Slashdot Mirror


XGI, VIA Release Open Source Drivers

An anonymous reader writes "XGI has announced the release of open source drivers for its Volari family of graphics adapters. Efforts at X.Org to merge the new code into the head branch are already underway. Almost simultaneously, VIA has announced the immediate release of open source drivers for S3 Graphics UniChrome, VIA ProSavage and ProSavage DDR. Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?"

315 comments

  1. So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So based on this news what is the best card to buy?

    1. Re:So what card? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nvidia makes some pretty good cards.

    2. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Don't you know AC first posts are supposed to be along the lines of:

      OMG FROST PIST!!!

    3. Re:So what card? by Andy+Mitchell · · Score: 2, Funny

      That very much depends on your application(s) and your budget. To be honest, if all your going to do is run X Windows it really doesnt matter too much if the driver is a bit suboptimal because all modern cards are darn fast for 2D applications.

    4. Re:So what card? by GweeDo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Something tells me he is looking for a card will fully "open" drivers. Nvidia releases "free as in beer" drivers (and they work very well might I add).

    5. Re:So what card? by MoogMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think what you're implying is that this release won't really make a huge effect on gamers per-se.

      But then gamers don't use linux and that old argument.

      I think the point is, there needs to be someone to slowly push graphics card manufacturers towards open source. And this (hopefully) is it. Eventually ATI and nVidia will (hopefully) follow suite.

    6. Re:So what card? by dsginter · · Score: 1, Funny

      In my experience, if you are looking for the "best video", then you'll need to install Windows or buy a Mac. Don't get me wrong - I've been using Ubuntu on my PC at home for almost two months now but this has really showed me the value in a copy of Windows.

      I have all these people telling me that I must be doing something wrong but they all get real quiet when I ask them to make an ISO of their drive for me to use.

      Hopefully, the VIA hardware isn't envumbered with patents and the whole friggin' thing will be out there for the hackers to make right. Only at this point will OSS have a real desktop environment. Then they just need to sort out the whole KDE/Gnome/etc mess.

      --
      More
    7. Re:So what card? by Trelane · · Score: 3, Interesting
      While it's true that current Xservers only exercise the 2D portion of the graphics card, Xgl (OpenGL/DRI-based X11) is under heavy development, and will likely be the future of X graphics. Hence 3D performance will likely be of critical importance in the near-ish future (though how much of a difference good versus great 3D performance will make remains to be seen)

      What this translates to for me personally is that XGI, VIA, and Intel chips are all major contenders for my future desktop, as the current contenders (Nvidia, ATI) both have binary-only drivers that come with some pretty serious headaches (ati in particular, Nvidia much less). Again, I'd also very much consider older ATI cards, as their specs are available to X devs and (hence?) have good drivers. But given my current fight with my ATI card, I'm seriously considering not buying modern ATI again.

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    8. Re:So what card? by didde · · Score: 5, Interesting


      A couple of weeks ago I managed to fry my highend NVidia GPU (don't ask how). At the local 'puter store they only had a bunch of ATI's available at that moment and since it's not easy to use the machine without a GPU I had to settle for one.

      I have to say, I've heard nothing but bad things about ATI cards under Linux as they're drivers are proprietary and rumored to be quite poor. Let me tell you, my X800 is working like a charm! It took me about 10 minutes to download the RPM from ATI.com, run it through alien and then install. It Just Worked.

      Also the TV-out is awesomely overscanned form the get-go as opposed to the NVidias I have been using.

      Sorry for the offtopic, but I am rather chocked that ATI has such a bad rep among you Slashdotters. Proprietary or not, the drivers works flawlessly for me.

      (No I am not an ATI employee)

    9. Re:So what card? by CrazyWingman · · Score: 1
      I have all these people telling me that I must be doing something wrong but they all get real quiet when I ask them to make an ISO of their drive for me to use.

      Woah - what is that comment supposed to mean? Are you saying that Windows and Mac folks will make you an ISA of their drive? Are you trying to say that the tools do not exist in Linux to do this? Are you trying to comment on the installability of the OS?

      You're just kind of leaving the whole thing dangling, and while I'm sure most people assume you're trolling, I'd kind of like to know what you're trying to say.

    10. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Via UniChrome is a Mini-ITX thing.

      Check mini-itx.com for motherboards.

      w00t! Look forward to lots of high quality linux based PVR/MediaPC thingies. Just plug in a thumb drive, or livecd...

    11. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll!

      As friendly as Ubuntu wants to be, it can't compare with SUSE and/or Mandrake (or whatever they both are called nowadays) in the Ex-Windows User handholding dept.

      Use one of those and then reconsider your post.

      As for why people get quiet when you ask for an ISO of thier hard drive...well that's just stupid.

      In fact..you are no longer allowed to use linux. Go back to MS.

    12. Re:So what card? by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Try actually using that excellent 3d card of yours for playing GL based game, either native or through cedega and then we'll see how quickly you become a convert.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    13. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! A whole two months?! You must be some sort of 1337 haxor or something! I bet I couldn't get along without a copy of windows hanging around either!!!!111 [/sarcasm]

    14. Re:So what card? by Datamonstar · · Score: 1
      They all get real quiet when I ask them to make an ISO of their drive for me to use.
      Well duh! Now go order me some lunch.
      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    15. Re:So what card? by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

      Unless you're using an older Toshiba laptop (pre-A/M/P/R series) with an nVidia GPU and are experiencing the infamous Black Bar problem.

    16. Re:So what card? by ajs · · Score: 1

      All I do "is run X Windows" (more correctly, "The X Window System"... there's some very old problems with calling it "X" or "X Windows" that MIT asked people to avoid by calling it by its full name)... of course, I run applications on top of it.

      They range from gnome-terminal to firefox to music visualization to video games like Neverwinter Nights to 3D screensavers to Celestia.

      I find that even for routine tasks like opaque movement of windows, a decent driver makes a huge difference, but of course for massive 3D applications like a modern video game, there's no question that you need the best acceleration you can get your hands on.

      Until this announcement you were pretty much stuck with ATI or the binary-only driver for NVidia. I don't know how good the cards from these companies are, but if they're decent this could really open up the market. I only know via as a maker of on-motherboard chipsets, and I don't know XGI at all.

