Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

ATI Releasing Specs for TV Tuner 52

Posted by CmdrTaco from the aint-that-spiffy dept.
Jonathan C. Masters writes "As you may be aware, a long battle with ATI has been going on to persaude them to release developer information about their TV Tuner products to the Linux community. Well, it's happened! Sorry folkes, there is no Web page yet (I was notified by a mail list). Checkout this page for general info (CT:Seems to be down) and this one for more ." Someday we'll live in a world where specs aren't propriatary.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ATI Releasing Specs for TV Tuner More

ATI Releasing Specs for TV Tuner

Comments Filter:

  • Specifications (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A friend pointed out some discussion on standards. The consortium developing a set of standards refused to hand the spec over to the OSS community for free.

    This raises an interesting issue. If a consortium of for-profits comes together to design a specification, then there is normally a fee charged to each member of the consortium. This covers staffing, secretarial (they all need to eat) and equipment costs.

    Linux is now a "For Profit". Whilst the OS core and libraries are free, there are lots of companies getting in on the act of making money out of it. So there is an obvious problem. What is the difference between Red Hat and IBM, Sun, HP, SCO, Compaq etc ?

    At what level of "wealth" does a OSS community really have to start pulling it's financial weight for development work?

    Whilst some people are liable to work for free and provide input on a part time basis (a muddying of the pond -- life is never b&w), I expect that OSS (and Linux specifically) is going to have to start paying $$$ into the pot just like everyone else.

    Which gets into another interesting point. Which OSS company (e.g. Caldera, RedHat, ...) is going to pony up on each occasion things like this happen. How do they split the investment?

    I do ask myself sometimes if it is really fair for some companies to fork out $200,000 and Linux $0 (even when they are making lots of $$$ out of it).

    Are we likely to see more stuff under patent?

  • Let's see... Who uses ATI chipsets? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hmmm... Sun uses ATI chipsets. Sun is releasing a lot of non-free but visible code. Dell uses ATI chipsets. Dell is getting `into' Linux. Other manufacturers are making rumblings, and ATI primarily sells to manufacturers for integration.

    On the flip side, nVidia is helping developers (after a tussle over XFree86), and nVidia is wooing manufacturers. For example, Dell now uses nVidia boards on their high-end, eating a bit of ATI's glory. Matrox has been quite developer-friendly lately, too. The high-end today is tomorrow's low-end, so they see troubles.

    Seems like a critical mass is approaching. People are starting to feel competative pressure to open up. This is damn good, and how it should be (more or less). And a good bit of the pressure seems to have come from the community, not only the `leaders.' People have explained why they have chosen other solutions, providing a lot of the pressure.

    Jason

  • WinTV (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    I've found the Hauppauge WinTV [hauppauge.com] (despite its name) to be a great tv/video board which works quite nicely with the newest kernels. The main and only reason I didn't buy the ATI board when I was shopping was because I remembered hearing bad things about people working on driver support for them under Linux.
  • Let's all send them email thanking them for releasing the Specs, and making good quality Video Cards..and us Canadians can thank them for being Canadian too!

    ttyl
    Farrell
  • First of all, high-quality cheap SCSI cards are out there. I got my BusLogic BT-950 new for $35. Personally, I'd pay the $35 to just prevent printer compat conflicts, forgedabbout speed or ability to use SCSI HDs...

    Anyhow, though... I think I've seen some parallel->SCSI kernel-level emulation support. I'd expect it to be possible to use that with the standard Microtek SANE drivers (assuming Microtek, like most other parallel scanner manufacturers, just takes a SCSI scanner and throws on some SCSI->parallel conversion hw for their parallel line).
  • I've had a WinCast/TV for quite some time.

    IMHO bt848 cards have the best Linux support of any card right now. Well worth the extra PCI slot needed.

    Unfortunately, the latest drivers won't compile under 2.0.x series kernels, and the author has removed old drivers from the webpage claiming that these drivers should compile.

  • The problem is, even if some wealthy developer (or company) does shell out $200,000 for the spec, they won't be allowed to release the source code for the driver. That's the problem. How can it be a 'standard' if a part of the community is legally barred from ever supporting it?

