Slashdot Mirror


Free Software Friendly Graphics Card?

An anonymous reader writes "There's an interesting discussion on KernelTrap with a hardware company that is talking about developing a 'free software friendly' graphics card. The idea is to fully disclose and document all register interfaces including the BIOS, providing Linux and BSD users with a fully supported video card. The hardware engineer proposing the idea summarizes his viewpoint saying, 'the whole issue comes down to this: This is technically feasible. Should we do it?'"

29 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Secrets by erick99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does your company have to divulge any proprietary secrets in order to leave everything open for this card? If so, is that okay or does that do them harm?

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Secrets by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which really brings to the other point.. how advanced (or backward) will the design of this card be based on?

      Let's look at the big boys, nVidia and ATi, apart from both corporations having a lower case letter where it doesn't really belong, both companies are pretty much at the leading edge in terms of chip design/driver optimisations.

      Which is pretty much why they choose to release close sourced only drivers.

      This new company... well, R&D is going to be expensive if you are thinking of making the next Geforce or Radeon, so what are they planning to make?

      The S3 Trios of yesterday?

      If that's what they are gonna make, what about profit margins? ATi and nVidia are doing so well converting lumps of silicon into gold because their chips are fast. A graphics card by itself is not expensive at all.

      Doesn't sound like they are having a very viable business plan to me :(

    2. Re:Secrets by Bilestoad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better question - who will buy it? I can only see one kind of customer:

      - the person who only cares about "good enough", not "awesome" performance -
      Because you're not going to equal ATI or Nvidia's offerings. The newest games will run much faster with the latest proprietary solutions. And we're headed for another revolution in gaming cards if you hadn't been following along, the return of SLI using PCI-E and multiple relatively cheap graphics cards. You can't keep up with product cycles by seeing what's out there now and expecting to bring out the same in 6 months or so.

      - and who doesn't expect it to be cheaper than mainstream offerings -
      You can't beat manufacturers who produce in huge volume in countries with low labor cost. It just can't be done, not even if your R&D all comes free from the community. Volume gets you discounts, sometimes spectacular discounts. It also gets you priority when parts allocations are made. Samsung (and distributors) won't really take much notice if you only want 10,000 3ns BGA memory parts but when PowerColor and Hercules ask for 10,000,000 that's another story.

      - and who really really cares about the idealogical and hacky side of computing -
      Here's your only point of differentiation - your entire value proposition, in a nutshell. It's not produced by "big, evil company X" and all the registers are open. Well sadly that's a smallish market.

      In short the whole project would be a charity. A bunch of people would have to do a lot of non-trivial work which they could be financially well rewarded for were they to do it for any of a number of commercial enterprizes.

      Which is fine if you can afford to do it...

    3. Re:Secrets by Jahf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh that's just FUD. Do they have occasional bad bugs in there drivers? Sure. But they definitely have written ones that don't crash X. I've got an ATI Radeon All-in-Wonder (the first version) as well as a laptop with a Radeon M9 (Mobile 9000). I've run at least 3 different versions of SuSE on both and used Catalyst 3.7.6 and 3.9.0 on both using 3D acceleration and not had X problems. I -did- have problems with 3.12.? but I just reverted to 3.9.0 and was fine.

      Are Nvidia's drivers better? Yes and I will be buying Nvidia for my next card. But that doesn't excuse over dramatizing like you did.

      As for Matrox, sure, they're still in the market ... but barely compared with the big 2. I don't think open sourcing their drivers caused them problems (in fact, it may have helped keep them afloat), they simply didn't innovate as well as Nvidia and ATI. Look at the graphics workstations being pumped out today and you'll find that many of them now are using Nvidia's Quadro line.

      Sad as I feel saying it, if I were ATI or Nvidia I would be doing everything I could to keep the other party from knowing anymore about my board internals than they could. Will each eventually reverse engineer it all? Sure ... but a delay in that is a competitive advantage.

      I'm not dumping on Matrox ... I still have my an older Matrox card (their first 3D one, with the uber expensive daughter card memory add-on) sitting in a box because I have this instinct to love it for what it was (I'll probably donate it on my next closet purge, but it has survived MANY of them to date).

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    4. Re:Secrets by Dravik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't Matrox aiming at a completely different market sector than ATi and nVIDIA?

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    5. Re:Secrets by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, matrox is a high quality 2D card maker, and or multi head card maker.

      They realize it would be foolish to try to compete with the big 2. That and a large chunk of the people out there don't game, or just simply don't care about FPS and so forth. They just want something that is solid, works, quiet, and not space heater.

