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?'"
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.
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
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.
What? Your PC speaker doesn't work now?
It's like the VGA of music!
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.
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.
for those of us that read the article, we see that the entire nVidia/ATi argument is practically moot. the developer explicity says that the card will be primarily 2D because his employer won't give enough funding to produce an ASIC. Thus, they're using an FPGA and will only really be able to implement a 2D core.
[move
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
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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...
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
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 fastFor 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
From 2002: Matrox continues to support the Linux community and is proud to release an open source driver for its flagship product Parhelia...
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!