[Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
bad eg and explanation thereof People aren't stupid they know Intel is trying to play in the graphics arena and is willing to do their own drivers, so they let tehm and do something else. OK but here is my take on it, people will work on what they are interested in, so if someone wants to work on R128 and ATI does give out docs for that chip then they should give it to him. Whats the chance of ATI delegating some of this function to TG, ie just give all their hardware programmers guides etc that they are willing to let people see to TG with the understanding that TG only allow people who should see them to get hold of them. Surely TG can respond quicker than a juggernaut like ATI, and then Jon Smirl would have got his docs already and made some progress. This also makes sense in terms of concentrating development of OSS 3D drivers, allowing for higher productivity through division of labour, knowledge concentration, etc, rather than scattering the docs thinly accross the world to individuals. It doesn't compel those who have no interest in DRI but it sure helps those who do. cheers Liam --- 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
[Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote: >OK but here is my take on it, people will work on what they are >interested in, so if someone wants to work on R128 and ATI does >give out docs for that chip then they should give it to him. > >Whats the chance of ATI delegating some of this function to TG, ie just >give all their hardware programmers guides etc that they are willing to >let people see to TG with the understanding that TG only allow people who >should see them to get hold of them. I think ATI is more than capable of determining who the are and are not willing to provide their hardware specifications to. I of course am not an ATI employee, and I do not know what their detailed reasoning is for access to their hardware specifications, nor do I care really, it's their documentation and they've got their own right to decide who gets what, and under what circumstances. >Surely TG can respond quicker than a juggernaut like ATI, and >then Jon Smirl would have got his docs already and made some >progress. I don't think response time is an issue at all. >This also makes sense in terms of concentrating development of >OSS 3D drivers, allowing for higher productivity through >division of labour, knowledge concentration, etc, rather than >scattering the docs thinly accross the world to individuals. > >It doesn't compel those who have no interest in DRI but it sure >helps those who do. It's a no brainer that the more widely available hardware docs are for any hardware, the more likelyhood of them being put to use by one or more people in the OSS community. That isn't a debateable topic I don't think. This whole issue however has nothing to do with "who is the arbiter of access to vendor foo's documentation". Any particular vendor may or may not permit access to some/all/none of their documentation either freely and publically, or via NDA to specific individuals under whatever criterion they wish to decide upon. A bunch of people whining on a mailing list is not going to change that at all. In general, someone who goes ahead and works on the code and makes improvements WITHOUT a vendor's documentation generally has a better chance at actually getting it. Those who do nothing but whine on mailing lists that they can't do work on the code because they don't have the docs, are more likely to never see them. I don't think that any vendor is planning on providing hardware documentation widespread or to specific individuals based on a popular vote of some mailing list. There are certain realities that people must learn to accept and to deal with, and one of them is that some video hardware vendors do not want to provide any access to their hardware specifications at all. Others don't want their documentation widespread and public for whatever reasons they may have (none of our business really IMHO), but they may want to support the open source community nonetheless, and so they provide access to their documentation under an NDA agreement that they are comfortable with. It allows them to protect whatever it is they're wanting to protect, and it allows open source progress to be made as well. We're lucky to get specifications from any vendor who is willing to provide them to us under _ANY_ terms. I'd love to see more vendors providing specs, and doing so more openly, and preferably without NDAs. Ragging on vendors who do permit access to docs under NDA to people of their choosing, for not providing them to the world, is more likely to dry up access to specs for _EVERYONE_, and make binary only drivers the only way of getting modern hardware to work. In other words, I believe that whining about these certain realities, is equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot. -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat --- 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
[Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:34:27 -0500 (EST) "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote: > > >OK but here is my take on it, people will work on what they are > >interested in, so if someone wants to work on R128 and ATI does > >give out docs for that chip then they should give it to him. > > > >Whats the chance of ATI delegating some of this function to TG, ie just > >give all their hardware programmers guides etc that they are willing to > >let people see to TG with the understanding that TG only allow people > >who should see them to get hold of them. > > I think ATI is more than capable of determining who the are and > are not willing to provide their hardware specifications to. I > of course am not an ATI employee, and I do not know what their > detailed reasoning is for access to their hardware > specifications, nor do I care really, it's their documentation > and they've got their own right to decide who gets what, and > under what circumstances. > > > >Surely TG can respond quicker than a juggernaut like ATI, and > >then Jon Smirl would have got his docs already and made some > >progress. > > I don't think response time is an issue at all. > > >This also makes sense in terms of concentrating development of > >OSS 3D drivers, allowing for higher productivity through > >division of labour, knowledge concentration, etc, rather than > >scattering the docs thinly accross the world to individuals. > > > >It doesn't compel those who have no interest in DRI but it sure > >helps those who do. > > It's a no brainer that the more widely available hardware docs > are for any hardware, the more likelyhood of them being put to > use by one or more people in the OSS