Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118

Thread: XvMC support

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zajec View Post
    That explains your disappointment, but as you noticed by yourself, that has nothing to Bridgman's information. Where did you read this UVD announcement actually?
    I would like a copy as well, please

    The only UVD-related announcement we made was the statement that we did *not* (and I stress *not*) plan to open up UVD, however I did commit to looking into whether it was possible after we had the other core functionality in place.

    On the fglrx side, Michael drew some perfectly reasonable conclusions from what he saw in the driver binaries and heard from his contacts around the industry; even if things didn't work out that way this time in general his guesses are quite good.

    If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.
    Last edited by bridgman; 07-18-2009 at 11:04 AM.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.
    He might be saying that, but I'm definitely not. I think the work in progress code should be made available in a public git so that we can --see-- what work is being done. This is the only way to make it fair. If we could see the code then there wouldnt be any speculation.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!
    An implicit commitment to continue supporting the interface?

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.
    And that is exactly what the problem is. Putting that code in the public under an open source agreement would solve this issue once and for all.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Sure, but if we could do that then we would have already released the information to the open source development community.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I understand completely. I can only wish that the right thing be done, but just like with everything else there is always some excuse as to why it cant be done. Its OK though, maybe someday when the content industry fails they'll realize they've been doing it all wrong, and give you guys the opportunity to finally document the technology they've been trying to push all along.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •