Phoronix: It Looks Like The Open-Source GPU Will Fail Again
It looks like the latest attempt at producing an open-source graphics processor down to the hardware level -- an open-source FPGA GPU design -- will fail and not come to fruition with its targeted Kickstarter campaign...
Haha! Looks like the PR from the open source movement is finally working: put open source in the title and people run away.
Why are you on this forum, Buzz? Is your life that boring? Go outside. Get religion. Discover your sexuality. Start playing tennis. Hang out at the mall. Enroll in a yoga class. Buy a self help book and watch a chick flick. ANYTHING, just get some fucking content in your life, so you don't have to spend every hour trolling the Phoronix forums. Seriously, it's making me sad.
I think that this proves that for most people open source in their hardware isn't a priority. As long as their open source OS can run on most video cards, eg amd/intel/nvidia with solid open source drivers. Private individuals can't outpace the tech development/R&D of Nvidia/Intel/AMD so there hasn't been much point to trying to.
They wasn't even collecting funds to fund development.
They already had the implementation already done since they used it in their proprietary offerings and now they were just looking to sell it as open source.
So it wasn't "we need funds to make it", it was "we already have it, but if you give us money, we'll make it open source".
So? It's a perfectly legit FOSS business model. There's two ways of funding an open source project with crowdsourcing,
one: tell everyone how you have this great idea, and if they all give you money, you'll use that money to complete the idea and release it as open source (and to make some proft, because why not, and even open source devs need to eat). The risk is all on the customers' side: if the project fails for whatever reason, they possibly lose some or all of their money and get nothing.
two: put in your own money (loans, investors) to develop a project, then tell everyone how you have this great product, and if they all give you money, you'll use that money to cover all the expenses you've had so far, and to make some profit. The risk is all on the developers' side: if they put in their money, and then don't get funded, or the idea fails, they lose some or all of their money and get nothing.
three: something else? Sure you can come up with creative ways to fund projects... like sequential releases - get enough money, release part, get more money, release another part, rinse and repeat. But that only works on certain types of projects.
In cases where the third choice isn't an option, and you want to use crowdsourcing (and not other funding models, like eg. advertising, data mining or service-based models), it basically falls down to two choices - either the developers or the customers have to take the risk. By all means if you have a popular project and can convince others of its greatness, it's fine to let the customers/funders shoulder the risk - if you can get them to do it, if they really believe in the project - and maybe you don't have the resources to do it any other way. But how exactly is it in any way inferior for the developers to shoulder that risk themselves?