jonathan Dinerstein wrote:
> I can agree with your concern, but my worry is such a fork in
> development efforts. It would be like KDE and Gnome ... why spread
> out development efforts and end up with two lesser systems when one
> excellent one could be developed?
Which is a worse fork and requires more effort?
- Putting Mesa and the hardware drivers in Mesa into the OpenGL
sample implementation (then there will be two open source
non-OpenGL libraries that support the OpenGL API, or essentially
two Mesas)
- Taking the good parts of OpenGL SI and working them into Mesa
(keeping things the same except making Mesa stronger)
> In part, I'm thinking about the benefit that could come to OpenGL in general.
> Open source development of OpenGL could be used by any vendor, so work done by
> the Mesa team on OpenGL would benefit more than just Linux users. I dunno, my
> two cents.
You still have to buy the license in order to call it OpenGL, so why not just
buy the license, test Mesa, and ship it with the OpenGL logo?
I really appreciate the open sourcing of the OpenGL SI, but, like the
FAQ says, it's only one piece of a larger puzzle that is hardware
accelerated OpenGL.
-Brad
--
Brad Grantham, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://alt.net/~grantham
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