    17. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't try to upgrade your kernel ever again and you're set. I've had nothing but problems with my 9200 card.

    18. Re:So what card? by dsginter · · Score: 1

      Woah - what is that comment supposed to mean? Are you saying that Windows and Mac folks will make you an ISA of their drive?

      I don't need help with Windows or Macs so I've never asked. But I would certainly make (and have done so) an ISO image of a working Windows configuration for a set of hardware.

      But you misunderstood my comment. When begging and asking for help with Linux, I've often asked for someone to simply ISO a drive from a bare configuration that JUST FREAKIN WORKS. I've actually offered to go out and buy the hardware to match the image. I just want off of Windows. But the only way that is going to happen will take one of the following:

      1) This VIA stuff works
      2) Linux picks a GUI and starts a "desktop linux" environment
      3) I get a Mac

      If *anyone* in the Detroit area wants to help me out, then I'm all ears. But as it sits, I've got about 8 weeks of fiddling with Gentoo and Ubuntu and I can't get nearly the performance that I can with Windows. I just want responsive graphics, synchronized audio/video and a single media player that will play all of my media. I'll buy whatever hardware that it takes.

      Anyone?

      --
      More
    19. Re:So what card? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem like a particularly 'infamous' problem if simply specifying a modeline fixes it...

    20. Re:So what card? by gtoomey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unichrome is mainly for motherboards with embedded graphics eg ABIT VA-20

    21. Re:So what card? by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

      The modeline only works for high-resolution mode (1400x1050). Lower resolutions still have the black bar, which is quite annoying when playing games.

    22. Re:So what card? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Who told you to use "noatun" - I've never heard of it.

      The two major media players are xine and mplayer - try one of those instead.

      As one person once pointed out on IRC, "mplayer would play a turd if you plugged it in correctly to an IDE cable". xine is about the same.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    23. Re:So what card? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I didn't have any problems with the linux drivers for my ATI card (getting the config file right was kind of "fun", but it turned out to be pretty simple in the end) but it sure is a pain in the ass on Windows. I ended up going to the DNA drivers because the stock ones were crashy. The catalyst control center actually hard bluescreened my XP box to the point where it wouldn't automatically reboot. My 9600 XT was a fine upgrade from my GF4Ti4200 but the windows drivers are poop. (Linux does not support my RAID controller; ac-sources has the driver but it is very unreliable and causes corruption of data.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:So what card? by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      I don't want to weigh in and start a flame war about any othe potentially applicable areas: distributions, hardware setups, graphics drivers, X implementations and all that...

      To make a meaningful comment about where things go wrong, I would have to know about the hardware you're using and what you expect from it. What are you using, and what do you expect to get it to do?

      If Ubuntu and Gentoo have been underperforming with you hardware, it may be possible that your system is too fresh for the support, which happened to me in 2001 when I put together my present system: DDR Ram and an Athlon Thunderbird. Patience let the distributions catch up, although I could have supplied bug reports and worked to get fixes.

      My experience has been different from yours, in that it's been positive, with an ATi Xpert 2000 Pro (which uses a Rage Pro Ultra and Rage Theatre chip combination) under Fedora Cores 2 & 3. Using the Mplayer and Xine from the 'yum' profile supplied by http://www.fedorafaq.org/, I have no problems with audio sync for DVD's and MPEG4 video. I'm not kidding myself, though. The card isn't up to hard 3D gaming.

      I think that 4 hours of an evening are the most that it has taken to get a working Fedora Core onto my machine. This is just my experience. I wish you luck in having a better experience.

    25. Re:So what card? by lspd · · Score: 1

      Well, the reigning champ of DRI compatible video cards is the Radeon FireGL 8800 which is a slightly faster version of the Radeon 8500. Some of the benchmarks of the Volari cards indicate that their performance is comparable to budget Nvidia and ATI cards. If their X drivers are as good as their Windows drivers, it's possible that top-end Volari cards are faster than the top end ATI cards when using the free software drivers. I look forward to trying one of these puppies.

      As far as the VIA drivers go...I'm not sure what they released. Most of the VIA chips already work with DRI. It's great if they're releasing more code, but I'd be interested in hearing what new VIA chips or features will be supported as a result. As far as integrated video chipsets go, Intel tends to be the best with DRI.

    26. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Funny?! WTF! Moderators!

    27. Re:So what card? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      I have seen some XGI banner ads around. That's about it... still, if their drivers are completely open source now, I might need to give them a better look. Has anyone here used their cards before? How do they compare to Nvidia and Ati as far as quality and power go?

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    28. Re:So what card? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Mind using SuSE?

      Stop fiddling. Dump Gentoo/Ubuntu.

      Yes, SuSE is not 100% guaranteed all free.

      But I can send you an ISO that will just work, or I can walk you through a (maybe 2 hour) setup process that will get EVERYTHING working, including synchronized audio/video (i regularly watch dvds, xvids/dvixs, AVIs, Quciktimes, WMVs, you name it).

      Occasionally, you'll run into a roadbump with SuSE. The only thing that comes to mind with 9.2 is that there will be a permissions problem burning to a USB-DVD writer if you connect the dvd writer after bootup.

      Easily fixed, though (setuid cdrdao), or just use an IDE or SCSI writer, or just leave it plugged in all the time.

      gimme an e-mail, if you like, moornblade (guess) gmail (guess) com

      SuSE isn't anywhere near as flakey as EVERY other distro I've tried.

      I use it as my main system. I watch movies, I edit short recordings from my miniDV camcorder.

      I play Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, etc. . .

      All the standard OpenOffice Office work type nonsense.

      KDE apps for standard organizer features.

      P.S. The BIGGEST issue you will experience is with graphics drivers. Yes, FOSS is nice, but get an Nvidia card. You'll thank me for the advice. Their drivers are sweet, and well integrated with SuSE (i.e. automagic recompiles/reinstall on bootup after kernel security updates, in about 5 seconds).

      My system, if you don't mind me saying, is really slick. I'm running Kompmgr, for lots of eye candy (standard SuSE 9.2 KDE 3.4 rpms. Avaliable from a SuSE RPM repository, they automatically install.). I've got support for every media format under the sun, and can play nearly anything except for a couple .asf files.

