Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 147

Thread: Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Sure, but NVidia could have improved VA-API rather than implementing their own completely from scratch. Maybe it was easier for them to start from a clean base, but it does mean that attacks on VA-API being NIH-syndrome are pretty misplaced.
    VA-API at that point was essentially dead, abandoned, very incomplete (not to mention extremely shitty documentation) and a lot of the times it is quicker and more efficient to go another route (as was the case here). It wasn't until vdpau came out and Nvidia showed them up that they started to breath some life back into it. Until vdpau showed up accelerated video playback was a "when we have time if anybody is interested in it", the powers that be were more interested in highly useful stuff like "flicker free" boots.
    Last edited by deanjo; 01-28-2010 at 12:29 AM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    VA-API at that point was essentially dead, abandoned, very incomplete (not to mention extremely shitty documentation) and a lot of the times it is quicker and more efficient to go another route (as was the case here). It wasn't until vdpau came out and Nvidia showed them up that they started to breath some life back into it.
    Isn't that pretty much what i just said? It was easier for NVidia to go their own way and that's fine, but then claiming that everyone else sticking with VA-API constitutes NIH-syndrome is nonsense.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Isn't that pretty much what i just said? It was easier for NVidia to go their own way and that's fine, but then claiming that everyone else sticking with VA-API constitutes NIH-syndrome is nonsense.
    How is sticking with a underdeveloped, slowly developed API "NIH-Syndrome nonsense". Most of VA-API's support came AFTER vdpau came out and exceeded any effort VA-API had put forward to that point?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,010

    Default

    Am I not being clear here?

    1. VA-API comes out with a partially functional WIP.
    2. NVidia decides that it's easier to make their own rather than improve the existing work
    3. They're successful
    4. The VA-API developers continue to work on their own code, rather than dropping all their work and switching to another codebase they are less familiar with
    5. The VA-API developers are accused of NIH-syndrome.

    That last bit is just stupid. If you're arguing otherwise, then I'm not sure we have anything more to discuss, because we're clearly not seeing eye to eye on this. I have no problems with what NVidia did, but to complain that everyone else hasn't dropped what they were already working on to dance to NVidia's tune? Ridiculous.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    How is sticking with a underdeveloped, slowly developed API "NIH-Syndrome nonsense". Most of VA-API's support came AFTER vdpau came out and exceeded any effort VA-API had put forward to that point?
    VA-API support came after only in *your* mind. VA-API was already being used while VDPAU did not exist and even by the time NVIDIA was still explicitly stating "we have no intention to expose PureVideo to Linux". So, the choice was made. Besides, you probably know well how proprietary companies work and how difficult it is to even release binary-only code... This takes time.

    If you believe VA-API was featureless for a long time. How come didn't we see any contributions from you to enhance the API? It's always easier to whine after something came out and also simpler to improve after others' experience. In other words, why didn't we see you design something comparable to VDPAU in the first place either?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbeauche View Post
    If you believe VA-API was featureless for a long time. How come didn't we see any contributions from you to enhance the API? It's always easier to whine after something came out and also simpler to improve after others' experience. In other words, why didn't we see you design something comparable to VDPAU in the first place either?
    Why? It's called a non-compete clause with 2 more years to go.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbeauche View Post
    VA-API support came after only in *your* mind.
    Please point me to the links where VA-API was incorporated into the major projects before Nov. 1998. Please also provide links that show VA-API being supported by the drivers (other then GMA500's) before that time as well.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Please point me to the links where VA-API was incorporated into the major projects before Nov. 1998. Please also provide links that show VA-API being supported by the drivers (other then GMA500's) before that time as well.
    Do you mean Nov. 2008? I would hope that VA-API doesn't need to be mature for a decade prior to VDPAU's beta release.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jpelcis View Post
    Do you mean Nov. 2008? I would hope that VA-API doesn't need to be mature for a decade prior to VDPAU's beta release.
    Yup sure do.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eokiahn View Post
    The only problem with HTML5 is the h264/Ogg battle. Hey I'm all for open-source but sometimes I just want to watch videos and not be scrutinized for using a non-free codec.
    Developers have to make software before you have the choice to use that software. It's the developers who are at risk for implementing patented mathematics here. An oxymoron, I know, but that's the sorry state of patents in the U.S. today, and Mozilla doesn't want to be sued.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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