Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: An Update On The OpenGL 3 Support In Mesa

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,561

    Default An Update On The OpenGL 3 Support In Mesa

    Phoronix: An Update On The OpenGL 3 Support In Mesa

    While the Mesa software stack has made some steps towards supporting OpenGL 3.x, this free software library used by open-source graphics drivers is still a ways from supporting this industry graphics API thats years old and has already been surpassed by OpenGL 4.x. There hasn't been too much major progress lately on GL3 support, but some think it could be achieved next year. When there is OpenGL 3.0 support in Mesa, it will be released as Mesa 8.0. Regardless, the OpenGL 3 status document for Mesa has been updated...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODgwOA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    GLSL is the main thing that is behind for newer OpenGL support it seems. Also from what I hear S3TC is still a problem due to the patent situation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Nice! Maybe they'll catch up proprietary drivers' OpenGL support in about 2/3 years (If it doesn't appear a new OpenGL version until there...). But right now, Mesa is still a bit limited in some 3D OpenGL support...

    Cheers!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    off topic a bit

    for such an important project in the Open Source ecosystem (from Linux to Haiku) Mesa/Gallium seems to me that it needs ALOT more people getting payed hacking features in it (state trackers etc)

    and i don't think many companies put money in that part of Open Source

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    I guess this just proves that the argument of "if you give out docs, people will implement the features" of some Free Software lunatics is just wrong.

    No one's going to code it in time. Money is still needed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I guess this just proves that the argument of "if you give out docs, people will implement the features" of some Free Software lunatics is just wrong.

    No one's going to code it in time. Money is still needed.
    Erm, this post is an example of people implementing something because they have the docs. This has nothing to do with "free software lunatics" or any ideology, this has to do with multiple issues including expertise (the kind of things we're talking about are not particularly mainstream) and time (the the developers who focus on this have other things on their plate).

    Though I'm not sure of anyone who says money doesn't help or is irrelevant, only that it is not the only motivation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Nice! Maybe they'll catch up proprietary drivers' OpenGL support in about 2/3 years (If it doesn't appear a new OpenGL version until there...). But right now, Mesa is still a bit limited in some 3D OpenGL support...
    Except there's a new OpenGL version roughly every 6 months, as of late.

    The new compiler infrastructure should hopefully make it a lot easier to bring newer GLSL version online, at least.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    This was in response to various people claiming that the Linux driver model of requiring hardware vendors to open source their drivers and put them in the kernel is a good idea. When vendors don't do that, the next claim is that it's enough for them to open up their docs so that "the community will code the drivers and features."

    It doesn't look that way. Proprietary drivers support GL3 for ages now, while the open driver stack is still based on old, outdated specs. IMO this is proof enough that the Linux driver model is wrong and its supporters too. Otherwise the open graphics stack would have been feature complete years ago.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    You'd think the existence of the 'open graphics stack' would be all the refutation required but apparently no.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Haters gonna hate.

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
  •