    For example, Red Hat would have to break it's practice of releasing it's software in GPL form and risk it's market in order to comply with those terms. As if it doesn't get enough flak as it is.

    I argue that DVD et. al. is nothing but a widely licensed proprietary system. It is not a standard in any way.

    A true DVD standard form the free software point of view would be a hardware api that is shared by all DVD hardware and is openly published.

  • I assume that the remaining specs will be along shortly, together with the 3D acceleration API..? The ATI FAQ [atitech.ca] says not, but I'd definitely like to see it. I mean, someone offers to write them drivers and therefore sell lots more of their cards, and they say no...? Boneheads.


    --
    W.A.S.T.E.
  • Sure, you can add a PCMCIA modem for Linux, buy why not use what's already built in if you can, and keep a PCMCIA slot free to boot?

    Also, some laptops, *cough* *cough* *compaq* *cough*, have CDROM drives with nonstandard software interfaces that Linux will not fully recognize.
  • I downloaded the source, compiled... and wa-la
    I'm not watching TV under my linux box...

    Wow.. now if RealMagic Releases their DVD Decoder specs I would never have to switch back into windows... =)

    You don't know how happy I am..

    ChiefArcher
  • By releasing the programming information, your competitors have the same information that driver programmers have. This allows them to more easily create hardware that's compatible. Your competitor's product can then use the same drivers yours does (they then don't need to pay for driver development like you do) and can include extra features to make it better than yours. The development community then has to decide whether to support your extensions (when you come out with version 2 of your hardware) or your competitors'.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address
  • Wow. This is really great news! ATI missed out,
    I almost bought one of their TV cards a few months
    ago, until I learned they were withholding specs.

    I might actually reconsider my decision in light of
    their reversal...

  • Problem is, dearies, that

    1. Parallel scanners have about five bazillion variations, and we'd have to go through this fight for each one, in English, Mandarin Chinese and Korean, to support cheap, CPU-hogging hardware that'll soon be replaced by USB and FireWire.
    2. WinModems share the five-bazillion-variations problem and the CPU hog problem, but add the fact that, depending on the modem, you have to implement a microcontroller for the modem in software, and in addition, have to write at least some of the DSP backend code to Mo/Demodulate and interpret and co/decompress the signal. Too much work to support lame hardware.

    But really, as any OSS programmer should say, "Want it? Write it!" Most folks who ask aren't willing to code, hence the attitude from the folks who DO code.

    In other words, if you're whining, you're obviously not part of the solution.

  • Redhat, Caldera, etc could join the consortium and pay to have their input into a new specification, or none of the companies that support Linux have to join. It's up to them.

    If noone from the Linux community joins, then Linux isn't represented in the design of a new spec.

    It's not about fairness. But whether the Linux community wants to have a voice or not.
  • You can see anything that is under patent. Patents enforce open publication of inventions. They merely require that any production other than for personal use require a license from the patent holder.

    If specs for DVD & TV tuners were all patented, then I imagine we'd see drivers almost overnight. Instead, they are treated as Trade Secrets, kind of like the formula for Coca Cola. These restrict sharing much more than patents do.

  • ATI (Score:1)