      These I play under codeweaver's crossover office.

      I'm running Linuxant's driver loader for my ACX100 wireless card. That's a TI wireless chipset, in my US Robotics 802.11G Turbo adapter. 125Mbps.

      Simple install, all automatic, no cost, because TI has license driverloader for ALL of their chipests. Even better, the drivers automatically reinstall whenever I do a kernel update.

      I'm running SuSE's nvidia drivers, avaliable from SuSE YaST Online Update (built in update tool). Point and click install, automatic reinstall whenever I do a kernel update.

      Everything works, all the time. No crashes, no virus-scanning, no nothing.

      All my windows games, most of my windows apps, all my windows file formats.

      I've dumped XP, and I'll never look back. Gimme an e-mail if you want some help. I can get you up and running, on your own, in a few days, or I'll put up an ISO for you to download. :) moornblade (guess) gmail (guess) com

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    29. Re:So what card? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      noatun is a pretty nice KDE front-end to Xine, IIRC.

      Works great in SuSE.

      SuSE = complete OS.

      Gentoo = 99% complete OS for gear heads that like to customize.

      Ubuntu = 98% complete OS thats just not finished yet. Hopefully, soon.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    30. Re:So what card? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to myself,

      But if you grab either an x86 system, or an AMD64 system, you won't need to have special hardware (except for the recommended Nvidia graphics card).

      SuSE compiles everything including the kitchen sync as modules, so it should work on just about anything that has enough ram.

      I suggest 256 mb if you want eye candy.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    31. Re:So what card? by ssj_195 · · Score: 1

      I've had shitty luck with noatun. mplayer, loaded up with all codecs (USE="win32codec quicktime theora arts dvd real xvid xv oggvorbis" emerge mplayer should do it - sorry, I may have missed a few USE options) works nicely for me, and I know there is a way of getting it to start at a pre-defined location and size (but can't remember off the top of my head). I'm afraid I have no idea about the audio/ video syncing - try it out with mplayer and see if it helps - if not, you can actually alter the time-difference while a video is playing with mplayer. I've always found Linux to be less responsive than Windows myself, so I'm afraid I can't help you there, either - basically, X has stagnated for so long that they now have a lot of catching up to do. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in your quest to escape from Windows :)

    32. Re:So what card? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      A couple of weeks ago I managed to fry my highend NVidia GPU

      How? Please? I smell a juicy tale behind this...

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    33. Re:So what card? by Aumaden · · Score: 1

      The performance problem is really due to video card manufacturers refusing to provide programming details for their products. Without this information, X cannot use the acceleration capabilities of these cards. Without a proper driver, it's not far removed from running MS Windows with the standard svga driver.

    34. Re:So what card? by dsginter · · Score: 1

      Mind using SuSE?

      Stop fiddling. Dump Gentoo/Ubuntu.


      I've already made the decision to dump them. It was just that I really didn't want to go back to Windows. I'll give SuSE a try, I guess. I don't care if it costs.

      P.S. The BIGGEST issue you will experience is with graphics drivers. Yes, FOSS is nice, but get an Nvidia card.

      I actually went out and bought an Nvidia card because of this recurring theme. That didn't help much so far. Hopefully SuSE will fare better.

      The ISO isn't necessary. I just want to understand why everyone seems to be able to put together a linux system that "functions as well or better than a comparable Windows box". It just doesn't seem possible. And it isn't like I'm not capable - I've been using Linux on the server for years (obviously, nothing but a command line) and I'm just four classes shy of my comp sci degree. Almost 20 years total experience with computers.

      I just want something that *works*.

      --
      More
    35. Re:So what card? by Java+Ape · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had a similar experience a couple of weeks ago. I have been avoiding ATI cards in my Linux boxes, but I was converting a nasty windows box for a friend, and he had a decent ATI card in it. I decided to try to ATI drivers, rather than dredge through the parts box for an old nVidia card. The result was one of the nicest looking and most stable X-org setups I've seen. The only oddity I noticed was that highlights in 3-D mode seemed a bit overly bright. Overall, I'm far more impressed than I expected to be.

    36. Re:So what card? by thehunger · · Score: 1

      So you came in late, had a whopping 10 minutes of positive experience with ATI and decided that all those Slashdotters had it all wrong? Next time try buying one of their All-in-Wonder cards, the ones with TV-Tuner and FM Radio built in. Even if you get a driver that installs, you'll find almost no support for all the features in AiW cards. Also, it was only recently that ATI added support for X.org, and before that they were late with 2.6 kernel support. In other words, if you had one of the recent and most popular distros (Fedora or SUSE) that used a 2.6 kernel, you were out of luck. No, ATI DESERVEDLY has a bad rep. Supposedly they are working on improving things, but lets just see. Have fun with your X800, but dont think that all the grudges are gone because of your 10 minutes.

    37. Re:So what card? by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I'm telling you, the problem is definetly Ubuntu and Gentoo.

      Gentoo is a neato toy.

      I feel like I've had a lot of computing experience, and I have a lot of linux experience (maintain ~12 SuSE installs, a mandrake install, and 2 slackware installs).

      I never, ever got Gentoo to work properly. I know Gentoo is 'sweet', but I just couldn't bend my head around it.

      Fedora/Ubuntu are both kind of 'flashy', too, but things always seem broken. Even when run by capable people.

      I've got a friend at IBM, one of their linux driver engineers, and he runs Fedora on his laptop. His laptop just doesn't feel like a modern system. Too much poking around in randomly placed text files, too many broken gui functions, too much missing functionality.

      The SuSE text config files are well laid out, and if you are a normal human being, you probably won't have to muck around with them.

      Plus, SuSE installs a bunch of 'non-free' stuff that you probably really need, like Java, and Flash, as part of the default distribution.

      Go to http://packman.links2linux.org/, and you can pickup the few packages SuSE cannot include, like libcss, for DVD decoding (dvd playback).

      Incidentally, DVD playback is not out of box working in Windows, and you CAN buy commercial dvd playing software (and a real license) from various companies out there.

