So at least in theory this would mean that someone could write a single driver and ship it for both Linux and Windows (at least when/if earlier versions of Direct3D is supported)?
Focusing your resources on a single driver for all platforms could be a big win, at least for companies like Intel, where the Linux driver isn't a port from the Windows side?
You forget the other beast that is OSX. It is a supported platform for Wine.
The two drivers could share a significant amount of their code base, but would still need unique code for interacting with Linux/Windows (which is nicely separated as I understand).
Originally Posted by whizse
What is less clear is how well they could protect licensed intellectual property currently embedded in their Windows drivers [which I can see being a concern for them]
Originally Posted by Kazade
Why? I can appreciate that many don't want an API controlled by MS in Linux, but if we look at it from other angles to see if there are opportunities (without turning it into a flame war)
Originally Posted by droidhacker
1) less code re-write to support multiple platforms for applications originally written to support D3D [ie, lower overhead for games/toolkit developers to target platforms such as Linux.]
2) possibly contribute to more momentum (resources) behind Gallium3D to get it ported to more platforms and/or improve the drivers quickly (or take them to a higher state of polish/performance)
3) more pressure on OpenGL to continue advance their API to remain competitive
4) perhaps an opportunity to move D3D to a consortium
Not saying any of this will happen, we don't even know if the D3D state trackers will be open source, but it seems like a more productive response than reacting with fear and panic [which is certainly not productive]
The only thing that it does is it gives MS more control over Linux by allowing developers to be LAZY.
Originally Posted by Craig73
1) This doesn't help -- the developer can make a more intelligent choice in APIs to start their project, resulting in less duplicated work.
2) Waste resources in bad areas that could be used in more universally useful areas, like GPU-independent video decode acceleration.
3) There would be more pressure on OpenGL to be better if more people were actually interested in it, this goes back to #1.
4) Interesting, but when has MS ever relinquished control over anything in favor of open source? In fact, as a counter argument, MS has a tendency to break things that they DO NOT control in THEIR implementation in order to STEAL control.... i.e. their creative interpretation of HTML in their dysfunctional web browser. Because MS renders it WRONGLY, some developers conform to that broken renderer, resulting in web pages that render correctly only when incorrectly rendered by MS.
I just have to laugh at the responses here. Who do you think you people are? Seriously. Your community (as in "Linux community", whatever that is to you, to me it's the money behind Novell and Red Hat coupled with a few lunatics) is irrelevant. When are you going to grasp that? "Allowing developers to be lazy." Pretty neat, that one. The less compatible Linux is to Windows, the less people are going to use it.
Some people simply don't understand reality. The developers of DX application *don't give a damn* about all your perfectly valid points because *you don't matter*. You can discuss all their wrong doing the whole day. You still don't matter.
You want to matter? Be compatible to Windows.
You want to matter? Be compatible to Windows thank to OpenGL.
Originally Posted by RealNC
OpenGL drivers are so buggy it's not even funny anymore. Yes, that includes nvidia, too.
Meh, at least we could play Microsoft and Embrace & Extinguish DX.
We release DX12 that is improved in in every way compared to 11, while binding it to linux-only functionality for maximum advantage.
I like your passion, but there are many perspectives at play here...
Originally Posted by droidhacker
1. How would you account for existing code that can be ported to Linux, and/or re-used into new products. It's expensive to throw out and start new. And regardless, there are also those who feel that the D3D API meets their needs better than OpenGL and as such would be the 'intelligent' choice.
2. The company implementing D3D is doing so to meet their needs, so they don't feel it's a waste of resources. When implementing such features, the universal problems that need to get solved might get addressed. And with D3D in place, it might attract *new* developers/companies to use Gallium3D and Linux in general who will improve/enhance it to meet their needs (which may or may not include the issues you care about). So I'm not looking at allocation of existing resources, I'm asking if this will draw new resources (who may or may not care about your 'universal' issues)
3. If OpenGL was the "intelligent choice" then more people would use it (Saying it's so doesn't make it so...) OpenGL has to stand on it's own, not because there are no other choices. Things either evolve to meet new competition or they die (including Linux), wanting to be relevant doesn't mean anything (except perhaps in driving flame wars and result-less conversations on blogs)
4. As long as the API is documented and consistent, then I don't really care who controls it (perhaps you do, but I'd rather a complete solution than a half baked home grown solution). The issue with HTML was MS's tendency to diverge from the standard. It doesn't serve MS to radically keep re-inventing their API, and they are not going to change a D3D api that is already in place. As long as they document it then why not leverage it. Then we can invest our limited resources in areas of innovation that matter.
I'm not really here to argue right and wrong... I'm just pointing out that arguments of good vs bad miss out on stepping back and considering other possibilities. I'm simply asking what good can come of this.
At the end of the day, developers are lazy... in fact it's a good mantra for life - there is not enough time or money to do everything, so let's re-use and leverage whatever we can to get the job done.
This leaves us money/time/energy to focus on truly important things like true innovation (or at least fixing gaping holes). If D3D on Linux is this time saver, then it will thrive, otherwise it will die.
And I agree with RealNC... peoples opinions don't matter. What matters here is the need and someone clearly feels there is a need for D3D on Gallium3D which may or may not be ported to Linux. I'm just suggesting that this need might build momentum for others to come join the playground who have different views than yours (or mine)... and I believe that is a good thing.