Embrace, extend, and protect? Microsoft joins the Open Invention Network to 'protect Linux and open source'

Quoting: Purple Library Guy3. Microsoft have been systematically funneling patents to sort of deniably-affiliated patent trolls and siccing those patent trolls on its opponents rather than getting its own hands dirty, thus allowing it to have its propaganda cake and eat its enemies too. Joining the OIN makes no difference whatsoever to use of this tactic. This is a very important point if true, and would indeed make MS joining the OIN a worthless and deeply cynical move. I have seen techrights articles making this claim before. I've never seen anyone else discussing it, whether to agree or debunk it, so I'm not sure if it's true or not.

They sometimes link to legal decisions https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180904118 it's legal stuff so it mostly available but hard to find. Who have founded which patent troll is an info available on wikipedia or on legal site about society creation. Techrigths mostly link second hand sources, but it is still possible to go to the legal source by following links. But then, the legal stuff is pretty much unreadable

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: cprnI'll believe they've "changed" when they make all their new DirectX releases just thin open source wrappers around Vulkan and only support GPUs with open drivers. Now that would raise a lot of eyebrows. Mostly in Nvidia corner.

But just open sourcing their current(and future) DX versions wouldn't be enough? Even if they ported it to Linux? It has to be on top of Vulkan?

What would access to DirectX source give us? We'd be able to make DirectX better by finding bugs and submitting fixes. That's it. DirectX can't be ported to Linux per se, it's a bunch of Windows core calls. Its API can be re-implemented on Linux, that's what wine does and yeah, maybe wine folks would benefit but nobody else, really. On the other hand the overhead that GPU drivers have just to support all possible APIs is huge. Vulkan solves this and it is a standard. IMHO we don't need Microsoft opening their code, we need them to comply with open standards instead of inventing their own concurrent solution each time new technology comes around.

Quoting: cprn

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: cprnI'll believe they've "changed" when they make all their new DirectX releases just thin open source wrappers around Vulkan and only support GPUs with open drivers. Now that would raise a lot of eyebrows. Mostly in Nvidia corner.

But just open sourcing their current(and future) DX versions wouldn't be enough? Even if they ported it to Linux? It has to be on top of Vulkan?

What would access to DirectX source give us? We'd be able to make DirectX better by finding bugs and submitting fixes. That's it. DirectX can't be ported to Linux per se, it's a bunch of Windows core calls. Its API can be re-implemented on Linux, that's what wine does and yeah, maybe wine folks would benefit but nobody else, really. On the other hand the overhead that GPU drivers have just to support all possible APIs is huge. Vulkan solves this and it is a standard. IMHO we don't need Microsoft opening their code, we need them to comply with open standards instead of inventing their own concurrent solution each time new technology comes around.

Hypothetically DirectX would be suitable as an open standard, replacing Vulkan, right? I mean from a purely technical stand point, they could open source it and turn it over to some standard's body or something. I ask because I am not well informed enough on the technical aspects.

Edit:

Could you imagine the DX12(or 13 or whatever) equivalent of anv, radv etc?


Last edited by Kristian on 16 October 2018 at 11:43 am UTC

I don't trust Microsoft any more than I can throw them. We know how they work. All the platitudes they have about Linux shouldn't be taken at face value. Maybe they just want to take over the Linux kernel, and make it prohibitively inconvenient to use a forked or older kernel that predates the addition of some really nasty spyware or something like that.

I switched to Linux to get away from Microsoft. And I won't stand for their encroachment on our Operating System of choice.

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: cprnDirectX can't be ported to Linux per se, it's a bunch of Windows core calls. Its API can be re-implemented on Linux, that's what wine does and yeah, maybe wine folks would benefit but nobody else, really.

Hypothetically DirectX would be suitable as an open standard, replacing Vulkan, right? I mean from a purely technical stand point, they could open source it and turn it over to some standard's body or something. I ask because I am not well informed enough on the technical aspects.

Neither am I, but I infer from what cprn said that DirectX is fundamentally different from Vulkan in that Vulkan is a sort of set of specifications of how stuff is supposed to work, which is then implemented in different OSes and stuff, whereas DirectX is instead an implementation of thingies that tell Windows specifically what to do in language Windows specifically understands . . . an implementation which no doubt has some documentation which may superficially look like a specification, except they aren't, because the specific code comes first and the description of what it does comes second.
If I'm right about that, it means that DirectX is inappropriate for being a standard for much the same reasons the Word .docx format is inappropriate to be a standard. All non-Windows implementations would be second-class citizens because the Windows implementation would be the real thing, and anywhere the "specification" varied from the actual behaviour of the Windows implementation (which would be plenty of places), it's the Windows implementation that would be the reference. And since what it's hooked into is closed code (Windows) it may be hard even to know precisely what the implementation is actually doing.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: cprnDirectX can't be ported to Linux per se, it's a bunch of Windows core calls. Its API can be re-implemented on Linux, that's what wine does and yeah, maybe wine folks would benefit but nobody else, really.