    6. Re:Secrets by jwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't follow. I don't see why the drivers need to be secret if really most (if not all) of the alleged intellectual property is in the hardware.

      IMHO this is a misconception taken for granted, because everyone is repeating it.

  2. Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can it be cool and still be royalty-free? Or are you going to get shut down by the big boys for stepping in their patents?

  3. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What? Create a functional and supportable video card that is platform agnostic and will just work? The problem is, it is too logical. Unfortunately, it won't work in todays economic environment. Unless you are screwing over your competitors, your customers, or your employees, you can't make a buck.

  4. Unlikely by ryanmfw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's serving a small market(right now), requires thousands of man hours of design and testing, requires expensive fabrication equipment(too expensive for this company probably), and is unnecessary because current video cards work fine under Linux. At least well enough that spending $500 to buy a mediocre card by a small company is out of the question. And yes, it would most likely cost that much. With little demand, high development costs and high fabrication costs, it will be that expensive.

    --
    Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
  5. " Should we do it?" - Why not? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until now, open source software has proven to be able to scare M$. Why can't open source hardware scare competitors of it's field? Obviously it's not the same but hopefully, if they all planned it well, and by the article it shows that they got a nice idea, I'm sure a project such as this would get sufficent support to progress.

  6. Re:Nvidia/ATI by MC+Negro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They may have the best drivers for their card in two years, but I don't see how they can compete with Nvidia/ATI even with opensource drivers
    I imagine it comes down to niche-market success rather than direct competition with ATI or Nvidia. I can't imagine any startup business scratching the surface of either companies' market dominance. However, they certainly have potential to be quite successful among the Linux/*BSD crowd if they are this open about their hardware and drivers. Think about it. Think about 1% of the global desktop PC market (or whatever the number is now) buying the video card because of 100% X11 compatibility and open source drivers. While it probably won't generate enough revenue to even cover to operating cost of ATI or NVIDIA, it certainly has potential to make a few people very successful and/or wealthy.
    --
    "You and your third dimension."
  7. why not just lobby nvidia? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. nVidia already has kick-ass hardware and the best drivers available under Linux, plus one of the best, if not the best, installer for Linux that I've ever used. It would probably take less effort to convince them to open up completely than to create a new card.

    1. Re:why not just lobby nvidia? by bofkentucky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can't though, supposedly they have other people's trade secret IP in the code, until they can do a clean room rewrite of that code, it's off limits.

      As it stands, they aren't making enough money off of F/OSS users to pay for a buyout of the IP in question, pay for the lawsuit if they broke the license agreement, or clean room re-write the code. If any of those 3 conditions are met, they should be able to turn a profit on selling cards to Linux/*BSD users.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    2. Re:why not just lobby nvidia? by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they won't listen until you can convince them that any marketshare they'll gain on linux boxes makes up for the possible loss of users on other OSs because ATI and others will be able to learn their secrets & make better cards.

    3. Re:why not just lobby nvidia? by ender81b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the kernel guys make a stable driver API and then we wouldn't have to worry about this type of crap? It's ridiculous that people complain about lack of driver support but then give the Hardware people a never-ending totally unstable API for drivers.

    4. Re:why not just lobby nvidia? by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something I never understood is why Nvidia couldn't just provide a straight dump of the register specs. None of the ultra 'leet stuff that must be in their drivers mind you. Just a list of ports, registers, memory ranges...you know the stuff you need to develop your own driver. It would probably take a couple years to even get in the same ballpark as Nvidia's binary drivers but at least their cards wouldn't become next to useless on other arches.

    5. Re:why not just lobby nvidia? by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A "totally stable driver api" locks you into supporting hack on top of cruft on top of hack. You might find something that badly needs redesigning and won't be able to touch it because it will break the driver of some four year old piece of hardware. It will also force even more contortions onto the other arches. Linux runs on more than x86. What you really mean is an x86 driver api.

      Remember that leak of Windows 2000 source? Something like 16% of it was application specific kludges. Many of the apps weren't even MS'. This isn't the sort of developer stability we need.

      Also, many applications require more than technical excellence. They require trust. I don't trust the provider of a binary only driver to support my equipment 5 years down the road.

  8. Yes by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I hate buying hardware for my PC because if I get the wrong thing, it can be a nightmare to get it working properly. If there's something that's in some way Linux-approved, Linux-certified or just Linux-friendly, I'll always buy it. Even if it costs me $100 more, I'll buy it. I have spent DAYS messing around with a printer, or a card of some kind, trying to get it working properly under Linux. It's not worth it. I'll pay extra to know that I won't have any hassles: plug it in, it works. I have hardware sitting around that I'm going to try when Suse 9.2 comes out, but that isn't working now. It's terrible. Currently I use Nvidia cards but that isn't a good solution either; I have to spend half an hour messing around to get it to work. I would rather just buy the card that is supported 100% during the plain old installation. The only way that can happen is with a fully open specification.

