors are going to allocate less resources to making these > things happen. > > Again, the potential is there, yes. The actual reality is that > the people who are interested in Linux games succeeding right now > seem to be a small group (yourself, and myself, and probably a > number of people in the list here for example). Me and you, and > the others who want to see games succeed, do not quite seem to > stimulate enough interest, or revenue to make it worthwhile for > someone to fund development. I have faith that this will indeed > change. When is hard to say. > > What can we do to change this? > > 1) Buy all of Loki's games. If you plan on buying a new game, > and a Linux version is available - get it instead of the > Windows version. Same for other companies making games for > Linux. One point that I think has been missed is that while Open Source in general (and Linux, in particular) improves a lot user and developer experience, the binaries get even less value than in Windows. The reason is that when I get binary-only game in Windows, I can at least play it (and reasonably hope that it will still play in future releases). With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to fix something I paid money for). I would say that with Linux, the proper business model should be not "release binary game", but "provide artwork for an existing engine". I.e. have Open Source game engine (bet it Q3 like or Civilization like) and sell artwork for it - artwork which does not crash because of a newer library version. > > 2) Buy hardware from vendors supporting open source, and let them > know what you're using it for. This I agree with - but I would add "supporting with Open Source drivers". Even if you are not buying for Linux consider this: * you might want to install Linux on it in a few years * generally, hardware with Linux drivers is of higher quality - and if not you can easily find snide comments from developers about it. If source code to a driver is available you can take a look at it and have the general idea about how well the hardware will perform. without source the company is free to market it as they wish and blame Windows for poor perfomance. Vladimir Dergachev > > The more people who do #1 and #2, the sooner the market will > expand to a mass that is critical enough for hardware vendors to > envision making some serious returns for their investments in > writing drivers, or funding driver development. > > Just some more food for thought.. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: > OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, > XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 > Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 > http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris > > Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... > General open IRC discussion: #xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ro...@do...:~# rm -f /bin/laden > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: David S. M. <da...@re...> - 2001-10-02 21:46:30
|
From: vo...@mi... Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:39:25 -0400 (EDT) I would say that with Linux, the proper business model should be not "release binary game", but "provide artwork for an existing engine". I.e. have Open Source game engine (bet it Q3 like or Civilization like) and sell artwork for it - artwork which does not crash because of a newer library version. Yep, as soon as companies like ID stop enjoying licensing fees on the order of a million US dollars a shot for the rights to use these engines :-) Be a realist, there is a lot of money in game engine licensing. So it is very unlikely companies will just stop doing so today to make Linux game releases easier. The onus is more so on distribution makers to get the libraries all compatible and in sync. But to be honest I've never run into the library problems you mention at least amongst the same vendor. So for example, I've installed vanilla Loki Quake3 from the CD on everything from a Red Hat 6.2 7.1 with no problems. All of the point releases from ID installed fine as well. Franks a lot, David S. Miller da...@re... |
From: Peter S. <shu...@pa...> - 2001-10-03 01:19:15
|
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:40:18PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: >> Actually I think there is a "golden middle way" and ID actually showed it >> too. Release binary games and when some time passes and they see no mon= ey >> in engine licenses and maintaining the patches is too costly, release it >> under GPL (see quake1). > Sure, if people don't mind getting a Linux version until several years > later. This is actually a different topic. Q3 was available about the same time on all platforms BTW. > I thought this conversation was about Loki releasing Linux versions > of current generation games. I thought the conversation was about why and which games and cards to buy? = My opinion is to buy ATI cards because they have the best support for open sou= rce developers and to buy Loki games because they do a good job and also make n= eat open-source stuff (e.g. SDL) as by-products. =20 By not supporting Loki you are deminishing the chance anyone will ever sell any Linux games, old or new. I think that it isn't such a big problem for an enthusiastic Linux developer to do a little more support than to write programs and docs :-). BTW you are apparently cc-ing emails to "dri...@li..." (missing "t"). Bye, Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <shu...@pa...>, ICQ 10236103, +436505= 122023 -- Dudes! May the Open Source be with you. |
From: David S. M. <da...@re...> - 2001-10-03 01:23:48
|
From: Peter Surda <shu...@pa...> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:19:04 +0200 > I thought this conversation was about Loki releasing Linux versions > of current generation games. I thought the conversation was about why and which games and cards to buy? The thread I responded to was talking about releasing source to the game engine to deal with "compatibility issues" between Linux versions and distributions. It was pretty much agreed that, given how much licensing money companies make from the engines, it is unreasonable to expect this to happen "at release" time. Actually.... I fail to realize why I even posted anything, as most of postings here on this topic are full of pretty bogus ideas. Maybe a a few of these "way out there" ideas would have a fighting chance during the big tech bubble of last year, but now with the current cash crunch... it's totally unlikely. Franks a lot, David S. Miller da...@re... |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 01:56:06
