| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)Posted Jul 1, 2008 21:44 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332)In reply to: I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) by drag Parent article: I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog)
Yes i agree with you, its a rant but that guy is mostly correct... """ This is one of those things with "Linux" that is kinda silly. The pragmatic attitude of "I'll prefer OSS, but I will use the best tools" also means "I won't bother to improve OSS if closed source is good enough". """ Silly !?... notice the quoted parts!?... its a contradiction to say the least!... to be correct it would be incredibly stupid, because it supposes that the best tools are always open source but it would be glad to stick with an inferior but enough "closed" one if there is no alternative!... is that what is happening ??.... So in here after almost 10 years of using Linux on the "DESKTOP" is not "Closed vs Open" that is the matter, but "Server vs Desktop". And in here is not only the code, but a system that could be a real superior driver model... and the will to work the best approach. GKH has done a great job, but is strange when is the Linux "guts" that prevents the best when all the documentation necessary are already there(at least on AMD side), and in the most important of drivers issues... the graphic/video driver!... Who or What is to blame after all ? Linux started on a 386 desktop , but the Ma$ters have all been posed that it would not replace the crap that the world is using mostly today.... First there was FUD,... then SCO... then infiltration ( i cant forget the ULTRA WINDOWS EVANGELIST (rob enderle) on a Linux desktop conference saying: "its not ready, don't use it")...and even more FUD after... now blame it on the "Open" metaphor!!??... In a much more correct rant i would say: *its by design*; the Ma$ters want everybody falling to the "carnivores" and the "echelons"... Digital Rights Fascism (DRM-to avoid Internet propagated search of the truth)... or something much worst... so Linux had to be "fixed" and be sticked on server land mostly... to avoid... DRI started has a a cumbersome hack... when it started to be used it was already "obsolete" . So i can't understand this "Closed vs Open" excuse... its misplaced, excessive... matter of fact i'm so tired of it !... turning a good think into a weapon against itself!... it should be "the best vs the worst"... being open or close is only peripheric to the real issue... What is laking is *THE WILL* to pursue *the best on the Desktop*... the corporate stronghold is not strange to this situation, but if Linux still has a lot of strength out of corporate politics, it should go for the obvious "the best" solutions... and open a new development project specially for GPGPUs (2.7 development tree?)... because the GPU is dead. Its going to be all GPGPUs from now on (are already), and what makes the most sense is something like Gallium3D or VectorLLVM.... integrated full memory management for the VRAM... other stuff!?... BUT most probably there will be again RH saying no to Linux Desktop, and after many rants there will a DR!2 LITE on 2.6... and the Desktop users that damn themselves!... So that guy, the one in this thread rant, he doesn't know yet, but he doesn't Hate Linux Graphics... what he hates are the politics that keep it forgotten and inferior and the corporations and individuals that promote those politics... otherwise we could have been in awe by now...
(Log in to post comments)
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 1, 2008 23:35 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] If 'the will' is lacking as you say, it's odd that people are working on Gallium3D and DRI2. It's odd that X development is zooming along as fast as it ever has, far faster than at any time since the late 1980s. They've just got a lot of historical crud to fix before the sort of massive changes you're suggesting can be implemented. I mean, the ATI docs came out, what, a couple of months ago, and you want a working driver already? Changes are flowing into git repos, but you can't expect working code (and infrastructural layers! gallium and DRI2 have been changing too) for something as complex as this in only a couple of months. You're hugely underestimating the complexity of the problem. There is no conspiracy of evil devs holding back The Secret: the closest you had was the conspiracy of blunders in the 1990s that pushed X down the pathway that led to rubbish like PEX rather than anything anyone actually might want to use.
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 2, 2008 15:30 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" If 'the will' is lacking as you say, it's odd that people are working on Gallium3D and DRI2. "" Its not the will to code, but... Where does Gallium3D and DRI2 will lead ??... how can they interoperate ??... what is the mission statement ?? ... the possible goals ?? (making a driver that minimal works just can't be it, it must be more, because a driver is not the goal, its only a mean to a goal ) That is the kind of *will* i mentioned... pursue the best, say no if must to a lot of things... the *will* must have a target, even if its a flexible target and not entirely concrete and objective( avoiding over engineering).