    So please do it. I know some Linux users take pride in their amazing ability to get some piece of not-really-supported hardware to function, and in fact there are whole companies which provide installation of Linux on unsupported laptops as their business, but this is not fun and is a waste of time.

    When can I buy it?

    1. Re:Yes by computerme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I'll always buy it. Even if it costs me $100 more

      You might. Most Open Software users would not.

      Period.

  9. Missing the point by azmaveth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems that most people here didn't bother to read the article. (Big surprise.)

    This is a 2D only card. He would not try to compete with BigBadVideoCardVendor. He knows that development of a competitive 3D card is out of the question for now. But you have to start somewhere.

    Unlike an opensource software project, an "opensource" hardware project can't "show me the code" in order to gain legitimacy and gather developer attention. He's looking to see if there is real interest so that he can make a case to his boss. He seems to understand the risks involved, and I hope he can make it work.

  10. Re:How about a Free Software Friendly Audio Card? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's a slap in the face of VGA. VGA was a good standard.

    The PC speaker is like the CGA of music. Both of which should have been left in the dust of time, but IBM cut corners on the first PC, and the PC speaker is still with us.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  11. How about by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A nice useful mid range card at a competitive price. I'll take 2, To start with and more later. We are starting to sell dual boot systems at the white box store where I'm a tech and sales type. We have sold a few in the last 2 months, some Fedora, some Suse, and one Mandrake. A nice mid-range card supported on Linux and Win XP would be perfect. Just make it a bit cheaper than the Radeon 9600, with similar performance and I'll be able to sell the hell out of them. One of the biggest complaints amongst Linux users is support for video and audio.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  12. Feasability... by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may be technically feasible, but what about financially? The interesting thing about open-source consumers is that they're mostly talk, but when it comes down to actually buying all of they stuff that they claim to want for Linux, they don't vote with their dollars. Just look at the failure of Lokigames to make a profit, not to mention id's big profile attempt to push Linux by doing a simultaneous Linux/Mac/Windows release of Quake III - sales of Linux Quake III were abysmal.

    Expecting geeks to pony up a few hundred bucks for an open-source video card that has little if any chance of competing with ATI/Nvidia on speed seems pretty unlikely.

  13. I wouldn't buy it by xenocide2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I currently own a couple of nvidia cards. I enjoy that NVIDIA is providing 3d accelleration for my installed software. What this Free Software Friendly board is capable of is minimal. It's essentially an ancient 2d acceleration. 3d support is off the table. I can find that elsewhere; I think there's a few OSS drivers that do that with proprietary cards. Perhaps they can't work on obscure platforms. I don't work with obscure platforms regularly, thats why they're obscure!

    From a ROI perspective, you have to convince me there's some improvement over the status quo. I couldn't care less about the source. I know that 3d graphics are among the most alien software topics to developers. Its difficult, especially when you're mixing it with low level programming in a performance sensative environment. Not providing 3d means I'll look for a second card. More likely, I'll be looking at a different card that offers more functionality, even on Linux, at 50 dollars, than this can offer at 100.

    Simply put, an free-software friendly board lacks a community to push it forward, and I don't see it treading water among the highly competitive graphics card market. If you want this to sell, you need to identify and explicitly cater to your niche market. Promote it as a learning tool, and grease the community wheels. Just putting it out there and expecting the world to recognize its value won't net you much.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  14. What crappy comments... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damn, there isn't a single good comment in this whole discussion... Does anyone here realize what a huge difference a fully-open videocard would make?

    Yes, you'd have working drivers, which is valuable, but barely worth noting. The big deal will be the more advanced features.

    HDTV is developing pretty well, and even if you can't get HDTV broadcasts, there's plenty of HD material on the internet. Unfortunately, most computers aren't fast enough to play 1080 material in any format, and I'd bet there's a few that can't handle 720 video encoded with MPEG-4, WMV, etc. The real answer is to have hardware decoding... MPEG-1/2 are all that we see now, and even that is pretty rare under Linux. I happen to be lucky on that front, but xvmc doesn't allow you to deinterlace before it's displayed, so it's fairly useless at this point.

    When you have all the specs for the FPGA, you can just download the latest upgrade, and have full-fledged MPEG4/Theora/WMV decoding on the same videocard, meaning a 100MHz PC could playback HD-DVDs perfectly. No doubt Tivo would be equally as interested in the features of this card.