community. That isn't a > debateable topic I don't think. This whole issue however has > nothing to do with "who is the arbiter of access to vendor foo's > documentation". > > Any particular vendor may or may not permit access to > some/all/none of their documentation either freely and > publically, or via NDA to specific individuals under whatever > criterion they wish to decide upon. A bunch of people whining on > a mailing list is not going to change that at all. > > In general, someone who goes ahead and works on the code and > makes improvements WITHOUT a vendor's documentation generally has > a better chance at actually getting it. Those who do nothing but > whine on mailing lists that they can't do work on the code > because they don't have the docs, are more likely to never see > them. > > I don't think that any vendor is planning on providing hardware > documentation widespread or to specific individuals based on a > popular vote of some mailing list. There are certain realities > that people must learn to accept and to deal with, and one of > them is that some video hardware vendors do not want to provide > any access to their hardware specifications at all. Others don't > want their documentation widespread and public for whatever > reasons they may have (none of our business really IMHO), but > they may want to support the open source community nonetheless, > and so they provide access to their documentation under an NDA > agreement that they are comfortable with. It allows them to > protect whatever it is they're wanting to protect, and it allows > open source progress to be made as well. We're lucky to get > specifications from any vendor who is willing to provide them to > us under _ANY_ terms. > > I'd love to see more vendors providing specs, and doing so more > openly, and preferably without NDAs. Ragging on vendors who do > permit access to docs under NDA to people of their choosing, for > not providing them to the world, is more likely to dry up access > to specs for _EVERYONE_, and make binary only drivers the only > way of getting modern hardware to work. > > In other words, I believe that whining about these certain > realities, is equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot. Mike you're quite the downer at the moment, been a rough weekend? I couldn't care two hoots about whether or not ATI sits on the hardware documentation or starts distributing it to univertsities as teching aids. What I'm saying is that if they'd decide "gee this document can be released without problem, along with this pile over here and this lot over here can probably be released for use only for writing OSS drivers" then they should go ahead and do it. It would make life a lot simpler for all concerned. Why should people have to fight to get documentation when ATI is in reality quite happy to give out certain docs, but because they have ceated an awkward process. At the end of the day an NDA isn't much protection, eventually the doc will fall into the hands of someone they don't want it to, whether someone has to steal it off someone who has signed a NDA, find it in the trash, bribe the night staff. It pretty much is an all or nothing approach. If they're prepared to relea
[Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Smitty wrote: >> I'd love to see more vendors providing specs, and doing so more >> openly, and preferably without NDAs. Ragging on vendors who do >> permit access to docs under NDA to people of their choosing, for >> not providing them to the world, is more likely to dry up access >> to specs for _EVERYONE_, and make binary only drivers the only >> way of getting modern hardware to work. >> >> In other words, I believe that whining about these certain >> realities, is equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot. > >Mike you're quite the downer at the moment, been a rough weekend? Neither really. ;o) I'm just expressing my opinion on how things are, and what we can realistically expect now, and in the near future, at least from my perspective. I might not be 100% correct, but it's how I see things from my current viewpoint anyway. >I couldn't care two hoots about whether or not ATI sits on the hardware >documentation or starts distributing it to univertsities as teching aids. > >What I'm saying is that if they'd decide "gee this document can >be released without problem, along with this pile over here and >this lot over here can probably be released for use only for >writing OSS drivers" then they should go ahead and do it. Absolutely. I think they'd (any vendor, not just ATI) do that if they really wanted to do that. I think the fact that some vendors do not do that is indicative that they don't want to do that however, or they would. ;o) >It would make life a lot simpler for all concerned. Why should >people have to fight to get documentation when ATI is in reality >quite happy to give out certain docs, but because they have >ceated an awkward process. I don't see it as a fight at all. Aside from the very few vendors who have publically released documentation (such as 3Dfx Voodoo 3, some older Intel docs, etc.), ATI is one of the vendors who provides docs to more people under NDA than any of the other vendors, with the exception of the cards mentioned above and some other older things here and there. In other words, if the alternative to a vendors docs under NDA, is no docs at all from the vendor, I don't think we should complain. >At the end of the day an NDA isn't much protection, eventually >the doc will fall into the hands of someone they don't want it >to, whether someone has to steal it off someone who has signed a >NDA, find it in the trash, bribe the night staff. Well, if people do not honour the NDAs that vendors give, it is a no brainer what will happen. If someone leaks documentation and breaks the NDA and it gets back to the vendor, the vendor is most likely just going to do one of: 1) Not provide documentation to people anymore period 2) Make the NDA more restrictive and provide documentation to less people 3) Provide watermarked docs under NDA to individuals. If docs leak, they can then sue the person who leaked them, as it is obvious due to the watermarking 4) Force developers to work right in the vendor's headquarters in a monitored room with access to docs that don't leave the premises (such as some of the Serverworks IDE work, etc.) >It pretty much is an all or nothing approach. > >If they're prepared to release docs to members of TG, why don't they >release them to TG directly? I really don't understand your point here. You are suggesting that ATI release docs to TG, and then let TG decide who gets them and who does not get them. ATI is capable of deciding who they want having their docs, and if they wanted TG to be the people to