AMD’s Answer To Nvidia’s GameWorks, GPUOpen Announced – Open Source Tools, Graphics Effects, Libraries And SDKs

[NumLock21]

"Portal to access Open Source content"

Read it as Potato access Open Source content.  :lol: 

[Mister Snow]

How would security vulnerabilities get fixed faster on Linux? Considering there are so many distros of it, I'd only imagine the major, more popular and important distros getting patches in a decent time period. An OS that is O-S would have so many more security holes. Every detail of the OS is publicly available. Security on Linux is like someone breaking into a bank where they have the blueprints of the building. For windows, it's more of the same but without the blueprints.

 

You are not getting the point of open source when talking about security. Yes you have a blueprint but the thing is that everybody has an access to it so there is a higher chance that someone will discover a flaw and fix it (or at least notify developers) than it is with closed software. It's a double edged sword no matter how you look at it. Closed source has it's benefits but so does open source and saying one is better than the other when talking about security just because it's closed or open is wrong. 

[Doobeedoo]

This is great, and a good approach. Sadly it will take some time until it can take effect. But oh well, still great and I'm glad.
I hope we don't see unfinished and broken games on launch anymore. I know that may take time, sadly, but it will come for sure cause that can't go on for a long time, it just ends badly.

[spartaman64]

Oh bull. PhysX never showed ANY chance of being wide spread. Before Nvidia bought Ageia PhysX either required you to buy a Physic Processing Unit or use the absolutely terrible CPU based version that was WORSE than Havok at the time. Beyond that Ageia never really had any interest in developing PhysX on it's own, they wanted to be bought out by a bigger company. PhysX had a better chance of being an industry standard when Nvidia picked them up. Hell if AMD had agreed to licence CUDA PhysX probably would be a heck of a lot more widespread now.

 

 

I believe Nvidia provides Gameworks to developers free of charge. What devs have to pay for is a license for the source code.

I was paraphrasing linus and its is free of charge except you have to pay that makes no sense 

[spartaman64]

You are not getting the point of open source when talking about security. Yes you have a blueprint but the thing is that everybody has an access to it so there is a higher chance that someone will discover a flaw and fix it (or at least notify developers) than it is with closed software. It's a double edged sword no matter how you look at it. Closed source has it's benefits but so does open source and saying one is better than the other when talking about security just because it's closed or open is wrong. 

@christianled59 saying open source make things less secure because people can find flaws is like saying people finding ways to hack cars and notifying the car manufacturer are making it less secure so we should make white hat hacking illegal

[Eroda]

YAY! Wait, why the fuck is it called "GPUOpen"? Who the hell names these things? I need to have a word with them and teach them how to name things properly.

 because nvidia has a better marketing department? i mean Gameworks is like the pinnicle of naming for this type of software

[dragosudeki]

saying open source make things less secure because people can find flaws is like saying people finding ways to hack cars and notifying the car manufacturer are making it less secure so we should make white hat hacking illegal

He is correct, since technically open source is a double-edged blade. The easier it is to go through the open sourced code, the easier it is to find flaws. Then it depends on the person to either fix it or abuse it. The close sourced idea reduces the risk, but only by limiting what others can do to the source.

[Mister Snow]

@christianled59 saying open source make things less secure because people can find flaws is like saying people finding ways to hack cars and notifying the car manufacturer are making it less secure so we should make white hat hacking illegal

 

Exactly my point. 

 

If you have a development team of 100 people who made some closed software solution and they gather around to examine it and find it's flaws there is a smaller chance they will find something wrong than if 1000 people examined it.

[spartaman64]

He is correct, since technically open source is a double-edged blade. The easier it is to go through the open sourced code, the easier it is to find flaws. Then it depends on the person to either fix it or abuse it. The close sourced idea reduces the risk, but only by limiting what others can do to the source.

so volo was right to say if someone looks for bugs in their cars they will be arrested

[dragosudeki]

so volo was right to say if someone looks for bugs in their cars they will be arrested

Statement may not be good, but it certainly isn't wrong either. First of all, Volo should have its own teams looking for bugs in their cars.

 

I'll give you an example now. Look at the Heartbleed bug and OpenSSL (which is open sourced btw). This bug has been out for around 2 years, where someone who found it would be able to abuse it. Even reports of NSA abusing it instead of fixing it. I can almost guarantee there are other individuals who abused it too.

 

If you can convince me that everyone who is looking for these security flaws is morally good, I would gladly accept your statement that open source only gives benefits in terms of security. However, the fact still stands that bad people would be able to find the bug (just as easily as the good people) and abuse it.

[spartaman64]

Statement may not be good, but it certainly isn't wrong either. First of all, Volo should have its own teams looking for bugs in their cars.

 

I'll give you an example now. Look at the Heartbleed bug and OpenSSL (which is open sourced btw). This bug has been out for around 2 years, where someone who found it would be able to abuse it. Even reports of NSA abusing it instead of fixing it. I really doubt that no one else was using the bug.

 

If you can convince me that everyone who is looking for these security flaws is morally good, I would gladly accept your statement that open source only gives benefits in terms of security. However, the fact still stands that bad people would be able to find the bug and abuse it.

ok so all the white hat hackers should be arrested the person who discovered the heartbleed bug should be arrested any person who discover a bug in something and reports it should be arrested for looking for bugs

[zacRupnow]

YES! NO MORE GAMEWORKS. If this is truly open then there is no reason to use gameworks.

Devs don't use Gameworks because it's available, they use it because it works well and has losts of assets available. However you feel about Nvidia, Gameworks is good and AMD's solution will need to be more than just open in order to compete, alot more.

