Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Intel & The Shortcomings Of Gallium3D

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    I have an r600 (HD 3650) as well as an r800 (HD 5670). If you're asking about r600 in Gallium, Jerome and I talked about that, and we agreed that he should continue working on his r600g stack, which should be ready to share with the world soon.
    Ready soon, you say?



    Seriously, though, I am really impressed with the development pace of open-source ATI drivers, Mesa and Gallium alike. Keep it up!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Doesn't matter. It's got to keep going. This isn't going to be windows planet. It won't fly. It'll never fly. Like it or not governments and large corporations don't trust any of these big computer corporations enough to pay them huge money and suck rocks when they ask for source code. Anybody that says they won't abuse such a relationship is lying through their teeth and any other orfice that releases gas when they communicate. Open source is going to be a money maker and a monopoly taker.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    Yo man, I respect you, and I'mma let you finish, but r300-gallium is totally a working driver, and it spins glxgears faster than the old r300 driver. Just wanted to give that little shout-out.
    LOL. Yo man. Imma dog you out and dis you and make you feel inadequate to the task but I guess I should have done that before you totally kicked 3/4's of this things butt.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hephasteus View Post
    Doesn't matter. It's got to keep going. This isn't going to be windows planet. It won't fly. It'll never fly. Like it or not governments and large corporations don't trust any of these big computer corporations enough to pay them huge money and suck rocks when they ask for source code. Anybody that says they won't abuse such a relationship is lying through their teeth and any other orfice that releases gas when they communicate. Open source is going to be a money maker and a monopoly taker.
    I say, sir, you're obviously not living in the same world the rest of us do. Governments and large corporations almost exclusively use Microsoft software for their desktop workstations. Very few would have the time and resources to go through the source code for all of their applications and software layers.

    Opensource is not inherently more secure - each distro has security announcements. It's true that many eyes can see more, but in the end, most of the distro's are binary precompiled with some patches definitely not originating from software creators. Security will cost you, whether you use opensource or not. Big customers will sometime receive source overview of the critical (security-wise) parts of the code. But it will be under NDA. It will be for someone's eyes only. It will not be for everyone. And it most certainly won't be free.

    Linux will remain where it is now... until we move to the cloud.
    And then it won't matter whether it's safe - your data is already... online

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post

    Yo man, I respect you, and I'mma let you finish, but r300-gallium is totally a working driver, and it spins glxgears faster than the old r300 driver. Just wanted to give that little shout-out.
    Certainly if that is true, then that is great. but does that ease extend to newer more and more complex hardware?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clavko View Post
    I say, sir, you're obviously not living in the same world the rest of us do. Governments and large corporations almost exclusively use Microsoft software for their desktop workstations. Very few would have the time and resources to go through the source code for all of their applications and software layers.
    I believe many governments have a special deal with Microsoft where they can review the code to make sure that there aren't any special NSA "additions" that they might be concerned about.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I believe many governments have a special deal with Microsoft where they can review the code to make sure that there aren't any special NSA "additions" that they might be concerned about.
    Yes, that's true - those were the "big customers" i was refering to. I imagine that not all of the windows source code is available, though - perhaps some of the more critical 'chunks'. Although someone may call that 'opensource', the reality is that the code is definitely owned by MS, the reviewers are among the carefully chosen few and they can't (or have no rights) to improve on the code as they see fit.

    It's a long, long way from that kind of "opensource" to foss.
    Or else RMS wouldn't have to devise GPL, don't you agree

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clavko View Post
    I say, sir, you're obviously not living in the same world the rest of us do. Governments and large corporations almost exclusively use Microsoft software for their desktop workstations. Very few would have the time and resources to go through the source code for all of their applications and software layers.

    Linux will remain where it is now... until we move to the cloud.
    And then it won't matter whether it's safe - your data is already... online
    Cloud's not going to happen. You can want it to. You can try to force it but you're going to get revolt after revolt after revolt.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    What good is having access to windows source code if you can't (at least) compile it and install it?

    If you can't verify that the binaries that you've installed on your system are the result of the actual code that you review then it's useless.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clavko View Post
    I say, sir, you're obviously not living in the same world the rest of us do. Governments and large corporations almost exclusively use Microsoft software for their desktop workstations. Very few would have the time and resources to go through the source code for all of their applications and software layers.

    Opensource is not inherently more secure - each distro has security announcements. It's true that many eyes can see more, but in the end, most of the distro's are binary precompiled with some patches definitely not originating from software creators. Security will cost you, whether you use opensource or not. Big customers will sometime receive source overview of the critical (security-wise) parts of the code. But it will be under NDA. It will be for someone's eyes only. It will not be for everyone. And it most certainly won't be free.

    Linux will remain where it is now... until we move to the cloud.
    And then it won't matter whether it's safe - your data is already... online
    Ugh, first off open source IS more secure because you can't hide secrets as easily as you can with closed, and the difference between open and closed is your ability to have control over it as well as its sustainability due to easy reusability and other things. No, some governments and companies and institutions and individuals will not review the entire codebase. So what? They have the freedom to do so if they wanted to is the important part without any stupid NDAs or back room deals. The reason some governments still use Microsoft software is because they're a) bought out, and have sold out their taxpayers, and b) it was the defacto desktop experience for a while and largely still is unfortunately, but has NO reason for continuing. ANY and ALL problems with ANY open source software that a government might wish to use but needed feature X is vastly outweighed by the savings that would occur which could easily be put into developing said feature X for a fraction of the cost.

Posting Permissions

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