decide that, they would ask TG to do that. The fact that that has not taken place means that they are capable of deciding this on their own, and that that is not an option that they consider doing. I don't see the point of it anyway. >What I was doing was putting forward a suggestion that TG may be >able to get docs out of ATI easier (without screwing over ATI in >the preocess). And my suggestion, is that if ATI wanted docs to go into the hands of random open source developers through TG, that they would themselves just give docs to those random open source developers, which is the way it is now. Developers get the docs from ATI, or they do not get the docs from ATI. I completely fail to see how/why/what TG has anything to do with this whatsoever. >It was just a suggestion, maybe after I learn C I'll care, and >argue my points with a lot more conviction. If you do not know C, the documentation would be useless to you in any case. It always seems to be the people who don't even know how to write helloworld.c that are the ones who complain about a vendor like ATI not providing them with hardware documentation that they couldn't do anything but make paper airplanes out of anyway. $0.02 -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat --- This sf.ne
[Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
> >> I'd love to see more vendors providing specs, and doing so more > >> openly, and preferably without NDAs. Ragging on vendors who do > >> permit access to docs under NDA to people of their choosing, for > >> not providing them to the world, is more likely to dry up access > >> to specs for _EVERYONE_, and make binary only drivers the only > >> way of getting modern hardware to work. > >> > >> In other words, I believe that whining about these certain > >> realities, is equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot. > > > >Mike you're quite the downer at the moment, been a rough weekend? > > Neither really. ;o) I'm just expressing my opinion on how > things are, and what we can realistically expect now, and in the > near future, at least from my perspective. I might not be 100% > correct, but it's how I see things from my current viewpoint > anyway. > >I couldn't care two hoots about whether or not ATI sits on the hardware > >documentation or starts distributing it to univertsities as teching > >aids. > > > >What I'm saying is that if they'd decide "gee this document can > >be released without problem, along with this pile over here and > >this lot over here can probably be released for use only for > >writing OSS drivers" then they should go ahead and do it. > > Absolutely. I think they'd (any vendor, not just ATI) do that if > they really wanted to do that. I think the fact that some > vendors do not do that is indicative that they don't want to do > that however, or they would. ;o) I am also implying that they should push those docs into the OSS community rather than make the OSS pull them from ATI. > >It would make life a lot simpler for all concerned. Why should > >people have to fight to get documentation when ATI is in reality > >quite happy to give out certain docs, but because they have > >ceated an awkward process. > > I don't see it as a fight at all. Aside from the very few > vendors who have publically released documentation (such as 3Dfx > Voodoo 3, some older Intel docs, etc.), ATI is one of the vendors > who provides docs to more people under NDA than any of the other > vendors, with the exception of the cards mentioned above and some > other older things here and there. In other words, if the > alternative to a vendors docs under NDA, is no docs at all from > the vendor, I don't think we should complain. Hey ATI is this nicest vendor by far wrt releasing docs / supporting OSS drivers, which is one of the reasons why you should continue to try and get a bit more out of them, I'm not talking to the extent that would damage the comapany here, the end result is OSS drivers for their cards which is hardly a bad thing. > >At the end of the day an NDA isn't much protection, eventually > >the doc will fall into the hands of someone they don't want it > >to, whether someone has to steal it off someone who has signed a > >NDA, find it in the trash, bribe the night staff. > > Well, if people do not honour the NDAs that vendors give, it is a > no brainer what will happen. If someone leaks documentation and > breaks the NDA and it gets back to the vendor, the vendor is most > likely just going to do one of: Ja. > 1) Not provide documentation to people anymore period As I said, all or nothing. > 2) Make the NDA more restrictive and provide documentation to >less people People who violate NDA's don't really care how strict it is. Sort of like: If gun ownership is illegal then only crimanls will have guns. > 3) Provide watermarked docs under NDA to individuals. If docs >leak, they can then sue the person who leaked them, as it is >obvious due to the watermarking Watermarking can be defeated. You can literally retype the entire document in another language with spelling errors. Well at least that's teh first idea that pops into my head > 4) Force developers to work right in the vendor's headquarters in >a monitored room with access to docs that don't leave the >premises (such as some of the Serverworks IDE work, etc.) Is that indentured labour. > >It pretty much is an all or nothing approach. > > > >If they're prepared to release docs to members of TG, why don't they > >release them to TG directly? > > I really don't understand your point here. You are suggesting > that ATI release docs to TG, and then let TG decide who gets them > and who does not get them. ATI is capable of deciding who they > want having their docs, and if they wanted TG to be the people to > decide that, they would ask TG to do that. The fact that that > has not taken place means that they are capable of deciding this > on their own, and that that is not an option that they consider > doing. Assuming they've thought of it, and that they think TG is willing to do it, then they'd ask them. Heck if I was at TG I would probably have put it to ATI to relase docs to TG under whatever agreement they want, why should the docs not all be on hand, it just strikes me
Re: [Dri-devel] Re: future of DRI? -> why no one plays with Glide3. -> documentation.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:34:27 -0500 (EST) "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words, I believe that whining about these certain > realities, is equivalent to shooting one's self in the foot. Do you think saying nothing will result in documentation materialising then? (no, Im not only being sarcastic). How *do* you see vendors behaving in future? will they just 'be' open? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