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > From: vo...@mi... > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:39:25 -0400 (EDT) > > I would say that with Linux, the proper business model should be not > "release binary game", but "provide artwork for an existing engine". > I.e. have Open Source game engine (bet it Q3 like or Civilization like) > and sell artwork for it - artwork which does not crash because of a newer > library version. > > Yep, as soon as companies like ID stop enjoying licensing fees on the > order of a million US dollars a shot for the rights to use these > engines :-) Hmm, I did not know about this. > > Be a realist, there is a lot of money in game engine licensing. So it Still, they sell engines to companies not people. So a NPL-like license would allow the end user to have the code and let them collect royalties as well. But, you are right: ID might be afraid to open the product that pays well. On the other hand, you mentioned millions - how about other companies teaming up and financing a project ala XFree ? You know, for millions of dollars... Unless, of course, ID has patents. > is very unlikely companies will just stop doing so today to make Linux > game releases easier. > > The onus is more so on distribution makers to get the libraries all > compatible and in sync. > > But to be honest I've never run into the library problems you mention > at least amongst the same vendor. So for example, I've installed > vanilla Loki Quake3 from the CD on everything from a Red Hat 6.2 > 7.1 with no problems. All of the point releases from ID installed > fine as well. I had few problems with (demo) quake as well. But Quake isn't my game. When I looked at Civ III it said something about requiring special Xservers - and I decided to stick with Windows version that I already paid for. Vladimir Dergachev > > Franks a lot, > David S. Miller > da...@re... > |
From: Damien M. <dj...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 00:12:16
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat > 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very > graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single > Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be > dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little > I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to > fix something I paid money for). That's just not true. I still run the quake2 binary release which I first used on Redhat 5.something on Redhat 7.1. Quake3 runs better on my Redhat Frankenstein Roswell/Rawhide workstation than it did on Redhat 6.2. -d -- | Damien Miller <dj...@mi...> \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's | http://www.mindrot.org / distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 02:12:11
|
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Damien Miller wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > > > With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat > > 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very > > graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single > > Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be > > dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little > > I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to > > fix something I paid money for). > > That's just not true. I still run the quake2 binary release which I first > used on Redhat 5.something on Redhat 7.1. Quake3 runs better on my Redhat > Frankenstein Roswell/Rawhide workstation than it did on Redhat 6.2. > I was mostly concerned about Civ III and Might and Magic. Admittedly, (after taking another look now) the recommendations about using special XFree drivers are not there anymore. Perhaps, I'll reconsider and buy some (at least Might and Magic). The windows requirement that I keep the CD in is pretty lame: CDs add to my backpack weight considerably, and, besides, what's the full install for ? On the other hand, perhaps, I should give a try to writing a game engine myself. Vladimir Dergachev > -d > > -- > | Damien Miller <dj...@mi...> \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's > | http://www.mindrot.org / distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer > |
From: Leif D. <lde...@re...> - 2001-10-03 03:58:34
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > On the other hand, perhaps, I should give a try to writing a game engine > myself. I know of at least one open-source (LGPL) engine in development: Crystal Space (http://crystal.linuxgames.com). It's a very ambitious project which aims to be a complete, general-purpose, cross-platform engine. I've looked at the demos and it looks very interesting. The success of a project like this would be a big boon to gaming on Linux and other "alternative" OSes. I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. ;) -- Leif Delgass |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 04:39:59
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Leif Delgass wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > > > On the other hand, perhaps, I should give a try to writing a game engine > > myself. > > I know of at least one open-source (LGPL) engine in development: Crystal > Space (http://crystal.linuxgames.com). It's a very ambitious project Thanks for the pointer :) I was thinking more in terms of 2.1+1d pure software engine - think cartoons. In the end, Quake has already been done. (by +1 I mean time-monotonic rendering. So that if a figure moves left the corresponding points cannot move to the right, though they may stay in the same place. Would be fun figuring out proper algorithms..) Vladimir Dergachev > which aims to be a complete, general-purpose, cross-platform engine. I've > looked at the demos and it looks very interesting. The success of a > project like this would be a big boon to gaming on Linux and other > "alternative" OSes. I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. ;) > > -- > Leif Delgass > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 13:32:03