      Trust me, I feel the same way as you. Dump windows at any cost. I'd get frustrated, dump windows on my desktop, install fedora, get frustrated, and go back to windows.

      I found SuSE 8.2 several years ago, and I've never looked back. Life is good.

      It really, really, just *works*, in a way that Fedora/Ubuntu(sp?)/Mandrake/Debian/Gentoo/Sorceror don't.

      Not saying that SuSE if for everyone. Some people like the other distros. But SuSE is *perfect* for me, and it sounds like it will be the best option for you.

      Link to a SuSE mirror, for 9.2:
      http://channels.lockergnome.com/linux/archiv es/200 50110_suse_linux_professional_92_free_download.pht ml

      I'm not sure the free edition comes with Java and Flash.

      Keep in mind the box set comes with really good, really comprehensive manuals. Very useful for parents, sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, uncles, cousins, dogs, etc. I think its well worth the ~70, but you may want to hold off buying till 9.3, which comes out in a week or so.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    38. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my 9200 runs fine (with DRi) on kernel driver.

    39. Re:So what card? by terrox · · Score: 1

      "free as in beer" does not make sense to anyone. Go and ask someone what it means and you will see what I mean.

    40. Re:So what card? by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 0

      I installed a low-end Nvidia card on a friends Window machine. It had an option to turn on transparency in Windows. Yet my high-end ATI card can't do transparency in Linux at all. Seems kinda unfair in concept....

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    41. Re:So what card? by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense to people on /.

      We are on /.

      So why wouldn't I use that?

    42. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as in, here some some free beer.
      /me drinks beer
      i want more beer, always wanting more

    43. Re:So what card? by didde · · Score: 1


      Heh, I managed to forget to plug the cooler's fans in (I had to use three) after doing some work inside the box. All was well for about 10 minutes, then the shit hit the fan.

      The screen went black and I started to smell something burning.

      Yupp. It's a classic.

    44. Re:So what card? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      Indeed... Once I assembled a PC, all well, all good... when I turned it on, it was very quiet. In fact, a little too quiet. I just thought "Fuck!" as I pulled the plug, luckily before the magic smoke left my processor. I had forgotten to connect the processor fan...

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    45. Re:So what card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Again, I'd also very much consider older ATI cards, as their specs are available to X devs and (hence?) have good drivers.

      I'd urge you to do so. I just upgraded my Radeon 9500 Pro to a Radeon 7000 and I'm very happy with the results. radeon(4) is everything a driver should be. I've tried out the 6.8.99.3 snapshot of X.Org and it seems the TV-out will be supported too. The ASUS A7000/T has been the best $30 (including shipping and danish taxes) I've spent for a very long time.

      The RV100 ("7000" or "VE") is OK to have a game of neverball at 640x480 or gl-117 at 800x600 once in a while, but it's definately not a 3D-oriented card. If you want good 3D performance, the 8500 is your best bet.
  2. What do they have to lose? by LiNKz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It isn't like they have much to lose. They sell hardware, the drivers simply let that hardware operate. They probably also know this will earn them points with the Open Source Community.. which is always a good thing.

    --
    Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
    1. Re:What do they have to lose? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but a lot of hardware companies hoard their IP as though it has intrinsic value. They seem to assume that since it cost something to produce, it must be worth something.

      Hopefully this will result in an improvement in the drivers and a detectable increase in sales for this hardware.

    2. Re:What do they have to lose? by Matlo · · Score: 1

      Drivers are good. But could they also release software to deal with the card's features? Some GUI to activate the TV output or something... With my Nvidia, it's a pain to do that. You have to go to XF86Config-4 manually...

    3. Re:What do they have to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they give a damn about points. They care about getting sales. Yes, this makes 'Open' a good thing for the consumer (Capitalism is supposed to be about the consumer, yes?) But I'm not sure if this makes them smart or just less stupid; how much money have they lost their investors by not addressing that share of market that wants or needs 'Open' drivers earlier than today?

      Don't forget the bigger picture. There are still forces that want to see 'Open' die, and the Satellite OSes that use it. So one might add 'brave' to the above mentioned 'smart' and 'less stupid.'

    4. Re:What do they have to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sell hardware, the drivers simply let that hardware operate.
      That's not even close to accurate. There is a significant amount of technology involved in video drivers. If drivers just "let that hardware operate" then you wouldn't expect new drivers to ever improve performance. Anyone even remotely familiar with gaming on the PC will tell you that significant (30+%) performance gains can sometimes be seen with a driver update.
      These companies aren't competative in the 3D market, so they may have nothing to lose. nVidia or ATI, on the other hand, most certainly would.

    5. Re:What do they have to lose? by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      have you tried running nvidia-settings?

    6. Re:What do they have to lose? by Miffe · · Score: 1
    7. Re:What do they have to lose? by glenrm · · Score: 1

      the drivers simply let that hardware operate
      Huh, there is no software development or IP involved with driver? More likely they don't have the programs that nVidia and ATI have and would like some open source chaps to fill the gap. Still as a learning tool and being able to play with Video card driver code it should be of interest.

    8. Re:What do they have to lose? by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. This is a win-win proposition for them. They just scored major brownie points with major geeks (myself included). I can tell you that if I was looking for a new vid card right now, I would seriously look into their stuff. A week ago, I would have looked ONLY at nVidia.

      The impact is that they will likely see a noticable improvement in sales because of this. And as far as their IP, nobody can even come close to nVidia and ATI. You only have to worry about your IP if you are concerned about the people behind you catching up. If you ARE in last place, you have nothing to loose ;)

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    9. Re:What do they have to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 3D drivers, sure. In 2D drivers; no. Unless you think mapping the framebuffer and putting 2D commands into a FIFO is high-tech.

    10. Re:What do they have to lose? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Drivers have software code paths in places either there is no GPU support for, or in cases where the CPU would beat the GPU doing that. Drivers also have a bundle of kludges around each particular chip revision quirks.

    11. Re:What do they have to lose? by davidyorke · · Score: 1

      VIA's and XGI's IP is probably worth something to their competitors or potential competitors.

      I'm not sure a lot of software libre supporters realize that.

