[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Latest UTB Newsletter

David Krider wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 10:27, Gerald Henriksen wrote:

Lets see, people buy SGI for high end 2D and 3D graphics.  You expect
them to move to WS given that WS will *not* support the current
drivers for the ATI cards?  Do you expect these SGI workstation users
to suddenly switch over to console applications?

That's twice in the same thread where you've made the assumption that
the only high-end 3D graphics chipsets on x86 come from ATI. That's
crap, and you know it. There's NVidia's Quadro line and HP's FX series
out there, just to name two competitors, and I know there's a third I'm
overlooking because I can't remember the name. Both of the two I
reference here have been used on Linux machines for several years now,
so I'm quite certain that drivers exist for them for XFree 4.1. Just
because ATI's driver support has stunk (and I only know this second-hand
from what I've read) doesn't mean that Red Hat has to cater to their

WTF? None of the binary only drivers, neither ATI nor NVIDIA, are "supported" by Red Hat. The only drivers you get support for at the ones that are in the XFree86 code base. That means the open source, DRI based drivers.

For hardware accelerated OpenGL 3D, NVIDIA is not and option then. ATI is because they have released some of the spec for there chips.

stinkiness. Want to talk about bitterness? Ask me how I feel about
Matrox's 3D "support" sometime. The bottom line is that I don't use
Matrox products any more. I'm not touching an ATI product to use under
Linux until NVidia starts doing me wrong.

NVIDIA already did that. They promised open source drivers then gave us and obfuscated wraper around a precompiled module. With the F86-4.x drivers they didn't even bother to use the DRI/DRM infastructure, and instead implemented their own. While the DRI/DRM system was designed with security in mind, by people taht under stand unix/linux, I've never seen any statements about security with NVIDIA's solution. Not to mention the headaches there close source module causes. Try getting it to work in a development kernel or with a new compiler.

Most of the commercial Unix software market is moving to GTK2/Gnome2
at least in part because that is the official new standard for Solaris
which means Solaris and Linux can share the same GUI code.  Solaris
officially supports Gnome2 now, yet a Red Hat product to compete
against Solaris doesn't, and Sun isn't known for being cutting edge.

Can you name a major application (i.e. one that a lot of people use)
that's written for GTK2 that will leave people in the lurch? Look, I'm programmer by day, but I don't know everything about it. However, I'm
sure that if someone were selling an application to the demographic that
is going to be buying RH EW, they can bundle their own gtk2 libraries or
even statically compile their app (since nothing on the OS is supposed
to be sharing them anyway).

Probably none yet, since the propritery Unix vendors are just now switching. Once Sun releases Solaris with GNOME as the default, then the apps will be ported. Since most unix apps use Motif, and OpenMotif exists, they don't have to change tookits when they port to Linux. But new development on linux will likely use GTK+.

As a developer you know you don't change too many things at once. If you have a Solaris/HP-UX app you want to port to linux, first you get it working with Motif, then you can start changing the toolkit. If you are planning to continue to support the system when GTK+ wasn't available, you stick with the common toolkit, in this case Motif.

Static builds are generally not an option. neither is distributing a version of the toolkit, since that makes for a maintainence and support problem, In most cases it's an entirely unnessecary, waste of resources.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]