| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linux and desktop graphicsLinux and desktop graphicsPosted Sep 1, 2005 3:11 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66)Parent article: Linux and desktop graphics
Not moving to OpenGL would mean less disruption for applications and would avoid impacting X performance on older hardware without 3D acceleration. There's another thing to think about: the newest video cards are also not supported if you are unwilling to run a non-free binary-only driver. Until we get to a world where 3D programming info is as widely available as 2D programming info is, and as such we can count on free software developers being able to provide drivers for new cards, it would be a huge mistake to tie the very core of the Unix graphics system to a 3D library. Unfortunately, the world does not seem to be going that way. I like and use 3D acceleration, and avoid buying anything newer than a Radeon 9200 for that reason. However, at work, I only use it a little bit. For the most part, I need decent 2D performance. I'd hate to see that sacrificed when, two or three years from now, it's impossible to buy a card that has any free 3D drivers. -Rob
(Log in to post comments)
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 3:33 UTC (Thu) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] Two or three years from now you may not be able to buy a video adapter that has any 2D API. What then?
Eyal.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 4:05 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Two or three years from now you may not be able to buy a video adapter that has any 2D API. What then? Well, maybe. There are a lot of people who never use 3D for anything, other than perhaps a screensaver. I would like to see an updated 2D architecture to replace VGA released as a fully documented free hardware specification. The implementation cost would be nominal, but the result very useful to a large group of users.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 7:06 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] > There are a lot of people who never use 3D for anything, other than> perhaps a screensaver. This is beside the point. Most of these people *will* be using 3D in the guise of a system like Windows or MacOS that does everything in 3D, even if it looks 2D. Anselm
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 18:09 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] This is beside the point. Most of these people *will* be using 3D [snip] Thanks for the prophetic utterance...
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 2, 2005 6:24 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Actually, it's not very prophetic. I don't know about Windows, but on Mac OS X it is like that today. Apple calls it Quartz Extreme, and it makes every window an OpenGL object.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 8, 2005 21:59 UTC (Thu) by barrygould (guest, #4774) [Link] Windows Vista will allegedly work similarly.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 14:34 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] Is a cheap 2D card an impossiblity?Considering what a challenge a stand-alone (non-WinModem) analog modem is, maybe.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 18:14 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Is a cheap 2D card an impossiblity? I was thinking more along the lines of cheap 2D integrated in the mobo chipset, sort of like serial ports are today. This would be nice for servers, and for troubleshooting desktop systems.
like the text-only console, you mean? Posted Sep 1, 2005 4:09 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Why on earth would the 2D programming interface disappear?The VGA text console interface is still available.
like the text-only console, you mean? Posted Sep 1, 2005 10:18 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] That is also disappearing in high-end adapters. (This is one reason why the Linux kernel has framebuffer support.)
like the text-only console, you mean? Posted Sep 1, 2005 14:00 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Because it is extra bits that have to be kept around, tested and ported for cards. A lot of the newer cards do not have a 2D API in them because it is too suboptimal for the cards CPU. I think I heard one engineer put it as "Its like putting a trailer hitch on a dragster."
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 12:44 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Two or three years from now you may not be able to buy a video adapter that has any 2D API. What then? Then we're really screwed, because there may be no video adapters for which free drivers of any kind are available. We'll either have to give in and start using proprietary drivers, or we'll have to keep running Linux only on old, scaveneged hardware. -Rob
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 16:02 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] What is more likely is that "minimal" open source 3d drivers will be released, just using a fixed function pipeline, with basic performance ( equivalent to a 9200). The snazzy features (that are most likely to reveal patent infringing hardware) will be locked up in the proprietary drivers.
There is very little that can be done to fix this without getting rid of the patent system altogether:
These are pretty unlikely. So what we can hope for is that the APIs ( OpenGL & DirectX) become so high level that they are implemented directly on the card, and the drivers are a very thin shim that just passes data through to them. Then the driver reveals very little, and can be open sourced.
Linux and desktop graphics Posted Sep 1, 2005 21:59 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Another option is a class action lawsuit against the major GPUmanufacturers for refusing to release the specifications needed to communicate properly with their hardware that you've paid for. True, you didn't have to buy it, but if they start getting a market lock, such a practice could be deemed to be in support of a monopoly.
|
|
||||||||||||