    12. Re:What do they have to lose? by Daengbo · · Score: 0, Troll

      What do they have to lose?

      You mis-misspelled "loose." Next time be more careful.

    13. Re:What do they have to lose? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The IP is in the hardware though. I don't see how giving away information on how to use the hardware is detrimental to a company's ability to defend their hardware designs. I think it might help them, GPU design companies can't defend their IP against reverse engineered designs clean-room style, but they might defend against designs deduced from open source code.

      I shudder to think what would have happened if CPU instruction sets were proprietary like they way GPU instruction sets seem to be.

    14. Re:What do they have to lose? by davidyorke · · Score: 1

      If CPU's were as proprietary as GPU's, then CPU makers would have to write the OS's for them.

      Imagine Intel writing its own OS to go with its CPU's. ... And you thought Microsoft abused ITS monopoly.

    15. Re:What do they have to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, I just purchased a video card last week. Oh well... *next* time I know who to purchase from. :)

    16. Re:What do they have to lose? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      The OS, compiler, debugger... And you could kiss assembly optimizations goodbye.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    17. Re:What do they have to lose? by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      Be quiet. It's one thing to expect them to release interface documentation for their cards, but that's by far more useful to the community than having them write some GUI. If interface specs are released, we can write our own GUIs.

    18. Re: What do they have to lose? by gidds · · Score: 1
      It isn't like they have much to lose.

      OTTOMH: time? Effort?

      Time and effort maintaining web servers? Risk of lawsuits from breaching copyright, if they're not careful? Time and effort spent tracing down authorship and rights? Reputation and competitive advantage if there's a problem with any drivers? Time and effort in cleaning up the code ready for release? (Identifying and removing libellous comments, trade secrets, &c.) Time and effort, perhaps, in supporting said code?

      Of course, I wouldn't expect any of these to be particularly colossal investments, but it's not going to be quite as simple a matter as you paint it.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    19. Re:What do they have to lose? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea open source drivers and GUI settings tools are great but can't they also give out free hand jobs?? I mean geesh it's not like they are that expensive to begin with.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    20. Re:What do they have to lose? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Not really. Device drivers are not that complex.

      Their software would have to be largely rewritten to work with thier competitors' cards. If their competitors made a pin compatible card (which they could probably do anyway without the driver), it would take a year or two to design and debug it. They're not going to get a lot of information from the driver for this. Anything that's particulalry worth copying is going to be covered by a patent.

    21. Re:What do they have to lose? by destuxor · · Score: 1

      (Why is this post modded so high?)
      Dude, you really don't know anything about the Here, let me explain how a hardware manufacturer DOES stand to lose a lot when they open source a driver with a hypothetical situtation:

      Suppose nVidia turned loose the source code for all of its drivers. Everyone's happy, nVidia makes money, developers make better games, Linux makes yet another step forward. At first. But then a month later, ATI comes out with this card that is so fucking awesome that nobody in their damned mind would waste money on an nVidia card.
      Wonder how that happened?! It's called helping someone reverse engineer your stuff. Hardware vendors spend enough time reverse engineering one anothers' equipment as it is, open sourcing a driver hands it to them on a silver plater.

      The moral of the story is that when a software/hardware manufacturer does something to benefit the open source community HELP THEM by paying for their stuff!

    22. Re:What do they have to lose? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      ITYM address compatible card. HTH HAND

      (for those who don't understand that) Most video cards are pin compatible. There aren't that many choices, you can plug your card into a PCI slot or a AGP slot (there are other up and coming slots that I'm ignoring for now - they are important, but this applies to them too). Every PCI card is pin compatible with every other one, likewise with AGP. However the addresses and registers are not even close to similar.

      Drivers need to deal with those addresses. Device drivers for video cards tend to be much more complex than drivers for other devices (SCSI cards for example), because Video cards have so many more options.

    23. Re:What do they have to lose? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      ITYM address compatible card. HTH HAND

      I meant pin compatible chip.

      An address and data compatible card would be an option, but I still don't see the benefit. You'd have a card that uses the same driver. You have no idea how the data is handled internally, how state information was sent to the various stages. The driver and interface are really quite simple parts of the hardware.

    24. Re:What do they have to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATi, given a few thousand lines of source for a device driver, would reverse engineer an entire nVidia GPU and use that to not only clone their own GPU but make it better, and they'd do all of this in a month?

      You're a complete fucking retard. I think you need to understand just how completely fucking retarded you really are. I've seen window lickers who make more sense than you.

    25. Re:What do they have to lose? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      There is no benefit either way. If they are designing their own chips, circuit board layout is nearly trivial in comparison. If they are not designing their own chips they are in violation of patent laws.

      Pins are interesting, but unless you are going to buy their circuit boards, and replace their chip with yours what is the point. Those who care about pin compatibility, care because it allows them to replace a chip from one manufacture with another without doing any other work.

      You are right that driver compatibility isn't a big deal.

    26. Re:What do they have to lose? by UncleFluffy · · Score: 1

      Not really. Device drivers are not that complex.

      The last GPU driver I worked on had three complete compilers embedded in it, each for a different piece of hardware. One for the pixel shader, one for the vertex shader, and one to construct optimised texture transfer loops for all possible combinations of motherboard chipset, bus, memory timing, source pixel format, destination pixel format and pixel layout in memory. The transfer compiler alone was about 200k lines of source (including all the hand-assembled MMX code fragments it used to build the transfer loops out of).

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

  3. Open is good by Starraisin1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish all other hardware companies did this.

    1. Re:Open is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this thinking certainly worked well for IBM with the PC ;-)

    2. Re:Open is good by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      I wish even harder

    3. Re:Open is good by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that recently Plextor opened their Plextor PVRs Tuner Cards.

      Maybe these will be the start of a trend?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:Open is good by joey_knisch · · Score: 1

      Why?

      What operating system are you having trouble installing a card in?

      If you have a nVidia card you can install it in FreeBSD / Windows / Linux / OSX / Solaris 10 (soon) and get the full hardware accelleration.

      Sure the drivers are closed source but I for one do not care.

      I just don't understand how open source drivers for my nVidia graphics card would help me. I guess it's because I am not too lazy to type: "emerge nvidia-glx nvidia-kernel" and edit 5 lines in my x.org config file.