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Damien Miller wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 vo...@mi... wrote: > > > > > With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat > > > 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very > > > graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single > > > Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be > > > dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little > > > I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to > > > fix something I paid money for). > > > > That's just not true. I still run the quake2 binary release which I first > > used on Redhat 5.something on Redhat 7.1. Quake3 runs better on my Redhat > > Frankenstein Roswell/Rawhide workstation than it did on Redhat 6.2. > > > > I was mostly concerned about Civ III and Might and Magic. Admittedly, > (after taking another look now) the recommendations about using special > XFree drivers are not there anymore. Perhaps, I'll reconsider and buy > some (at least Might and Magic). The windows requirement that I keep the > CD in is pretty lame: CDs add to my backpack weight considerably, and, > besides, what's the full install for ? > > On the other hand, perhaps, I should give a try to writing a game engine > myself. > And the other app that always worked for me is Maple. Though I would have preferred to have source. Vladimir Dergachev > Vladimir Dergachev > > > -d > > > > -- > > | Damien Miller <dj...@mi...> \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's > > | http://www.mindrot.org / distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Nathan H. <na...@ma...> - 2001-10-04 22:30:25
|
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:39:25PM -0400, vo...@mi... wrote: > With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat > 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very > graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single > Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be > dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little > I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to > fix something I paid money for). Now this is interesting. I've bought all the Loki games. And I do mean ALL the Loki games. I've also got many Windows/DOS games. This is just my nature. I reckon 50% of the Windows/DOS games no longer work. This isn't a DOS only thing either. I have Windows games like Dark Reign that refuse to work with the latest DirectX. With XP I've been told all of my DOS games will just stop working. The whole DOS concept has been ripped out of XP. So I'm stuck with 98SE if I want to play the DOS games. 98SE is end-of-life'd this year. So if the most popular OS company in the world cannot deliver a stable platform to run games on - and I got Dark Reign only 3 years ago - why do you expect more from Linux? My alternative is of course to have a dedicated DOS-only box, just for games. I know perps who play the old Sierra adventures this way. So if people are willing to do this for DOS surely they're willing to have a Linux 2.2 system just for running Linux games? Not likely! The Linux system is no worse than the Microsoft system as far as games are concerned. This is why it is much more sensible to use consoles. I am at least then assured that the game will work. -- The more I know about the WIN32 API the more I dislike it. It is complex and for the most part poorly designed, inconsistent, and poorly documented. - David Korn |
From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-07 05:14:07
|
Ok, ok, you persuaded me to be more open in this regard :) Though, still, I would have preferred the source.. Vladimir Dergachev On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Nathan Hand wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:39:25PM -0400, vo...@mi... wrote: > > With linux, it will say something along the lines of "works with Redhat > > 6.2". (take a look at many CAD packages, for example - they are _not_ very > > graphics intensive). Games are even trickier. I have not bought a single > > Loki game for this reason: once I upgrade to new libraries or X it will be > > dead weight. And if it crashes because of incompatibility there is little > > I can do to fix it. (And no, I am not going to waddle thru machine code to > > fix something I paid money for). > > Now this is interesting. I've bought all the Loki games. And I do mean > ALL the Loki games. I've also got many Windows/DOS games. This is just > my nature. > > I reckon 50% of the Windows/DOS games no longer work. This isn't a DOS > only thing either. I have Windows games like Dark Reign that refuse to > work with the latest DirectX. > > With XP I've been told all of my DOS games will just stop working. The > whole DOS concept has been ripped out of XP. So I'm stuck with 98SE if > I want to play the DOS games. 98SE is end-of-life'd this year. > > So if the most popular OS company in the world cannot deliver a stable > platform to run games on - and I got Dark Reign only 3 years ago - why > do you expect more from Linux? > > My alternative is of course to have a dedicated DOS-only box, just for > games. I know perps who play the old Sierra adventures this way. So if > people are willing to do this for DOS surely they're willing to have a > Linux 2.2 system just for running Linux games? Not likely! > > The Linux system is no worse than the Microsoft system as far as games > are concerned. This is why it is much more sensible to use consoles. I > am at least then assured that the game will work. > > -- > The more I know about the WIN32 API the more I dislike it. It is complex and > for the most part poorly designed, inconsistent, and poorly documented. > - David Korn > > > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Steve U. <st...@in...> - 2001-09-28 17:01:22
|
Gareth Hughes wrote: > Sure, but not to people in the general open source community, and with > the demise of PI/VA, I would say the chances of a driver done by anyone > other than ATI are slim to nil. Isn't that what we're talking about? I agree that the general open source community is not a viable solution, either in terms of its capability or in the willingness of IHV's to release specs to such an audience. But there are still quite a few 3rd party companies with expertise comparable to PI/VA that are still in operation. For example, Intelligraphics recently completed a project that runs a Windows OpenGL client on the DRI framework for non-consumer HW used in flight simulation. I don't see the "chances" of a driver being much less without PI/VA. As before, it all comes down to money. If the general open source community is a large enough market or exerts enough influence upon an IHV's bottom line, then that IHV will act. Decisions such as using internal resources, outsourcing, and opening the source are up to the IHV and will go one way or the other. Steve Urquhart |
From: Steven P. L. <a8...@mu...> - 2001-09-29 18:50:36
|
I just installed Slackware 8 with XFree86 4.1.0 and I've come across some weirdness with glxgears. When I'm running a window manager everything is fine but when I don't run a window manager I get a much higher frame rate but what I see is some garbage with a piece of a large red gear. Is this a known problem? Has it been fixed if I download a newer version of DRI? If you need more info let me know. Steven Lilly |