Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: AMD's Bridgman Talks Open-Source

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    370

    Default

    you misunderstand. or atleast i believe its you who misunderstand.

    as i see it, what he is saying is that he will not publish docs, as it will supposedly let people circumvent the DRM(aka disabling or whatever), not give people special insights as to HOW IT WORKS(which is already fully documented and broken).

    so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..

    either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    you misunderstand. or atleast i believe its you who misunderstand.

    as i see it, what he is saying is that he will not publish docs, as it will supposedly let people circumvent the DRM(aka disabling or whatever), not give people special insights as to HOW IT WORKS(which is already fully documented and broken).

    so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..

    either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.
    They will not post any documentation for the UVD unless they can do so without exposing anything regarding the protection in place (DRM). So if that's what your saying then yes.

    The other part of this is that since OSS won't be getting any documentation with UVD until that is resolved (or DRM dies and the agreements disappear), then you'll have to stick with the binary driver.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    so therefore, amd would not be giving any info away on the actual drm crap, only how to disable it in AMD's hardware..
    It's a bit of both. Partly protecting info on how to disable it in our hardware, and partly to protect keys and key blocks. The actual DRM schemes are well understood and there are all kinds of interesting articles on the net about how to get around them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    either way, from the perspective of a "normal" software developer, it seems pretty far fetched that the video decoding can not be accessed without giving information as to how to circumvent DRM. and as for the DRM, well, leave it there or not, i want nothing to do with it, all i want is to be able to access a feature i pay for.
    As Uchikoma said, that is one of the reasons we are planning to produce both open and closed drivers.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    370

    Default

    why not design the decryption and decoding as separate systems then? it would seem the logical thing to do.

    in either case, for me, and i believe many others, the real reason to buy amd hardware has gone away. If i need to run binaryonly drivers theres nothing over nvidia - and yes, i know that nvidia doesent even provide the support in binary drivers, however their hardware is faster, and software is faster, and if one is willing to accept binary drivers(which i really do not want, and which is why i WAS so happy about amd's announcements), that certainly is more plusses going for nvidia alltogether.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    and if one is willing to accept binary drivers(which i really do not want, and which is why i WAS so happy about amd's announcements), that certainly is more plusses going for nvidia alltogether.
    I don't get it. So you do not want binary drivers but nvidia is geting pluses ?

    -AMD/ATI is opening the specs... yes maybe not the decoding but really it's the DRM issue here. So in future you can expect to see a great 2d/3d open dirver from radeonhd.

    -AMD/ATI is fixing their closed drivers. So soon it might be the same quality as nvidia ones

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Of course open source gfx drivers are good, radeonhd is a nice step, but it started a few years too late. NV did not open the specs, they wrote directly the 2d driver, Intel did not open spec, but worte 2d + 3d driver. So what is the best now? Well with specs anybody interested could help, thats of course the best way when you have got only a few own developers. Reverse engineering can take really long for graphics cards, but might be challenging. Maybe NV would open spec when radeonhd or the generic ati driver has fully 3d acc for latest cards and market is demanding that. Currently they could still sit in a good position and watch what is going on. When you want to buy a card as xmas gift you can't hardly get one of these new NV ones, depends ony view why that's the case. Maybe if ATI cards would be faster/better supported the things will change for next xmas. I really hope so, because is is a bit boring to bash only one major manufacturer. What I dislike most now is that now I want to get a 8800 GT it is out of stock

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Of course open source gfx drivers are good, radeonhd is a nice step, but it started a few years too late. NV did not open the specs, they wrote directly the 2d driver, Intel did not open spec, but wrote 2d + 3d driver. So what is the best now?
    IMHO It's :
    1)Intel
    2)AMD/ATI
    3)nvidia

    and that's if someone wants open driver and dislikes closed blobs... If a person has nothing against closed blobs sure choose nvidia. However Redeeman said he doesn't like using blobs so I'm a bit surprised with his comment.


    when radeonhd will have acceleration it will top intel ... Intel didn't open specs, so in future those drivers may share the same fate as the open ones for r200 ATI... Here lack of specs was a problem for developers.
    Last edited by val-gaav; 12-10-2007 at 07:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

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