    by Maddog ( 7952 )
    ATI is willing to help us. I think that is wonderful. The one thing I just don't understand is the fact that many people think that by being baligeriant, and by being as nasty as you can that you will somehow change their mind and make them come over to linux. WRONG! All it takes is a few bozos and a company that is stand-offish will go totally anti-linux. Let's give ATI credit where Credit is due. We are living in exciting times.
  • But I'm actually really busy finishing school and working to support my family. I was fully expecting to have to write the driver myself, pinhead, but that's going to take time. Secondly, my comment was just that the general attitude of higher-ups tends to be "Geez, buy some *decent* hardware." Hmm, buy hardware that works under Linux and Windows, or feed my family/pay rent. Hmm...
  • I've been noticing lately that a lot of the higher-ups in the Linux crowd seem to be snubbing some types of hardware, as in,"Aww, that's shitty, you don't want that under Linux," when it should/used to be "We don't care *what* your hardware is, we'll get it to work under Linux, and work WELL!" Case in point: I have a Microtek parallel scanner, for which there is no support under Linux. If you go to the Microtek [mir.com] section of the SANE [mostang.com] homepage, you'll see that the developers actually *laugh* about the fact that their drivers will never support parallel port scanners. Now I know a SCSI scanner is better, and I would've gone with SCSI if I did a reasonable amount of scanning, and it wasn't that much more of an investment to get a card. (Don't reply to this saying "you can get a cheap card at a flea market" or some crap, I know what a bitch it can be getting those types of cards working *at all.*) So how about it? Am I/are we wrong to assume the Linux community should support all types of hardware, regardless of how crappy it is? Generally, the people using it are aware of how bad it is. But most of us are left with no other choice.
  • I'm glad that ATI responded to civilized protests. I hope that the rest of the computer world will continue to respond like this, even if it takes a while...
  • Its about time. I have asked a lot of users on EFNET #Linux to email ATI about releasing spec. Seems they've finally bowed to pressure. Cool.
  • WAHOOOOO!!!!!
    and to think they got rude with me when I asked them about TV Support in Linux.
  • I was going to buy ATI, but they such wankers I got a bt848 card instead. It works great and I'm happy with it. Too bad ATI.
  • It probably also creates people like me who used to use compatible products. Until they got sick of the lack of compatibility and just bought the name brand gizmo and eliminated the compatibility problems.
  • > But really, as any OSS programmer should say,
    > "Want it? Write it!" Most folks who ask aren't
    > willing to code, hence the attitude from the
    > folks who DO code.

    I won't challenge the arguments for not coming up with drivers for WinModems/ParPort Scanners because they seem good, but this "Programmers only need apply" chauvanistic attitude would be funny if it's naive mindset wasn't so nauseating.

    I think that most people would be willing to code, but a lot of people can't and the learning curve is precariously high. It's not a simple manner of just learning basic C syntax, there's learning some high-level C programming techniques for things like memory management, many poorly documented libraries and APIs, the OS interface, and finally in this example, unusual or poorly documented hardware interfaces.

    Given a person with a full-time job, the most basic of personal responsibilities and a rudimentary social life, they might have 8 hours a week to really focus on the above tasks. Just becoming a halfway decent C programmer might take them a year, and the rest of it could take another year. This doesn't include the catch-up time required to keep up with the shifting ground underneath their feet.

    You could probably compress that timeline to about six months if you're a complete loser with no job, family, sex life, dog, friends or anything else to distract you. If you are, you're probably also a sociopath, and I don't want you living in my neighborhood even if you CAN write WinModem drivers.

    So I ask you, is it really fair to claim that someone who wants something isn't willing to do it? I complain about my car not doing what I want, but I don't hear Toyota griping that people who aren't willing to make theit own motors aren't part of the solution either.

    Like it or not, Linux/OpenSource/what-have-you can't expect that the cost of participation to necessarily be the skills needed to create it in the first place. If it is, Linux proponents are seriously overestimating its appeal.

  • > Is there any history somewhere of company XYZ allowing info
    > of their stuff to get released and getting burned by it?

    Isn't this something along the lines of what happened when the IBM PC got cloned? IBM didn't want to waste R&D dollars on the PC, so they used non-proprietary off the shelf components. This left just the job of reverse engineering the BIOS in order to create a clone.

    I'm not sure what would've happened if IBM had used proprietary stuff in the PC, but it would have probably not been cloned as easily. I'm not sure what the computing landscape would look like if PCs hadn't descended into commodity pricing.

    DEC, HP, IBM and Apple computers all running mutually incompatible operating systems? Complete systems with only 8MB RAM, limited graphics and 100 MB hard disks still going for $3k due to expensive designs and lack of economies of scale?

