Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: What Was Decided With S3TC & Floating Points For Mesa

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    somewhere at the edge of the Milky Way
    Posts
    98

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    The problem we have in our country is that 'Big Government' depends on 'Big Corporations' and visa versa. Without the direct intervention of the government into capitalistic markets the major corporations couldn't survive. They would buckle under their own weight and bureaucracy.

    Small/medium businesses are intensely competitive and in a open market multiple smaller players would feed off of major corporations like sharks on a whale carcass.

    Major corporations know this. They see what happened with Linux versus SCO Unix, SGI Irix, IBM AIX, HP-UX, Sun Solaris, etc etc. The see what happened with Android versus Microsoft Mobile... they know this, they understand this and they aim to use patents to prevent and control who is allowed to make software and hardware that is competitive with them.

    Can't afford the patents? Then you can't afford to compete. And that is exactly how they want it.

    It's the same thing with DRM. It has much less to do with piracy then it has to do with who is allowed to make compatible hardware and software. It was never about piracy. It's about _control_. Control of the markets, control of who is allowed to compete with them. It's a instrument to protect industrial cabals and it 100% depends on the government to even have a chance of working. Without government and their guns then it's a house of cards.

    Unless you able to pay their fees, join their organizations, agree to their limitations, and implement their designs then they use the government as a weapon against you to prevent you from supplanting their supply chains in addition making cheaper open devices that they don't control.

    Everything that you have been told about 'IP' and the purpose of DRM by the media and government institutions is a lie. It's bullshit created by the people that benefit most from the controls to trick the people into volunteering to be victims of those controls.
    I have to say I admire you, because you have a real gift. I always find it quite hard to transform my thought into words that the others could easily understand, which is something you have a natural talent for. I wished there were more people with so sound opinions and great communication skills to help spreading them, because then these motherfuckers we're talking about wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireBurn View Post
    If I understand the process correctly Mesa has to be rebuild either way if the S3TC work is brought in tree or left as a library

    If it's left as a library and it isn't present at compile time Mesa won't have S3TC support again as per my understanding (and I might be wrong)

    I'm guessing it would be better to bring it in tree to prevent the library falling out of sync with the rest of Mesa
    Yes, even if the s3tc code was brought into the tree it should still be built as a library provided the build-time switch was turned on so otherwise that library won't be built and then that particular Mesa build won't have the s3tc support or support for any other patent-restricted functions.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    "Open" means that the specification is available to read and study free of royalty; nothing else. You are confusing "open specifications" with "open implementations."
    Not really. He was just using the concept of "open" that most of us understand (the dictionary definition of "open" justifies why I say "most of us"). On the other hand, the narrow definition of open specifications that keeps being mentioned in these discussions is ludicrous. There, "open" refers more to the piece of paper the specification is written on than to the actual object of the specification.

    And again, the definition of "open standard" varies according to whom makes that definition. Only last week or so the UK government provided the terms it uses to define open standards, which require that they have "intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis". This puts the UK in line with other countries, most notably the EU.

    So the confusion only exists if you decide to give more credit to the world views of Nvidia, AMD, Apple and the likes than to what common sense dictates and quite a few of (presumably) democratically elected governments throughout the world understand.

    And no, it couldn't have been done any other way. There is an actual _reason_ why people want OpenGL 3 support including all of its mandatory features; you realize this, right? Floating point textures are _essential_ for many modern rendering techniques. You cannot do them without floating point textures and render buffers. Period.
    That's a pity. It tells us a lot about how rotten the IP system is. Even more reason to not accept the language and definitions of those who support and impose it. If we don't, we run the risk of running out of arguments and ideas.

    PS. I believe you are confusing "open implementations" with "free to implement".

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by »John« View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    ...
    I have to say I admire you, because you have a real gift. I always find it quite hard to transform my thought into words that the others could easily understand, which is something you have a natural talent for. I wished there were more people with so sound opinions and great communication skills to help spreading them, because then these motherfuckers we're talking about wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
    second me. this is exactly what i thought reading it. this post expressed everything i wanted to say to but could never find the right words.
    i even have read original mesa-dev discussion before this news was posted and have opened this forum page before any comments were posted but just could not say it good enough.

    now i will put this post into my citation collection where it earned its place.

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    No one has publicly come out against merging the hardware support, but apparently it sounds like there was a lot of negative reactions to it in private. I think if anyone merged it, they'd get yelled at and it would just come right back out.

    So we're basically where we were when this whole thing started. Nowhere. And with no one even publicly saying why.
    yes, while reading this "discussion" i've got dirty feeling of FUD and that real words probably been thrown out of sigh. for fucks sake, it's like this code is some big boogeyman but there is no any substantial indication that it or its users are infringing anything and big evil patent holder-extortionist is nowhere to be found.

    in my understanding, even if some "patents"(i would call them 'papers with offer you can't refuse') are grossly "infringed", "patent-holder" is not going to scaremongering and threat free&open voluntary community project. that is some black PR. if he's going to get someone, he's going for the users (remember how MS fucked bunch of small companies with imaginary "Linux patents" ?). and it's users who should decide _and bother at all_ to enable or disable that functionality.
    and all that _only if_ threat is legitimate _and_ patent-holder is really an extortionating bastard.
    MS example actually says even more - you _can fuck people with patents even if you don't have them_ or they highly dubious ("dubious", if we all imagine that we live in a world where patent system is something more than lawful racketeering system). so - you can be fucked either way, so better that you make it worthwhile.

    most interesting part of "discussion" was Ian Romanick's:
    "If we're going to make any significant changes to Mesa's S3TC support,
    we might want to consider changing to a maintained library. :) For
    example libsquish (http://code.google.com/p/libsquish/) might be a good
    choice.

    One advantage of having S3TC in Mesa would be that we could (finally) do
    hardware accelerated compression. There's quite a bit of work published
    about, for example, DXT5 compression on GPUs.
    "

    it actually says something useful, lays down a plan and puts something more than fucking FUD. apparently there is an up-to-date, maintained, _supported by Nvidia_ DXTn library and we didn't even knew it.

    the worst part is Corbin Simpson's:
    "Stop messing with S3TC. I think things like my previous attempt to
    language-lawyer S3TC compatibility in without any patented code are a
    better use of time than silly patches to shoehorn it in to the
    detriment of the rest of us.
    "
    it's really interesting to know more about those "previous attempt to
    language-lawyer S3TC compatibility in without any patented code" and the "detriment of the rest of us".

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
  •