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 2, 2008 16:52 UTC (Wed) by Sutoka (guest, #43890) [Link] Gallium3D will lead to a much better driver model for 3D graphics that actually resembles modern graphics cards, and should make writing drivers much simplier, and not require card-specific implementations of various APIs (like OpenGL 1/2/3, OpenVG, GPGPU, etc). Gallium3D, DRI2, memory managers, kernel mode settings, XRANDR 1.2, Xorg auto/dynamic configuration, XCB, etc. None of those will solve the problem on their own, none of them are trying to. The thing is, when combined they solve a LOT of the problem of X being woefully behind. Theres been a lot of writing by people from each of the projects about the problems each one is trying to solve and often how they interact with each other, each of those projects aren't being done in a vacuum completely unaware of the others.
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 2, 2008 18:22 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] [quote]Where does Gallium3D and DRI2 will lead ??... how can they interoperate ??... what is the mission statement ?? ... the possible goals ??[/quote] Well... Gallium3D and/or DRI2 will match modern hardware design. Modern GPU and OpenGL 'acceleration' really is just a software OpenGL stack optimized so that portions of it gets executed on your CPU and other portions get executed on your GPU. They are also programmable, with dynamic pipelines, dynamic memory management, and their own programming languages (aka shader languages). All three biggies.. Intel, ATI, and Nvidia are moving towards a 'hybrid' GPU/CPU design were they are even more open to programming. (although with different directions... Nvidia seems to be aiming at a proprietary software shim to separate hardware changes from software, Intel seems to want to extend the x86 ISA to include graphics, ATI/AMD probably want to keep both the GPU and CPU seperate and just get a standardized graphics ISA.. Not sure, I am not a expert on this stuff) Possibly this is one of the reasons why ATI and Intel are starting to be much more open then they have in the past. Basically, in the distant future, when you compile a application then the GCC would be able to optimize it so that it can take advantage of the GPU as another processor core, as a extension to the x86 ISA. Like Altivac for PPC, or how the IBM/Sony Cell processor works, and MMX or whatever. Extra core, extra registers you can take advantage of. Ultimately how all this works out, I don't know. Once Linux graphics gets caught up in the driver design department it will allow X/Linux to be competitive. Once it's competitive people will start to be able to take more advantage of it, it will get more commercial attention, more money, more developers being paid to devote more time to X, more help from graphic card manufacturers. Just like the Linux kernel itself was ignored by large vendors until it got the capability of actually being useful for heavier workloads. Then with commercial backing (think: 2.4 to 2.6 transition) they were able to match, and often surpass, any contemporary OS in terms of flexibility and performance. ------------------------------------------------- As far as X and normal people are concerned one of big rewards of moving to a Gallium or other 3D based acceleration API, as well as kernel level mode setting and memory management, is that we can move X off the hardware. You know how OpenBSD spent so much effort with privilege separation to improve security, and all the sacrifices that went along with it? How about eliminating the need for root access at all and still be able to keep all the graphical goodness? ... well once we get good driver model done then we can eliminate the DDX portion of X.org. That is move X off the hardware, get it out of the business of setting up PCI devices... Once we get X using regular generic graphic APIs, just like any other application, then that will lead to have X running entirely under the user's user account. No need for root access. No need for anything like that. Imagine the usability, stability, and security improvements that we can get from Linux by making it so that X is just another application. That we can run a GUI with no need for root permissions. Multiple users, safer networking, easier time running and developing with multiple versions of X. Easier virtualization etc etc etc. When X crashes or some application takes over the display and fails, eliminating the user's ability to interact with the machine, we won't have to worry about that screwing up any hardware drivers and requiring the entire machine to shutdown. Instead of having to coordinate between VGA/framebuffer drivers, DRM drivers, DDX drivers, DRI drivers.. we can eliminate all that complexity and go with just a DRI2/Gallium3D based system and kernel-level DRM interface. Simpler, more portable, better performing, easier to get improvements.
I hate Linux Graphics (Linux Hater's Blog) Posted Jul 2, 2008 21:10 UTC (Wed) by Sutoka (guest, #43890) [Link] Another advantage of moving the drivers out of the X server is that it'd be far easier to completely replace Xorg. Currently if you want to write your own complete windowing system you'd also have to deal with the very low level stuff of writing a video driver (or porting one from X), with Gallium3D and friends you'd be able to target a generic API like OpenGL 3 (or another low level API that specializes in this sort of thing) and not have to spend close to as much time on that hardware-specific stuff. We probably wouldn't be saying goodbye to Xorg (or X11) anytime soon after Gallium is ready, but just like Xegl/Xgl and other like-projects, the ideas and gained knowledge could always be used to imporve Xorg. I'm personally quite excited about what Gallium means for the future of the Linux desktop, it seems like the current bottleneck is Xorg, with both the Linux kernel being quite kick ass (wrt non-graphics) and everything above X in dire need of more room to expand.
|
|
||||||||||||