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."
The big picture is that runaway Capitalism is where they have gone wrong.
Consumer freedom is now irrelevant. What good is the free market when you can't buy what you want - namely, to keep this on topic, where can we get a powerful video card with the full specs for making open source drivers? Good luck building your own fab. Apparently only a trillionaire can afford such simple freedoms.
This is clearly an example where capitalism fails miserably.
(Uh oh, here come the angry "Capitalism is God, how dare you infidels question the market!" right wing Republo-jihadists with mod points...)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
DRM "functionality" in hardware? No thanks.
I don't have mod points but I'll agree with you here. With one caveat. The "free market" (can't exist btw, it's just a idealized concept) IS working how it's supposed to. There isn't really a demand for an open platform GPU and thus the market doesn't provide one. If there were enough people wanting one that a company could make money selling them then you could buy it. Capitalism does tend to screw the little guys who have niche or obscure needs, unless you can pay to get things custom designed and produced.
But it looks like AMD is finally going to start servicing that section of the market, I'm still skeptical but we'll see how things turn out.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I think the problem is not too much capitalism, it is too little. Adam Smith's free markets have been replaced by an international neo-conservative monarchy and nobility.
Among certain industries, free markets have been replaced by cartels. These cartels then send out waves of lobbyists and campaign contributions to get governments to further weight the system against the consumer.
If you look at how the airplane developed, the market was hampered by cartels, patents and so on. However, in the two world wars, the war effort was considered more important than entrenched interests within the early aviation industry. All these cartels and patents were swept aside in favour of truly free markers, and they could finally build decent planes, and build them in quantity.
Society is slowly but surely going to realise that computers are more important for the development of the economy and society as a whole than for the narrow interests of the technology industry, and then radically free markets will be introduced once again.
Look at the Microsoft vs EU decision and the OLPC project, both of these in their different ways are interesting early signs.
My little Linux and tech blog
Markets start free, they just become non-free through layers of government intervention and large firms colluding. Certain agricultural products are more or less free markets, as well as light bulbs, screws, etc.
The resistances in the system are not physical properties of nature but man made structures. The problems are never that the speed of light is too slow or gravity is too strong. The problem is that those who think they are against government intervention, often are the first to argue for patents, trademarks, trade barriers, special protections, and so on.
Free markets are the optimal solution for the majority of the population, both as consumers and employees. Cartels only benefit the minority.
If governments became truly accountable to voters, such that the voters could clearly get actual representatives, rather than a choice of two identical people who will ignore the voters for the next four-five years, then I don't see why the interference cannot be removed in most industries if the will was there.
My little Linux and tech blog
Capitalism is working, only slowly. Open APIs and open source drivers weren't a selling point, so they weren't available. Now with the slowly rising popularity of Linux, and the realization that Linux users are generally more influential in the purchase of hardware than the average buyer, the APIs and drivers will open up.
It's important that we, as a community, reward the good guys (with more purchases) and to let the sales people know why we choose them over their competitors.
That being said, I'm a little ambivalent about the whole AMD/ATI video mess. They've been talking this up for the last year, but have the 3d specs for the hardware been released? Is there a stable opensource driver for Linux even close to the performance of the WinXP/Vista drivers (I don't know).
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
I agree with the general message of your post, but I have to nitpick.
``As demand grows, you'll see more vendors opening up specs. It's their right to do so or not, and your right to vote with your wallet.''
Your right to vote with your wallet is only useful if you _can_ vote with your wallet. If nobody will sell you hardware with available specs for a price that you can afford, what will you do?
``The only place OSS is making a dent is server space. Why do you need an advanced GPU on your server?''
A number of points can be made here. First of all, open source is making inroads in other places than server space, too. I don't have exact figures (nobody does), but I see KDE, GNOME, and fvwm desktops often enough. Wal-Mart and Dell are selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. Many routers and like devices use Linux and Busybox. All development work I've been involved in used open source, usually exclusively or almost exclusively. Open source web browsers hold a sizable chunk of the market.
Another point is that there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. It doesn't make a lot of sense to open specs for the hardware if this will only benefit you a little. So you don't do that if only few people are asking. It doesn't help a lot to ask for specs if you aren't going to get them anyway. So few people ask. There also isn't a lot of software in th open source world that would see a great benefit from working 3D. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to start developing that software if 3D doesn't work anyway.
This is the pit the world's been in, but it's slowly changing. Nvidia has made available good 3D drivers, allowing 3D software to be developed. Now there are Neverwinter Nights, Compiz, Blender, etc. Apparently, Intel has seen value in supporting open source, and there are good open source drivers for Intel graphics cards. And the number of people using open source software appears to be growing. Certainly, awareness of open source is greater than it was, say, 10 years ago. Day by day, the landscape is changing.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I suppose you mean in theory as opposed to practice, just as many remarks on capitalism are confused between theory and practice. However, since all modern and historical governments which have called themselves communists did have central planning, I stand by my definition.
Reminds me of friends who brag about being communists, "but not Stalinists".
Infuriate left and right