[dragosudeki]

ok so all the white hat hackers should be arrested the person who discovered the heartbleed bug should be arrested any person who discover a bug in something and reports it should be arrested for looking for bugs

I don't really understand your point (or how you concluded that point). Hypothetically, if all (white or black hat) hackers were arrested, there would absolutely be no security threat then, right? I'm also disappointed that you did not see that I said Volvo isn't correct and isn't incorrect.

 

From your point, are you telling me that all hackers looking for bugs are only white hat hackers? (Note: the word "all" and "only"). The term "white hat hacker" or "black hat hacker" exists simply because hackers can belong in either one of the two.

 

White hat hackers are "ethical computer hackers". I think Volvo's stuff is proprietary, so I would first like to ask if it is ethical to be messing around with a product, despite the fact that you are not working for them? In my opinion, I don't think it is (since pirating is pretty much that), though defining what is ethical is also not very clear. I think the best way is it to have any company that deals with crucial software employ white hat hackers. Whether Volvo has or has not I do not know.

[RagnarokDel]

YAY! Wait, why the fuck is it called "GPUOpen"? Who the hell names these things? I need to have a word with them and teach them how to name things properly.

to be fair, gameworks is a pretty stupid name considering most of the time, it does the opposite for non top of the line gpu owners.

[spartaman64]

I don't really understand your point (or how you concluded that point). Hypothetically, if all (white or black hat) hackers were arrested, there would absolutely be no security threat then, right? I'm also disappointed that you did not see that I said Volvo isn't correct and isn't incorrect.

 

From your point, are you telling me that all hackers looking for bugs are only white hat hackers? (Note: the word "all" and "only"). The term "white hat hacker" or "black hat hacker" exists simply because hackers can belong in either one of the two.

 

White hat hackers are "ethical computer hackers". I think Volvo's stuff is proprietary, so I would first like to ask if it is ethical to be messing around with a product, despite the fact that you are not working for them? In my opinion, I don't think it is (since pirating is pretty much that), though defining what is ethical is also not very clear. I think the best way is it to have any company that deals with crucial software employ white hat hackers. Whether Volvo has or has not I do not know.

what volvo is doing is basically sticking their heads in the sand and saying nope there is no problem with our cars and we are not going to fix it and you are saying that is the correct thing to do

[Belgarathian]

I'm really liking AMD Radeon Technologies Group's new direction with market and vendor participation, open source, and development. I hope it pays off for them!

[Derangel]

I was paraphrasing linus and its is free of charge except you have to pay that makes no sense 

 

No, it's free unless you want to license the source code. You don't need the source code to implement Gameworks in games.

[spartaman64]

No, it's free unless you want to license the source code. You don't need the source code to implement Gameworks in games.

so you either pay up or have unoptimized code that makes your game runs like crap 

[as96]

YAY! Wait, why the fuck is it called "GPUOpen"? Who the hell names these things? I need to have a word with them and teach them how to name things properly.

At AMD they have a person that picks the name, but usually he plays doodle jump on his phone.

 

/s

[Sammael]

YAY! Wait, why the fuck is it called "GPUOpen"? Who the hell names these things? I need to have a word with them and teach them how to name things properly.

 

 

Agree on the naming, it's terrible.

 

"gameworks" sounds so much better so we need to help amd rename this effort.  Starting now, Linus hordes, Youtube viewers, the locusts of the internet age, it is time to pool your collective creativity to give a better name.

 

I'll go first.

 

Visual FX

 

tress FX

 

wave FX

 

lighting FX

 

 

etc etc

[Nineshadow]

YAY! Wait, why the fuck is it called "GPUOpen"? Who the hell names these things? I need to have a word with them and teach them how to name things properly.

At least it's not called

FreeGPU.

 

Ahaha, get it?

[Guest Kloaked]

Agree on the naming, it's terrible.

 

"gameworks" sounds so much better so we need to help amd rename this effort.  Starting now, Linus hordes, Youtube viewers, the locusts of the internet age, it is time to pool your collective creativity to give a better name.

 

I'll go first.

 

Visual FX

 

tress FX

 

wave FX

 

lighting FX

 

 

etc etc

 

Your names are bad too.

 

Js

[Derangel]

so you either pay up or have unoptimized code that makes your game runs like crap 

 

Eh. I'm not even convinced that good developers can't work around not having the source code. They just need to actually have the time to do it. The big problem with Gameworks seems to be that in a lot of games it's implemented late in the development cycle, meaning the studio doesn't get the time it needs to fiddle with things and make it work better. Hence why they have to fix performance issues in post-release patches. That said, bigger devs should always pay to license the source code if they're going to use Gameworks. If you're already spending tens of millions on a game, pony up an extra few thousand (or whatever it costs) and get the source code.

[Nineshadow]

Eh. I'm not even convinced that good developers can't work around not having the source code. They just need to actually have the time to do it. The big problem with Gameworks seems to be that in a lot of games it's implemented late in the development cycle, meaning the studio doesn't get the time it needs to fiddle with things and make it work better. Hence why they have to fix performance issues in post-release patches. That said, bigger devs should always pay to license the source code if they're going to use Gameworks. If you're already spending tens of millions on a game, pony up an extra few thousand (or whatever it costs) and get the source code.

The controversy surrounding Gameworks is rather a symptom of another problem : greedy game publishers who rush their dev teams.

[Derangel]

The controversy surrounding Gameworks is rather a symptom of another problem : greedy game publishers who rush their dev teams.

 

Pretty much. Games are complex software that rely on several things working together perfectly. Game devs in general are rarely the best programmers out there and when they're rushed and forced to work 70+ hours a week during crunch times it's going to hurt their performance. On top of several other issues that seem to go on in the industry.