On 7/16/07, Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hadn't heard about Matrox having FLOSS drivers for their latest stuff.
IIUC, the Intel chips are only available on mainboards, not expansion cards.
Given their reputation for buggy chips and poor customer support I'll pass.
I have read about ATI/AMD's talking about better support for FLOSS,
but I haven't found actual quotes. I suspect what they mean is better
binary-only drivers. Probably only for Linux, and surely not for any
CPU other than x86/AMD64.
Too many things we're not sure about. Better to not commit.
Maybe something like
We couldn't find any chip newer than the Radeon 9200 with
sufficient documentation to write a fully functional
device driver.
I'm very nervous about saying anything specifically negative about a
specific vendor. I'm there to say positive things about our project.
We can talk negatively in general to explain our frustration and
motivation, but this isn't a political forum where it's common
behavior to bad-mouth the other candidate. Given my limited knowledge
of business, I can understand ATI and nVidia for their attitude. They
want to make a profit, and there are better ways to make profit than
catering to FOSS. It's not my style to go on about how someone or
some company is evil, because motivations are always mixed.
I do like the IDEA you're trying to get across. I just don't want to
be so specific. Feel free to argue otherwise.
And last time I looked, 9200 are only available as PCI and AGP,
no PCIe cards. In this case, maybe you do mention the year the
Radeon 9200 came out, assuming it was long enough ago to sound
obsolete.
This is consistent with my experience too.
An unknown tech word or two probably isn't the end of the world, as
long as you don't overdo it. I assume explaining them would take
too much time.
Here's what it says now:
To avoid feature creep, we've cherry-picked the most important
features from the OpenGL specs from versions 1.3 up to 2.0. Our
result is a fixed-function 3D rasterizer and fragment shader to which
we've added some features, including some 2D features that weren't
specified by the OpenGL requirements.
You don't want to discourage the audience by saying you are
building an open source stone axe. The trick is to find a way
to put a positive spin on something that isn't the latest bleeding
edge, without lying/misleading.
Do you need to include this level of detail in a short general talk?
Maybe spend that time listing things it will do, especially things
that brand X doesn't.
Ok. I'm thinking about that. When I cover OGD1, I'll be mentioning
the dual-head, dual-link.
Could you say just "OpenGL", without providing the version number?
Maybe. But that would be over-stating, no? Some people will assume
that means we support the full latest 2.x spec. Levels of
understanding vary, though. I once had someone ask why we only
support 1.3 and why we couldn't just "download" the 2.0 spec into the
hardware.
I'm thinking that the details aren't needed and would be distracting
in a short general talk. You might want to have a prepared answer
ready, in case someone asks in the Q&A.
Have a look at my next update and see what you think.
> > > The next problem is fabrication. Even if we could design
> > > and finish testing OGA1 infinitely fast, it would still take 6 months
> > > to get chips in our hands.
> >
> > Does it really take 6 months to get a chip fabbed? (once it is layed out
> > and ready to go) This is just everyday vanilla silicon, right? Nothing
> > exotic like bipolar ECL, or Gaas, or bleeding edge feature sizes, ...
>
> I think this isn't JUST fabrication of silicon. I'll verify with Howard.
Maybe 6 months for layout plus fab? If you're fabbing in the far east
and talking production quantities, include a month for shipping by boat.
I assume prototypes would come via air.
I spoke with Howard. Here are a few of the things that have to be done:
- Alter the design to work with the new architecture (change clock
generators, multipliers, block rams, I/Os, etc.)
- Synthesize for the new architecture
- Static timing analysis and rewrites to meet timing
- Multipler iterations of place and route with human involvement
- Scan insertion and test script for testing chips on production line
----
Maybe include something to get the audience thinking about how the
chip/board could solve *their* problem. Invite them to ask if
OGP does/could solve their particular problem. Maybe they don't
care about FLOSS, but do care about purchase price, or power/heat,
or whatever.
True. We expect that most of the embedded customers will not be
concerned about FOSS one way or the other. They'll just want to keep
system and development costs down.
Assuming you're still looking to raise money via OGD sales, maybe list
a few things that OGD might be used for. PCI bus sniffer, etc.
Ah, ok.
You might get questions about the price (OGD, OGC, TRV10).
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
--
Timothy Normand Miller
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~millerti
Open Graphics Project
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