  • Please! Just spend the extra 30 friggin' dollars and buy and real modem! Software supported modems are even more cheesy that software DVD! With all the money you're saving on OSS, go out and buy a decent modem- no one said owning a computer was cheap.
  • No one can release Specs to a DVD decoder card, since each individual company is under an NDA from the DVD consortium.
  • I was just looking over some of the spec sheets found on the ATi Chipset Docs page over at ati.veiled.net, and something neat caught my eye. In the specsheet for the Philips FM1246 (Desktop video & FM radio module system CCIR I), I noticed that this particular component of the tuner is capable of handling regular FM radio broadcasts as well.

    Does this mean that it could very well be possible for my ATi TV Tuner to function as a regular FM Stereo, in conjunction with my sound card? Or did ATi decide not to install the requisite crystals that would be needed to support this feature..?

    Thanks..
  • I know what you're going to say, "But they SUCK, they hang up on you, and they use 33% of your CPU!", but many people need drivers for Linux for WinModems. Now, can we petition the companies, starting with a big one like 3Com, to release some specifications for them? Maybe we can turn them into sound cards or something, but at least people wouldn't have to throw them away when they upgrade to a free OS.
  • I had an ATI All-in-Wonder when I switched to Linux. I thought that someone, somewhere would support it. Then I found out about ATI's withholding specs, and wrote off my TV capabilities. Nice to know that I get them back. BTW> The GATOS project is a nice start - kudos to the authors - keep up the good work
  • Hmmm.
    It's not as if IBM actually got burned by using off the shelf components...

    They are an industry supplier of PC components, if I am not mistaken, including LCD screens, monitors, hard drives, etc.

    They also happen to have a very nice line of notebooks, and a very very nice PowerPC line as well. So both parties, the consumer and IBM have gained from this, as not only has their pie grown, their slice of the pie is actually fairly significant, considering how big they are.

    AS
  • Well, that all really depends. If you're someone like me who wasn't aware of ATi's Linux stance at the time I built my system, this announcement is welcome indeed.

    And, for an initial release, it seems to run quite well...

    Now, we just need to get Creative Labs to write software for their DVD kits or open up the specs...
  • I asked Okidata how to interpret the printer status info which can be read from the parallel port. Are they so stupid that they think I'm going to start making Aliendata page printers with page counting technology stolen from Okidata?

    Nah, it's just that THEY SUCK!
  • No more booting into Win98 to watch the Simpsons on Sunday nights.

    Life is good.

    Next Big Thing to wish for: support for my Sony DVD CDROM under Linux. (hey, ATI came around!)

    :)
  • This is from the announce file... Ooops. :-)

    This is an internal release to ati-team. It is not secret or closed-source, you can give it to whoever you want to, just don't publicly announce it just yet until we can nail down any remaining issues.
  • The development community then has to decide whether to support your extensions (when you come out with version 2 of your hardware) or your competitors'.
    Instead of just supporting your competitors because they are the only ones that have released the specs. Sound blaster compatability has not hurt creative at all. Infact it has helped them build a huge name for themselves. If 50 companies clone you, and claim "FooBar Compatible", you are getting free advertising from 50 companies. These companies would be your competitors anyways, so why not let them advertise for you?
  • Well a while ago I didn't know ATI was withholding the specs. I was at compusa just browsing, and I came across the AGP ATI All-In-Wonder_Pro. I took a look at it, and they mis-priced it! It was supposed to be something like $180, but the price tag said $30. That's all I had on me, so I asked someone who worked there about it, and he said they had to give it to me for $30. I was so happy! I bought it, and mailed in the $20 rebate, so I got the thing for $10!! Then I found out I couldn't use it, and I was pissed like hell. But everything's ok now!! :-)
  • If there are costs associated with being on a standards body, then what you get for your money is the ability to influence the standard in the direction of your own interests. It's hardly a charitable donation for the community benefit!
  • Am I the only one who has been using the GATOS XATITV package as my TV software under Linux? I have an All-In-Wonder-Pro and have no problems using it under Linux.