Hypothetically DirectX would be suitable as an open standard, replacing Vulkan, right? I mean from a purely technical stand point, they could open source it and turn it over to some standard's body or something. I ask because I am not well informed enough on the technical aspects.

Neither am I, but I infer from what cprn said that DirectX is fundamentally different from Vulkan in that Vulkan is a sort of set of specifications of how stuff is supposed to work, which is then implemented in different OSes and stuff, whereas DirectX is instead an implementation of thingies that tell Windows specifically what to do in language Windows specifically understands . . . an implementation which no doubt has some documentation which may superficially look like a specification, except they aren't, because the specific code comes first and the description of what it does comes second.

DirectX 12, or more specifically the graphics API Direct3D 12 is very similar to Vulkan. Both APIs were built on AMD's Mantle, and I don't see a technical reason why hardware vendors couldn't implement both in their Linux drivers. Vulkan 1.1 even added a bunch of DX12 compatibility extensions which makes the difference even smaller.

However, even if Microsoft hypothetically released an open DX12 spec, (deliberately) breaking their own "standards" and making competitors scramble for compatibility with their own implementations would be par for the course. They don't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to playing fair. I wouldn't trust Khronos either if they had their own platform to push. Instead they have all the interested parties working on a common spec. (Note that even Microsoft is a Khronos "contributor" member.)

There's also the fact that MS would never give up total control of the API. They like their lock-in as long as they're the big dog with nothing to lose.

"even if Microsoft hypothetically released an open DX12 spec, (deliberately) breaking their own "standards" and making competitors scramble for compatibility with their own implementations would be par for the course."

Them not doing this, or anything like it, was intended as part of my hypothetical.

Quoting: Kristian"even if Microsoft hypothetically released an open DX12 spec, (deliberately) breaking their own "standards" and making competitors scramble for compatibility with their own implementations would be par for the course."

Them not doing this, or anything like it, was intended as part of my hypothetical.

I still don't see the point. What would DX12 bring to the table that Vulkan doesn't offer? Many companies have invested a lot in Vulkan support and know-how already. Why would they want to switch to another API now, equivalent or not?

DX12 is more limited in scope and hardware support by the way. It only needs to support XBox and anything that runs Windows 10. Vulkan is supported everywhere from the Nintendo Switch to specialised safety critical aircraft hardware. Vulkan could replace DX12 as is, but not the other way around.

"I still don't see the point. What would DX12 bring to the table that Vulkan doesn't offer? Many companies have invested a lot in Vulkan support and know-how already. Why would they want to switch to another API now, equivalent or not?"

I am not sure it would be useful at all. But in the (unlikely) event my hypothetical came true, it would show a change in attitude on the part of Microsoft, right?

The reason I suspect such a hypothetical situation might be useful is because DirectX has a lot of mindshare, tools, tutorials, books etc and most of all games that actually use it. Have many games ship with DirectX support vs support for open API's?

Hopefully that will change with Vulkan. If open API's are used more and more on the Windows side of things then that will help Linux gaming.

By the way is Vulkan seeing any widespread adoption by Switch developers? AFAIK Nintendo only offers Vulkan as an alternative to their own API's. If Vulkan was the only option for a major console that would also help alot.


Last edited by Kristian on 17 October 2018 at 12:03 pm UTC

Quoting: KristianThe reason I suspect such a hypothetical situation might be useful is because DirectX has a lot of mindshare, tools, tutorials, books etc and most of all games that actually use it. Have many games ship with DirectX support vs support for open API's?

Direct3D 12 is a completely new graphics API and it isn't that much more established in the industry than Vulkan. As far as I know, only a couple dozen games have released on Windows with D3D12 support thus far, and none of them are D3D12 exclusive.

Quoting: KristianBy the way is Vulkan seeing any widespread adoption by Switch developers? AFAIK Nintendo only offers Vulkan as an alternative to their own API's. If Vulkan was the only option for a major console that would also help alot.

I don't think it matters. As long as a cross-platform API is properly supported, it doesn't need to be the only option. Nintendo wouldn't be a likely candidate to do something like this anyway.


Last edited by tuubi on 17 October 2018 at 1:50 pm UTC