    Even if you don't have a videocard powerful enough to decode your favorite codec, you'll still get serious gains from it being open. If you check-out mplayer's vidix drivers, you'll see that you can get serious performance improvements if the developers have the docs for the card. It's hard to explain what a HUGE performance boost you would get from having a fully-open card.

    Plus, FPGA programming is getting a bit of attention lately. It wouldn't be hard to imagine companies setting up clusters of computers, and filling every available PCI slot with this graphics card, and using the cards to do most of the calculations. Remember the PS2 cluster? Imagine the processing power of that, but on steroids.

    In addition, think of all the groups trying to setup display-walls, with multiple monitors. Being able to do that much easier with this card could make it a big seller, if nothing else...

    As someone who has setup several Unix machines for multimedia, I think there would be a big market for this, even if it costs, say, $60, and has no 3D support. If you think you need 3D support everywhere, you're probably mistaken. If you're running anything other than x86 (or maybe MacOS on PPC) you've got practically no options for hardware-accelerated 3D anyhow. So, putting a 2D card in there, instead of wasting money on a new Radeon, makes everything work better, and you loose nothing.

    Personally, I have only 2 suggestions.

    1. Make it as cheap as possible, while still being fully functional. If it sells for $30 (maybe after a few months) I'll buy dozens of them myself!

    2. Include as many output options as you can. I use S-Video a lot, but very few have interlaced TV-output support. DVI is important for those with LCDs. Composite looks like the next standard for HDTV output, and that could turn into lots of sales (especially if your card costs less than ATI's Radeon/HDTV adapter!). I've heard lots of cards don't work with HDTV well because they can't output an interlaced signal at HDTV resolutions.

    Dual-head support would be very nice, at least if you can include dual overlay support with it. Then you only need 2 cards for a 4-head Linux system.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. The other killer app by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The other killer app besides 3D games waiting to happen in the video sector is TV. The pcHDTV guys have demonstrated significant demand for their linux-friendly part. Combined with MythTV many people are building TiVo-like devices which do not operate as desktop machines. Their primary purpose is recording and displaying video at the resolutions required by TV, DVD, and HDTV.

    A path that could be very fruitful is to design a video card to be used in a TiVo-like device. In particular, in addition to the good suggestions involving the Render and Damage extensions, a 2D-only card should do some hardware accelerating of IDCT and motion compensation, so that i.e. DVD's and MPEG-4 files can be played with a very minimal CPU. Work with systems integrators that are willing to put MythTV on a silent fanless system with a pcHDTV card and your video card/chip. This could be a good way to go for smaller but demonstrated market, where the part is easier to design than a 3D-nvidia-ati competing beast. Actually doing the video and TV on the same part is a good idea, if it can be done, since these machines are usually space and PCI-slot constrained.

    I do not think, out of the gate on a small budget is reasonable or feasable to get a 3D part. It would be better to start small, and plan some features for the second generation. For funding, take pre-orders. Oh and hype the shit out of it, on slashdot.

    Secondly, how feasable is it to put a cheap off-the-shelf CPU on the part to handle the 3D workload. Certainly that's faster and cheaper than a FPGA. CPU's with MMX or Altivec instructions can be had in the 1-2 GHz range for < $50.

    -- Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  16. Bad idea. Will be obsolete on day one. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They're talking about a graphics card with little if any 3D acceleration. You usually get something at least that good, if not better, in the motherboard chipset. As an external graphics board, a 2D board, in 2004, is totally unnecessary.

    It might be more worthwhile to work on better relationships between Linux developers and Via. Via sells a large fraction of the motherboard chipsets (if it's not Intel, it's probably Via) and, as a commodity part manufacturer, doesn't have a strong business interest in a proprietary interface.

    If Via can be brought on board (assuming it isn't already) that provides more leverage for dealing with other vendors, like nVidia.

  17. Sounds good to me by ikekrull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make an X.org accelerator - There are a lot of people who dont care much for pushing polygons, but would love to have a fast, high quality grahics card that intergrates with X.org or XFree86 and works without hassle.

    Support multi-head operation with robust Xinerama support, good colour calibration etc. and provide hardware acceleration for compositing, video4linux overlays, SDL hardware blitting, X primitives, Freetype font renderers, DirectFB acceleration - this card could form the heart of every low-cost or embedded linux system sold in existing or emerging markets round the world, and provide significantly better 2D desktop acceleration than ATI or NVidia, who seem to put 100% of their efforts into appeasing the Doom3 players.

    Even if its not a match 3D-wise to a Geforce FX6800, it wouldn't be hard to do a better job of supporting Linux APIs than 90% of the manufacturers out there.

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long