    The URL is...

    http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~ins omnia/gatos/ [binghamton.edu]

  • YES!! (Score:1)

    by minga ( 124572 )
    I almost creamed myself when I read this. My life is now complete. No more switching to Windows just to watch TV.
  • ATI, along with certain other (Creative) peripheral (Creative) manufacturers, has seemed very Linux unfriendly for a long time. It's good to see that they are recognizing the value of open specs, even if a little later than some of their competitors. Maybe I'll actually buy something from them, now. :)
  • Well we really didn't want to announce this just yet (as someone already pointed out), but oh well - the more the merrier. Please, at least read the "original GATOS announcement" and submit a success/failure report as specified in there.

    And for the record: ATI has been very cooperative, they believed that releasing their specs would give competitors an edge (which is understandable, wrong or not - I'm not going to debate that issue here).

    As soon as we (Mostly Øyvind Aabling [slashdot.org]) managed to reverse engineer most of the workings of the cards, they realized it was no longer a secret and have been very helpful so far.

  • It seems a lot of developers are afraid that by releasing hardware info competitors will get some sort of insight into their products and an advantage in the marketplace.

    Why is it no one ever thinks that by being liberal with their information they will in return get more hardware level support? Is there any history somewhere of company XYZ allowing info of their stuff to get released and getting burned by it? Yeah, it is sorta relying on social reciprocity, which is a social and not a legal contract...

    It's not like being the Most Widely supported, understood, acknowledged, and programmed for is a bad thing, though with mass public release I could see a company losing some of its freedom, being tied to its customers when releasing new/future products. But isn't that actually called customer loyalty and having an installed user base?

    One thing I can think of, if 3dfx released info on their Glide API, then other companies could ostensbily offer support for it, either as drivers or in hardware, and then 3dfx would seriously have to compete in an additional arena, since Glide capability would no longer be a sign of uniqueness. Heck, free coders could release better wrappers for Glide for alternative devices, like ATI's cards, which have *huge* installed bases, and hurt 3dfx immensely.

    Or is that analogy and concept different than a hardware company releasing spec and info?

    AS
  • I don't really understand the mentality of hardware manufacturers who seem to think that publishing details on how to program their hardware directly somehow threatens their market share. After all, a "black-box" developers' guide doesn't really give anyone that much of an insight into how the hardware actually _works_, so I honestly can't see how their competitors can use it against them (the latest bogus argument I've heard for withholding specs).

    Time was, in the days before hardware became complicated, when it was dead easy to write to, say, Motorola and get them to send you the specs for the 68B54 chip which was the key device in every Acorn Econet system. As a result, there were lots of different fileservers available for the Econet, and it was possible to plug in most computers you'd care to name (down to and including the ZX Spectrum, so I'm told!) to an Econet system. Did this harm Motorola in any way? Of course not - they sold many more 68B54 chips than they would have done otherwise.

    If this recent announcement amounts to anything, this is a welcome change of tune - it's about time the hardware manufacturers took this line again. Producers of soundcards, 3D cards, tuner cards and PCI modems - listen up!

    "If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."

  • Why they withhold specs (Score:3)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Wednesday April 07, 1999 @08:49AM (#1946021)
    I don't really understand the mentality of hardware manufacturers who seem to think that publishing details on how to program their hardware directly somehow threatens their market share. After all, a "black-box" developers' guide doesn't really give anyone that much of an insight into how the hardware actually _works_, so I honestly can't see how their competitors can use it against them (the latest bogus argument I've heard for withholding specs).


    Actually, you can get a fair bit of insight into a graphics chip's inner workings by looking at the register specifications, and if I understand correctly this is indeed what they're worried about. I speak as a graphics driver writer :). However, this isn't as much of a problem as most graphics chip companies seem to think, because by the time their competition can apply anything that they figure out from your specs, you've released the chip and are well on your way to finishing the design for your next chip.


    The main disadvantage to releasing your specs that I can see is that your competition gets to see exactly how ugly some of your chip architecture is. I can't mention names due to NDA, but at least one of the chips we have to program for makes me want to crawl under my desk and whimper - and I'm an excellent programmer with a very good grasp of graphics hardware.


    Fortunately, their competition's chips are much nicer.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.

Close