    5. Re:Open is good by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      It did work out well for IBM. More importantly, it worked out well for the whole PC market. Look at all the companies that built up around the PC. Look at the billions that the PC/IT market generates every year world wide. IBM is not hurting for cash. They make a killing on services around the PC market.

      Imagine if IBM never opened up the PC. There would be tons of incompatible computers systems out there and everything would be a mess. IBM created a monster PC-Pie that everyone can enjoy. To see what would have happened to IBM if they kept the PC closed, just look at Apple. Apple has never gained more than 5% of the personal computer market because they don't allow clones and won't open up their proprietary arch.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    6. Re:Open is good by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      What? Open source a shitty old version of their drivers with 3D stripped out? nVidia already did this a few years ago.

    7. Re:Open is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another ooohh-Ubuntu-is-sooo-kewl freak. Just what Slashdot needs.

    8. Re:Open is good by Urchlay · · Score: 1
      I just don't understand how open source drivers for my nVidia graphics card would help me.

      Some of us can't use the closed-source drivers because we're not on the x86 architecture. The only NVidia card I own is the one that came with my dual G5 powermac. It works beautifully in MacOSX, of course, but I'm running a homebrewed ppc64 Linux. No 3D for me... probably never will be (*). If NVidia would release the specs to the card (note: just the specifications, not any code), there would have been a nice open source driver for the card long ago, and I'd just compile it and go... Your closed, binary-only drivers are fine, provided you're using the architecture they were compiled for, but understand that not everybody is.

      There is an open source driver that partly supports the 3D (the nv driver that comes with XFree/X.org), but its performance is rotten compared to what the card is capable of. If the specs were available, the people who wrote this driver would have been able to make it good. As it stands, they did the best they could do by reverse-engineering.

      (*) Though I'm not really complaining: I bought the mac because I wanted a fast 64-bit dual-CPU workstation that was designed to run UNIX. I think of it as a modern descendant of my old Sparcstation boxes... and I'm having lots of fun porting my favorite Linux distributon to it (still in progress). Still, it might be nice to play Quakeforge on it once in a while.

    9. Re:Open is good by GiMP · · Score: 1

      Quakeforge runs fine on a voodoo class card, especially in an SLI configuration. The glide drivers are open source.

      Quakeforge also has a software renderer if you don't have 3d acceleration.

  4. C3 systems by renehollan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is good news for fanless C3-based systems using CLE266 MPEG acceleration hardware: Via had released closed-source drivers (and, indeed, forked Xine to use them in a product called VeXP). These drivers were reverse-engineered to support an open source equivalent, which was less than completely reliable.

    --
    You could've hired me.
    1. Re:C3 systems by putzin · · Score: 1

      This is the big news for anyone building a strong PVR running Linux. Currently, the biggest headache is decoding and processing HD content to display, which takes a 3K+ processor to handel adequately (without doing anything else). But with opensource drivers that can do MPEG decoding on the graphics chip (which XvMC tries to do, but not terribly well yet) one can use a smaller proc and less memory (quiet) or a faster proc and handle other jobs (transcode or burn a DVD at the same time). Anyway you look at it, with MythTV growing up so fast, and with all the fun hardware advances making doing this sort of stuff easy, this makes buying a Via board a real win instead of just a lower cost option.

      --
      Bah
    2. Re:C3 systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, by all accounts the opensource drivers were miles better than the via drivers. Did you know that you have ot run as root to access the MPEG2 decoder when using the via drivers? Or the fact that they don't build for xorg AT ALL?

    3. Re:C3 systems by acaspis · · Score: 1
      Has anyone checked whether the precompiled libddmpeg.so which is hidden in the, uh, "source" release from VIA can be re-generated from sources ?

      If not, I'll stick with the drivers from unichrome.sourceforge.net.

    4. Re:C3 systems by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cable is going to go MPEG4 soon though, right? Is there a VIA board with MPEG4 yet? I've heard of some set top boxes with MPEG4 acceleration (seen them advertised) but I don't know what the driver support was like and they were single-tuner anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:C3 systems by putzin · · Score: 1

      I was talking about HD which is mpeg2 and will likely stay that way. Digital cable can switch to mpeg4, but there aren't any capture cards that support digital cable with mpeg2 yet, so that switch is mostly irrelevant. Generically, you get an analog capture card and just grab the analog signal out of the cable box, using some remote IR stuff to change the channels (or serial if you're really lucky). Or you can still get analog cable if you want which is supported by most TV cards.

      But this sort of stuff is exactly what you want if HD decoder cards and firewire ports aren't wiped out because of the broadcast flag here in the US. If no flag, then you can always record OTA HD and play it back using the Via mpeg decoder. Also, many of the non premium HD channels (Discovery and ESPN for example) are not encrypted, so it's easy enough to grab those as well from most cable and sat boxes (with a firewire port most often). The broadcast flag will kill that, but I've got my pcHDTV3K and I'll buy at least one more before July 1 so that I'm not out of luck later.

      --
      Bah
    6. Re:C3 systems by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The source they released doesn't compile. Apparently it is the source that was released on the developer portal that became the basis for the unichrome driver. In other words what they released is older, buggier, and less secure than the existing open source driver.

      Some are saying this is just VIA's way of dumping support for linux drivers on the OSS community while at the same time spouting how open source friendly they are.

      --
      "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
    7. Re:C3 systems by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the hardware decoder model in vlc, MythTV and, IIRC, Xine, presumes a hardware decoder, separate from the frame-buffer display. This is not true of all hardware.

      ATI Xilleon X215, X225, X226, and X250 chips just plain eat MPEG2 and spit out video and audio, and this does not fit the common decoding model.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    8. Re:C3 systems by putzin · · Score: 1

      Which is fine. The point is to be able to capture the recordings and either play them back or store them to DVD. So, the hardware decoder built into the Via chip, which now includes open source specs, means that the seperate HW decoder is now available for Myth (or ffmpeg or Xine or mplayer) to use to handle the decoding. That's what is so exciting about this announcement. For the first time, there is a true, and pretty good, HW decoder with an open spec.

