As Mike implied, NV doesn't do the DRI precisely BECAUSE fragmentation isn't good. Their primary interest is a single <<unfragmented>> code base for <<NV drivers>> and not a single unfragmented framework for 3D accelerated XFree86!!
Mike
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Daniel Vogel wrote:
Fragmention still isn't good, which brings me back to my original question whether folks are talking to NVIDIA why they aren't using the DRI framework.
I'm sure if Nvidia wanted to use DRI they would do so. What benefit would there be to Nvidia really of ditching their existing infrastructure which is closed source, and switching both their kernel side and userland side code to closed source code which uses the DRI infrastructure?
Their code is also shared between Windows and I believe Macintosh, and DRI is not available on those platforms.
I don't see exactly what you mean by fragmentation. 2 vendors using closed source code aren't fragmenting anything except for their own internal interests. The drivers are a black box really, and could be using any kind of interface, be it DRI, or some proprietary solution. It neither helps nor hinders the DRI project really.
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
