[Open-graphics] Vision statement still not satisfying

[Bart van Leeuwen]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:57:58 +0100, Nicolas Capens wrote
>  
> Yes, there's a market for this, and it's covered by mostly NVIDIA and ATI hardware on Windows. You can perfectly develop open-source software for Windows. A vision statement has to be inambiguous so I'm afraid this needs rewriting. Mentioning the market is certainly a good thing in my eyes.

It is not. Neither provide full documentation, which is part of the statement.

> This graphics card isn't going to have a good price/preformance ratio. How can it have lower software development cost? How can we know if it's commercially viable if we don't know the commercial purpose first? If we want people to buy it then we have to be clear about this. Mention the key features. Definition: an aspect giving a product extra value.

Extra value is it being fully documented and usable, unlike anything else on the market. This may not be important to you, but it is important to quite a few others it seems.

>  
> > Open source software could benefit from active cooperation of the manufacturer of such a card to create better drivers and to get a card that meets the requirements of open source software better.
>  
> I still think the vision statement doesn't have to mention anything about open-source software. It might be a requirement, but it's not a goal in itself. If I can't explain to my mother what this project is really about, an investor won't understand it either and contributors might get confused. For the second part of the sentence; good drivers and the requirements for open-source software exist... for Windows. It seems essential to either mention the O.S. here, or make it clear without explicitely mentioning it.

It is one of the goals, so yes, it should be mentioned.

>  
> To conclude: Frankly, I still don't fully understand the goals of the project! The vision statement has to be clear for the broadest range of people, with minimal technical knowledge. And I even think my technical knowledge is well above minimal. Without a good vision statement I don't even see how we can begin with summing up the requirements, analyze the restrictions, and formulate the specifications! Unless it's all clear to everybody else but me?

>  
> What I expect (and I know I'm not in a position to expect anything from anybody), is to define in human language what we want to achieve. Creating new graphics hardware and open-source drivers is great but it's not the goal. Running 3D applications is. And this has to be further specified by making it clear that we're not talking about Windows applications.

No, running 3d applications is NOT the goal. Having graphics hardware that is fully documented and that can be very well supported on open source platforms is the goal. Good 3D performance is an additional desire, not a goal.

>  
> Only then we can sum up what's required for this, staying within the restriction. To start with I haven't found any proof yet that creating new hardware is a strict requirement. Don't get me wrong, it's one way to reach the goals, no doubt about that. And I'm not the person who would be complaining if that route is taken while there were simpler options. I'll support it every way I can. I just hope others feel the same way. Think about (one of) the disadvantages: Suppose someone wants to play a game exclusively developed for Windows. He can reboot in a matter of seconds, but do we expect them to replace the graphics card too? This can be part of the restrictions, or not...

A windows driver has been dscussed and considered a good thing. If the card can support the game also then no need to change graphics cards.
If it can't, well.. that might be a problem for some indeed.

It is however simply unrealistic to expect to be able to develop a high performance 3D graphics card in a short amount of time. It is very realistic to try develop one that will do well for the lower intensiy 3D graphics used in desktops nowadays. It is also quite feasable to develop a graphics card that will do very well for home theatre/media center pcs.

It is also quite possible to do this without limiting ourselves with regards to future 3D graphics development.

So, for as afar as I am concerned, there is no viable way to enter the market on a relatively tight budget and within reasonable time if you focus on 3D graphics. Forgetting them would however be a big mistake, but first priority is catering to markets that can be served on the available budget and within a reasonable time. Gaming/high end 3D is simply not a part of that.

That indeed means that suc a card cannot compete directly with NVIDIA and ATI and the like in their primary markets, that is already clearly stated, and is not a bad thing unless you are aiming for market domination. It seems to me that the ogp is first of all aiming at filling a niche, not at market domination.

regards, Bart.
-- 
Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/ 
Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.duskglow.com/open-graphics/attachments/20041205/6086ec04/attachment.html