      --
      Bah
    9. Re:C3 systems by Hoplite3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As someone who uses a fanless C3 system with the open source unichrome /xxmc drivers, I object to them being called "less than reliable". I've had zero issues with them. In fact, when I was investigaing whether or not to use the VIA solution or the open source one, it came to light that that the via solution didn't work as well:

      http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?do ci d=25289&group_id=102048

      Moreover, VeXP isn't fully functional. It has issues with full screen play, other video codecs, etc. If you want to do something besides watch mpeg2, you need the open source solution.

      However, building mplayer, xorg, and unichrome to all play nice and use hardware took me several hours and a lot of curse words. It isn't exactly straightforward. (But maybe it improved from feb 2005.)

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    10. Re:C3 systems by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Well, it leaves Xilleon-based systems in the dark, even if open drivers were available: the problem is that the common model used in vlc, xine, myth, etc. does not cover all forms of H/W MPEG2 decoding and display.

      That means that it is difficult for them to support Xilleon-based systems, like the Roku HD1000 Photobridge using with H/W/ MPEG2 decoding. AFAIK, vlc has been ported, but it still uses S/W decoding (which can barely keep up at SD resolutions), and the graphics overlay buffer, which is limited to 1024x768.

      There are non-open libraries for those chips, that do provide access to H/W MPEG2 decoding, but using a decode/display model that clashes with what the apps expect. In particular, the decoded video is not generally available (mostly, because the chip can also do CSS, and has options for a generic decryption interface) except for display.

      I know the X225 will do dual stream 1080i decoding.

      Can the CLE266 do that? Or even decode one 1080i stream? The memory bandwidth alone starts to become problematic with two 1080i streams (which is why you really need dedicated video memory for this).

      Now, IIRC, the X225 can demux and decode MPEG2 audio and video, and return the raw frames, and that would fit within the vlc/myth/xine model. However, (a) displaying them using the graphics overlay buffer would limit one to 1024x768, (b) strain memory bandwidth at HD, and (c) generally would never have a public API exposed for this, because it would circumvent encrypted video source-to-display requirements and run afoul of licensing agreements regarding CSS, Macrovision, and other anti-plaintext schemes.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    11. Re:C3 systems by putzin · · Score: 1

      I think you're crossing points. The big drawback to HD on Myth (or any other system) is that it requires quite a bit of CPU. The Via chip has an mpeg decoder which with open drivers and libraries hopefully can then take a raw mpeg2 stream and decode without using much CPU at all, just sending it straight to the TV or monitor. The PVR gig is what the Via decoder is probably going to be best at, decoding HD and SD video for the next generation of PVR's. I think that's why this is so exciting. Besides, it's the applications you mention are all FOSS, so if you need a particular decoding paradigm supported, you can build it.

      --
      Bah
    12. Re:C3 systems by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I think you're crossing points.

      Perhaps a bit, but I think it important to note that the common FOSS media decoder/display architectural paradigm is shortsighted in that much hardware does not fit into it. The CLE266 does, of course, but still raises some concerns.

      The big drawback to HD on Myth (or any other system) is that it requires quite a bit of CPU. The Via chip has an mpeg decoder which with open drivers and libraries hopefully can then take a raw mpeg2 stream and decode without using much CPU at all, just sending it straight to the TV or monitor.

      Except, it isn't clear that the CLE266 can do HD decoding. Do you know that it can? If so, then the news is, indeed, very good.

      Furthermore, AFAIK (and correct me if I'm wrong), it does not decode to the display. It decodes to memory, which must then be mapped, or worse, copied, to the display buffer. At SD resolutions, this is doable, but at HD resolutions, one needs serious RAM bandwidth. Interleaved memory banks were de-rigeur on the X225, and even then, it had to work all out for dual HD streams, with one scaled PIP.

      The X225 specifically addresses this by taking extensive control over memory, generally giving the embedded MIPS processor the lowest priority. How is the CLE266 set up on Via C3 boards?

      Besides, it's the applications you mention are all FOSS, so if you need a particular decoding paradigm supported, you can build it.

      Well, yes, it can be done. But, the existing decode/display paradign functions around managing decoded pictures, and to modify it to handle display of undecoded pictures is more architectural work than just adding a new display driver, or demux. Furthermore, things get hairy if the hardware demuxs MPEG2 as well (since most of these apps demux audio and video into separate streams), but does not demux SPUs (i.e. for DVD navigation -- the chip can, IIRC, but the firmware for that does not exist as (I think) it was not intended to be a "DVD player chip", with all the CSS stuff that entails.).

      The whole architecture really needs a rethink to do anything clean.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    13. Re:C3 systems by renehollan · · Score: 1
      As someone who uses a fanless C3 system with the open source unichrome /xxmc drivers, I object to them being called "less than reliable".

      I had written: "These drivers were reverse-engineered to support an open source equivalent, which was less than completely reliable."

      I was referring to the reverse-engineering process as being less than completely reliable at producing source code that, when compiled, properly drives the hardware, and not the apparent stability of the result.

      If you've had success with hardware MPEG2 decoding on fanless C3-based systems, I'd be very interested in knowing more: I've been thinking of making a fanless media thin-client for the family room for quite some time.

      I recently built vlc from scratch, and was a bit dismayed to find that DVD menu navigation while streaming remuxed PS to TS of the selected stream was less than stable on an FC2 desktop.

      I had been thinking of hacking vlc to decode audio and video to black/silence, and just render the SPUs in the overlay buffer, and stream the MPEG2 to X225 hardware via Roku's libCascade. But, if the C3 eventually has the oomph to do HD decoding, that starts to get a whole lot more interesting, given the natural fit with the vlc/myth/xine decode/display architecture. Today, I'd settle for no less than 480p, though.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    14. Re:C3 systems by putzin · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's true, it's more a point of what you want to do. In the current scheme where the majority of mpeg decoding is done in SW (say Myth or mplayer), the stream is setup in the app, and the sent in an X friendly format to the card (let X do the work of talking to the card essentially). The HW then does much more work internally, using local resources to the video card. It can do this because the image is going right out the VGA or HDMI connector and not back to disk or anywhere else (so it doesn't need much system RAM and can use the AGP cards local resources). Since the original decoding is done by the capture card, it's in native mpeg2 format already. This is fairly easy because Myth or mplayer can specifically use X API's (xv or XvMC for example) and there is a lot less work for more performance. In the case of your hardware, the API's need to be in the player, which increases complexity, and if you're developing mplayer, and don't have this hardware specifically, you're going to have issues. You can build and test XvMC with a number of different video cards that support it (driver support anyway).

