Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI participating? Are people actually talking to them about why they don't use it and what has to be done to remedy this fact? Shouldn't this be a top priority?
To clarify: I meant what has to be done to make DRI (direct rendering *infrastructure*) attractive for IHVs. I didn't mean to imply what has to be done to get NVIDIA or ATI to release open source drivers and whatnot.
The uncanny thing is that this is almost EXACTLY my job description. :)
The open source/ closed source discussion has been beaten to death and is irrelevant to this thread.
My point was/is that without NVIDIA or ATI using the DRI infrastructure it is doomed to fail.
Right now both ATI and Kyro are using the infrastructure, but they both has their own internal enhancements. That's why both drivers install their own libGL.so. I'm trying to beef up the GLX support in the open-source libGL.so so that these IHVs no longer need to do this.
What we need to do is open a dialogue with the IHVs to find out what they need. The problem is that there isn't really an authoritative body to have such a discussion. Tungsten probably could do it, and IHVs would probably respond to them, but I think Tungsten already has its hands full with projects that pay the rent. :)
------------------------------------------------------- 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
