> From: David Bronaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002-01-17 23:11:46
>
>
> >Perhaps a good idea here would be to have some sort of a function
> >documentation tracking project.. I have been doing a hell of a lot of
> PHP
>
> See above text why function documentation is not necessarily
Okay, even though I promised to myself to not reply back, I will because
I respect some of the the DRI developers and what they have to say. After all when my
OpenGL apps run on Linux, they use their codes!
So I put a few hours worth of time into this email. If the DRI is of concern to you,
p
> Regarding CVS access, Brian, I get email from people, and I talk to
> those people that have shown some investment. I've only added one or two
> people. My stock answer when asked is that you should submit a patch or
> two before we give access. Now one has. For the few people that have
> shown
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:15:32PM -0800, Gareth Hughes wrote:
> To continue the comparisons with the kernel, how much documentation
> do you think there is on the bleeding-edge work being done by the
> core developers? Is there a "How To Hack On The New 2.4.10 VM"
> document anywhere? Or "Ten
I think microsoft is trying to kill DRI. It is a big threat to all their products. If
the open source community can offer good 3d graphics at low cost then their system
will suffer a good loss in market share.
On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 01:06:05 AM, David Johnson wrote:
> >Of course we don
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 01:06:05AM +, David Johnson wrote:
| I actually disagree. I suspect they are more likely to be software patents.
| I don't think Microsoft has any intentions on becoming a chip
| designer/manufacturer or even a hardware manufacturer.
I don't know whether MS wants
>Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
>terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
>primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is interested in covering its
>potential liabilities as it moves into the hardware market (though XBox,
>Homestat
Ian D Romanick wrote:
> It might be
> better to gradually add documentation to the source that could be
> automatically be extracted...
I agree. Developers are *much* more likely to keep the inline
documentation up to date. Downside is the documentation becomes very
blocky and it's difficult t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:08:54PM +1100, Dan wrote:
| http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
Of course we don't know exactly which patents are involved, or what the
terms of the transfer were. But my guess would be that the patents
primarily involve hardware, and Microsoft is intere
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 21:28, Daryll Strauss wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:01:14PM +, David Johnson wrote:
> > So, the question is how to we get that process going. As a suggestion,
> > maybe a weekly IRC meeting would help where new developers can ask the experts,
> > and each other,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:11:46PM -0800, David Bronaugh wrote:
> Perhaps a good idea here would be to have some sort of a function
> documentation tracking project.. I have been doing a hell of a lot of PHP
> programming lately, and I'd be willing to put in the time to get something
> like th
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:28:22 Daryll Strauss wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:01:14PM +, David Johnson wrote:
> > So, the question is how to we get that process going. As a suggestion,
>
> > maybe
> > a weekly IRC meeting would help where new developers can ask the
Daryll Strauss wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:01:14PM +, David Johnson wrote:
> > So, the question is how to we get that process going. As a suggestion,
> > maybe
> > a weekly IRC meeting would help where new developers can ask the experts,
> > and
> > each other, questions about DRI,
Brian Paul wrote:
>
> Even before VA Linux laid-off everyone we were losing momentum on the
> DRI project because the engineers had to work on other projects that
> generated revenue. After everyone was laid-off we all went in different
> directions. I think I'm one of the few who still reads t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:01:14PM +, David Johnson wrote:
> So, the question is how to we get that process going. As a suggestion,
> maybe
> a weekly IRC meeting would help where new developers can ask the experts,
> and
> each other, questions about DRI, XFree or 3D graphics. I am sure i
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:14:04AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm seeing what looks like a clipping bug with a radeon card. Bzflag
> shows it off, objects and the boundary walls tend to disapear (though the
> skybox is visible) in the middle of the screen (possibly an interaction
> with th
this is actually sufficient for me at this point.
tnx!
johnu
ps: you might think of pasting this part of your response the into the dri
homepage, it would save a bit of bandwidth perhaps:
> All OpenGL drivers
> are made up of 3 parts:
>
> A DRI aware 2D driver which lives in
> xc/programs/X
Let me toss in my 2 cents.
The problem is that DRI development has never reached critical mass in the
open source world. There was a time when there were quite a few developers
working on DRI related projects a PI or VA but much of the design
discussions
were private and people couldn't eaves
i wont mess with trying to respond in line.
but i have been lurking on this list for the last year ( which is more of
an investment than you might think! ) and it appears that adoniz makes
some valid points, tho perhaps in an overly vigourous fashion. :-)
well, every OS project is different (
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:40:15AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Okay, sorry, I just had to laugh. Not your fault, I admit that. You are as innocent
>as I used to be.
>
> Here's the deal bro:
Now I'm going to turn this around a bit. You've already seen the answers
from most of us. We're
This may be OT...
On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 14:58, Brian Paul wrote:
[snip]
> I think I'm one of the few who still reads this list.
>
[snip]
> We thought it was more important to invest
> our time in the drivers and infrastructure code than writing/updating
> design documents. The DRI is very compl
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:58:01AM -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Okay, sorry, I just had to laugh. Not your fault, I admit that. You are as
>innocent as I used to be.
> >
> > Here's the deal bro:
> >
> > [RANT MODE ON]
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > [RANT MODE OFF]
> >
Dan wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
> This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
> The article is not very specific though.
> I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
> otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Okay, sorry, I just had to laugh. Not your fault, I admit that. You are as innocent
>as I used to be.
>
> Here's the deal bro:
>
> [RANT MODE ON]
>
> [...]
>
> [RANT MODE OFF]
>
> Finale:
>
> Anyone: please think about it before (if) you respond to this email.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
This does not look good for OpenGL / DRI.
The article is not very specific though.
I assume that xfree86 doesn't use anything affected by these patents,
otherwise it wouldn't be able to carry it's current license. Is this
correct?
However The Re
Okay, sorry, I just had to laugh. Not your fault, I admit that. You are as innocent
as I used to be.
Here's the deal bro:
[RANT MODE ON]
Sometimes it seems that the DRI project is for a "special" group of people who are
(either,or,and,not,etc,etc):
1) special, either because they designed
26 matches
Mail list logo
