Slashdot Mirror
Future AMD GPUs To Be More 'Open-Source Friendly'
skaroo writes "Phoronix is reporting that future AMD GPUs will be more open-source friendly. After AMD started releasing their GPG specifications to the open-source community, questions arose whether there would be information covering the Unified Video Decoder (UVD) found on the Radeon HD 2000 graphics cards. The UVD information is needed in order for hardware-accelerated video playback, but it likely cannot be opened due to DRM. However, an AMD representative said that moving to a modular UVD design is a requirement for future GPUs and that they will be more open-source friendly. They will also be opening the video acceleration information for their earlier graphics cards."
And as far as raw performance goes, Intel GPU's are a bit 2nd division. Granted that they have opened up their specs. However this has tipped the hand of ATI(AMD) and Nvidia to do the same with theirs.
After all, how many top notch graphics cards are there on the market that use Intel GPU's?
Here, AMD seem to be saying that we are looking at ways to change parts of the GPU so that bits that we can't get permission to release(patents DRM etc etc) are no longer used. To me, that is good news. That statement has nowt to do with Intel or Nvidia.
This is an ongoing process and will not happen overnight. Remember that Sun took a long time to open up the Solaris source code due to licensing issues. IMHO, this is just the same process.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Yes, it's true. All the documents have to filter through their legal department before publication, and that takes time.
From the Read More section: AMD Release 900+ pages of GPU Specs.
There is a fairly stable closed source ATI driver from the AMD website that supports AIGLX (required for Compiz).
As for ATI open source drivers refer to this list. Copy and pasted for convenience:
Unsupported
X1300 / R515 based cards.
X1600 / R530 based cards.
X1800 / R520 based cards.
X1900 / R580 based cards.
2D acceleration only
Xpress 200M Northbridge integrated GPUs
Good 3D acceleration support
9500 / R300 based cards.
9600 / rv350 or rv360 based cards.
9700 / R300 based cards.
9800 / R350 or R360 based cards.
X300 / rv370 based cards.
X600 / rv380 based cards.
X700 / rv410 based cards.
X800 / R420 or R423 or R430 or R480 based cards.
X850 / R480 or R481 based cards.
X1050 / rv370 based cards.
Full 3D acceleration support
7000 / rv100 based cards.
7200 / R100 based cards.
7500 / rv200 based cards.
8X00 / R200 based cards.
9000 / rv250 based cards.
9100 / R200 based cards.
9200 / rv280 based cards.
Socialism (communism, really) is based on the idea that people are not content with leisure but instead a) have an inner drive to create and b) understand that doing chores because they have to be done is better than doing chores because your boss tells you to.
More to the point, socialism, fascism, and communism are based on the idea that central planning works. I am sure there are many more -isms which fit this bill.
It is easy to extend this to politics in general. People who want to be politicians think they are more moral and smarter than everybody else and deserve to run things since everyone else is an ignorant amoral schmuck.
Infuriate left and right
Actually, the classic "free market", as an idealized concept, requires commodities that can be produced by multiple people/companies, with little or no barrier to entry, knowledgeable buyers, and the flexibility to switch products at will as supply, demand, and prices dictate.
The current situation with graphics cards fails those prerequisites on all counts.
What I'm saying is, if you list socialism and communism, you can't ignore what separates them. Otherwise, what's the point of listing both? Socialism and communism aren't synonymous political and economical systems just because people call socialist states "communist" to lure or scare others. If you had just written "communism, like fascism, is based on the idea that central planning works," I would have simply ascribed that to the usual imprecise use of the word communism. By listing both, you insinuate that there is a difference, but then proceed to make a conclusion which negates that very difference.
The topic is difficult enough without thoughtlessly mixing up the vocabulary. As long as people think of the failed and failing socialist states when they talk about communism, they can't really discuss what communism was meant to overcome and what the problems with that are. Everybody likes freedom, right? So we hate commies, right? Well, the people who like the promise of communism are not thinking of it that way. To them communism is the very promise of freedom which they don't have in feudal, capitalist and socialist societies. They think of socialism as a necessary step (put the means of production into the hands of the people) towards communism, which then frees them of the central authority. If you mix up the two, you rob yourself of the chance to discuss the problems which are inherent and unique to the communist model. Without removing the misattributed overshadowing central authority from the model, you can't discuss the motivations and hopes which are nourished by the communist model, and if you can't discuss them, you can't disprove them.
Your friends who are "communists but not stalinists" are entertaining these hopes. If you want to talk about these hopes, know that your friends are not trying to establish another central authority regime. They are not just aiming for "good central authority." You have a much better chance if you start from there and let them try and explain to you how that's supposed to work.
Perhaps that subset of Linux known as x86 has fine support, but the last time I looked, PPC Linux (for example) had no support from NVidia. Synecdoche does not make for accurate engineering.
how to invest, a novice's guide