Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!gt-news!ccrf-news!ccrf-news!not-for-mail
From: jmills@ccrf-news.gtri.gatech.edu (John M. Mills)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Beating a Dead Horse (Was: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium)
Date: 27 Mar 1996 10:13:27 -0500
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <4jblun$r24@siberia.gtri.gatech.edu>
References: <4j21ph$crr@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> <4j9shk$odt@slappy.cs.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: siberia.gtri.gatech.edu
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:13643 comp.os.linux.development.system:19972 comp.os.linux.x:27567 comp.os.linux.hardware:34299 comp.os.linux.setup:47137 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:285 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2773 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2549 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:15973
In <4j9shk$odt@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> pmcdermo@cs.utexas.edu (Peter F. McDermott) writes:
>I'm glad that this thread has aroused so much discussion, but am even
>happier that it appears to have aroused even more awareness of Matrox's
>policies. Let me go over my reasons for originally posting the message:
[...]
> o To bring about discussion that will hopefully get back to the powers
> that be at Matrox and somehow convince them that releasing documentation
> on their chipset is a good thing.
This is the most puzzling part, for me. If Matrox is interested in selling
their hardware, I would think that releasing the interface spec would do
them more good than harm. The possible harm is that now others could offer
"Matrox compatible" cards on the basis of the interface spec. The possible
good is that new vendors could offer software which would work with Matrox
cards, making them more attractive to the software buyers. Great response
from the software market would historcially draw forth "work-alike" cards,
but by then Matrox had better be on to newer and [hopefully] better products.
There just don't seem to be free rides in the sense of long, static, sheltered
product lives in this business. New products cost a bundle, and have the
lifespan of fruit flies. Sorry.
>As has been pointed out by a number of people reverse engineering something
>as complicated as an accelerated graphics chipset is going to be quite
>painful.
This issue also puzzles me: unless the Matrox design is surprisingly simple
(about which I haven't the foggiest idea), releasing the specs on their
programming interface still leaves quite a bit of "reverse engineering"
for any Matrox wannabe. Perhaps it puts the burden of proof [of "clean
room" development] more on a clone vendor than if the spec were public.
Intel of course has stirred controversy by not publically releasing specs
on the Pentium performance-monitoring registers, and indeed much of that
has now been independently published. Naturally it is more risky to base a
software design on the "bootleg" publication, nor does it guarantee that
Intel would not change this interface without [public] notice. Again this
strategy seems aimed at chip cloners, while knowingly absorbing a hit by
shutting out the smaller software developmers. Intel and AMD have been
beating each other up for years on this, and each has scored some hits.
We're just caught in the cross-fire.
>Oh, when I talk about legality here it is US law -- after all, we are
>talking about US companies.
I believe the person who backed out the Intel Pentium data was German,
and the publication from Germany, but I may stand corrected. To be
clear: I find no fault with this effort, in fact I applaud it.
I have heard that proposed US legislation would specifically forbid
"reverse engineering," and there have been a number of _very_strange_
interpretations of patent and copyright law in coming to grips with
computer technology. We are _far_ from out of the woods on this.
APOLOGY: I am sure there are better forums for this, but I don't usually
read them.
Regards --jmm--
--
John M. Mills, Senior Research Engineer -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0853
Phone contacts: 770.528.3258 (voice), 770.528.7083 (FAX)
"Lies, damned lies, statistics, and simulations."