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?'"

3 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. Nvidia/ATI by pmazer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  2. Hell ya. I want G-DOS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting


    That would rock the house considurably.

    GRAPHIC MANUFACTURERS SELL GRAPHICS CARDS, NOT DRIVERS.

    Open source drivers are a great inducement to purchase a card.

    Even if the card is slower then others and slightly more expensive, I would still buy it. If it's very much slower and very much more expensive then it would be a issue.

    Ok what I am about to say will only make sense is you understand what ISA's are.

    Get out of your mind the ISA slot and the x86 ISA is teh suck. PowerPC has a ISA, for example.

    It's a standard way on which software is ment to interact with hardware in your computer.

    For example you first created the 386. Most of what the software ran on was raw hardware. However the modern pentium4's and Althons are VERY much DRASTICLY different from the original 386 cpu.

    Lots more REAL registers. Lots of extensions, SSE, MMX, so on and so forth.

    Why then are they able to run programs and even DOS OSes designed from the i386?

    BECAUSE THE ABSTRACTION NEEDED TO FIT INTO THE ISA STANDARDS IS BUILT INTO THE HARDWARE.

    So what we need for video cards is a ISA for them. Like the VESA standards, but for hardware 3d acceleration.

    Something built around OpenGL, because it's open standards and universally accepted, unlike DirectX which is NOT just for 3-d but for input, sound and all sorts of other stuff and is only specific to one vendor operating on only one platform.

    Think about it.

    Video cards are mini miniture computers.
    They have a micro proccessor.
    They have RAM.
    They have a BIOS.
    So on and so forth.

    So why not build the drivers for the video cards like you build a OS?

    And why not build a opensource OS for it built around a Open ISA standard for OpenGL capable video cards?

    Maybe a GDOS? Graphical Driver OS?

    That way you have a choice. You have a generic OpenGL capable drivers that will run only any compatable video card irregardless of make or model. The GDOS would be something exceedingly simple. It only has one purpose, take care of OpenGL instructions from software running on it's Parent OS and transform it into instructions to be ran on the hardware itself.

    Then people like Nvidia and ATI could take that Free G-DOS and add extensions to it for their own private optimized rendering stuff that sits outside the normal OpenGL standards. Propriatory ways of rendering Anti-Aliased text for example.

    If they don't want to release their secrets to propriatory bits of software they dont' have to.

    But if you don't want to run the propriatory software you still have full standards-compliant OpenGL drivers. If they are a bit slower, then so what? I'd rather have slightly slower Open source, open standards, drivers then slightly faster closed source drivers anyday.

    I care more about the stability of my system then anything else.

    Then when the OpenGL standards are upgraded, or you need a new generation of ISA to get rid of the cruft it would be simple, since you only dealing with a single-tasking, single-purpose, specialized peice of hardware. Backware compatability would be taken care of by allowing older cards to render in Software (Mesa) the bits that they can't render in hardware due to their oldness.

    The OS would be kept independant of it. The kernel would be kept out of it. The G-DOS could be in it's own memory space or even in userspace (since with displays your only dealing with one user at a time)

    G-DOS 1.0 cards
    G-DOS 2.0 cards
    So on and so forth. With in this framework their would be very much room for performance growth. It would reduce User's suffering, increase stability, and increase ease of debugging and testing.

    And if some companies don't want to join in with the standards, along with everybody else. Then dinosaurs realy do go instinct, you know. But I don't see that happening. After all companies like ATI and Nvidia already do belong to open standards groups like OpenGL.

  3. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This new company

    Is actually an existing company with previous experience with graphics hardware and systems software. Developing a graphics card is something they are fully capable of doing. The question is whether or not they are going to make a card that targets the open source OS market.

    ATi and nVidia are doing so well converting lumps of silicon into gold because their chips are fast

    For people who want to run Doom3. I for one would like to give someone my money for a card with nice solid vendor supported 3D accel on Linx/Xorg without spending a hefty bundle. Or recompiling between reboots (I run multiple kernels).

    Not saying that this is a viable plan, but your analysis is off