[gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: More ATi driver madness

[Duncan]

"Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> posted
200608131915.18375.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de, excerpted below,
on  Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:15:18 +0200:

> 2d is open - from nvidia... and you don't need more, if you just have some
> servers running or only need basic desktop. ATI does not even has that.
> And Intel.. I just don't trust them. It would be typical for them to open
> their drivers and forbid the others to do the same, just to get some
> advantage in the market place. About the ogp - as long as there is no
> hardware, I don't even consider them. Even in very future plannings.

The thing is... the 2D hardware is deprecated and on the way out.  It's
just a corner of most video chips now, and with all major platforms (incl.
Linux/X) going 3D on the desktop, 2D is on the way out.  With the
generation of hardware matching Panorama-of-MSWormOS, 3D is fully
integrated, to the point where even 2D is drawn using the 3D algorithms. 
It won't be long until there's no 2D hardware to have drivers FOR!

As for AMD, here's what I skipped over in the previous post.  They've
already teamed up with various third parties to develop and sell physics
and floating point processors slotted into additional CPU sockets, linked
directly to the multi-core CPUs via Cohesive HyperTransport.  The next
step is doing the same thing with full video processors, a decent portion
of which are physics processors anyway.  There are however a couple issues
with the idea, including the fact that getting video folks to  commit to an
AMD specific platform when they already have PCI-E would have been rather
difficult.  This is supposedly one of the big reasons they bought ATI --
to give AMD the where-with-all to follow up on that idea.  Now, in ordered
to fully populate the ecosystem, they'll /have/ to open things up.  Keep
in mind that Intel is designing similar stuff with it's integrated
solutions, and if AMD didn't get in the game, it wouldn't be long until
they were no more relevant than Via in the x86 CPU market.  AMD can do it,
and can continue to define the rules and the market place much as they did
with amd64 aka x86_64 and HyperTransport, but in ordered to do it, they
have to define open standards much as they did with x86_64.  Should they
fail, Intel won't be far behind and will end up ahead, and AMD could very
soon be an also-ran.

The flip side, as you mentioned, is the possibility of stomping on the
patents of someone else and getting nicked for it.  However, AMD has
enough trade secrets and patents of its own that taking them down will be
far more complex than trying to take down ATI alone.  Even someone like
Rambus can't afford to play the game exclusively, because any practical
application, thus everyone they would be attempting to license to, is
going to be using an AMD technique as well, so they can't directly attack
AMD without nuking the market for their own product in the process.  AMD,
like Intel and IBM, is big enough one has to cross-license, because
anything else ends up being MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, a reference
to the cold war, but you likely know that already).

So... I think AMD/ATI /could/ open their video specs.  However, it's still
an open question of whether they /will/, tho I think the chances are
pretty good, as Intel will have them between a rock and a hard place if
they don't.

(My sources for much of this were articles at ArsTechnica and the
Register, in turn quoting trade mags and industry analysts, plus AMD's own
PR.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list