      One of the Via chips in the announcement actually has an mpeg2 HW decoder built in (not sure if it's the CLE266 or not), but without FOSS drivers, it didn't work so well under Linux (Myth users have had some success given it's the perfect fit for a PVR sitting next to your TV). Now with FOSS drivers, the likelihood that the decoder can be made to work well under X is very high. These chips are usually embedded in SFF PC's that are quiet and low maintenance, meaning they are perfect for PVR work, since what you need is quiet, reliable, and capable. That's why this is very good news. There is potentially one more video chip that will support high quality video playback and it does it in a very affordable and useful form.

      You're exactly correct about the cards you refer to, but the lack of builtin X api's, and the lack of good driver support for Linux will keep them from being a viable solution for situations like this.

      --
      Bah
    15. Re:C3 systems by dead+sun · · Score: 1

      That's hardly the point. What this means is that somebody can release a different open driver actually done right which uses the hardware properly, instead of the mess of reverse engineering what can be reverse engineered and not utilizing the rest. This just gives a reference implementation, maybe not the best, but should expose what's needed to take full advantage of the hardware. That's why this is exciting.

      --
      If not now, when?
    16. Re:C3 systems by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      The reverse engineered code you are talking about is in x.org and has been for quite some time. In fact the ubuntu hoary cd on my desktop right now has it. VIA drivers were very good at locking up my machine when I used them nearly two years ago.

      The main stumbling block for MPEG acceleration is the lack of DRI/DRM support in the kernel for the CLE266. You have to build from CVS.

      I have been enjoying HW MPEG2 for so long on an EPIA M that I don't remember when I got it working. It is fanless and watching TV or DVD uses 10-15% CPU.

      --
      realkiwi
  5. Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You paying attention to this ATI?

    1. Re:Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe ATI just have no visability of this on their radar screens.... :)

    2. Re:Well . . . by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      Maybe ATI just have no visability of this on their radar screens.... :)

      Sadly, I think you're right. But that's OK... when it's time for me to replace my current (ATi-based) card, I'm not going to have any visibility of ATi!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    3. Re:Well . . . by dinivin · · Score: 1


      Uhmmm... As I understand it, XGI and Via simly released the source for their 2D drivers. ATI, on the other hand, has released specs for the 2D core of their cards. They've also released specs for the 3D core of their older (r100 & r200) radeon cards. In addition, ATI releases binary-only drivers for all their radeon cards.

      Seems to me that XGI and VIA have some catching up to do.

      Dinivin

    4. Re:Well . . . by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Don't forget nVidia. Your drivers are sweeter than honey... but making them OSS means that when there is a driver API change. I can run the new kernels (have my cake) and use your drivers (and eat it too).

    5. Re:Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean nvidia, of course. I can get full 3D accelleration on ATi hardware up to the 9200, and 2D on all of them. On the nvidia side, unless I corrupt my kernel with their proprietary shit I cannot get 3D accel even for a 1999 TNT.

    6. Re:Well . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      ATI has released some drivers for Linux, but for their All-In-Wonder, the TV functionality is less than ideal.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add:
      YOU PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS NVIDIA?
      Mr. "I can't get multiple AGP ports to work at the same time to save my ass"???

    8. Re:Well . . . by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Utah-GLX has 3D acceleration for all pre-GeForce NVIDIA cards (exception: NV1). It was based on the obfuscated NVIDIA source release from ~2000.

  6. Desparate times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    These companies have absolutely nothing to lose by releasing their driver "secrets" into the open. They are both non-players in the graphics card market.

    I doubt this move will have any influence on ATI or Nvidia to open things up but we can always hope...

    1. Re:Desparate times... by OAB_X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was mentioned in a comment on slashdot somewhere that the code in the ATI or nVidia drivers may be propriatary and closed source as liscensed from someone else. They may have bought code from company x but company x may not allow for that code to be open source. So instead of re-writing the drivers entirely so that nVidia/ATI own all of their own code, they may just stick with the binary drivers to protect other companies IP.

      Does it suck? yes, very much so, but the world is like that with software patents. Though I am not sure how those patents would apply in this case.

    2. Re:Desparate times... by gl4ss · · Score: 0, Redundant

      *Does it suck? yes, very much so, but the world is like that with software patents. Though I am not sure how those patents would apply in this case.*

      if it was *patent* protected it wouldn't matter if the code was open or not. now it's just seeeeeecret 'protected' - which is not really protected at all.

      if they put their minds to it i'm pretty sure they could come up with open sourced drivers quite fast.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Desparate times... by julie-h · · Score: 1

      This is not due to software patents, but copyright. There is important to see the difference.

      Copyright is a good thing, but software patents are not!

      If it wasn't so copyright Microsoft could steal your code, and use it.

    4. Re:Desparate times... by Stregone · · Score: 1

      Releasing their drivers open source would be nice, but it isn't needed. They just need to release the specs for the chips.

    5. Re:Desparate times... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is bogus. I have had discussions with NVIDIA people before. They seem to think that since they only design the chip, but send it off to manufacture on a foundry like TSMC, and that since most of their chips have a high degree of hardware ISA compatibility, if they released their drivers someone would make a compatible hardware design of their own and send it to a foundry to manufacture.

      They think their biggest asset is their feature complete and quite stable drivers, and that anyone can easily compete with them for hardware in the market. They feel their whole business model is based on "IP", which is to mean chip designs and driver source code.

      In other words, they rely on a proprietary business model, and they wish to keep it that way, because it makes them more money.

    6. Re:Desparate times... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      That's great. We don't want the code, the specs would do just fine. I bet the driver developers would love to get their hands on every bit of information the manufacturers can release but are hesitant to.

    7. Re:Desparate times... by gtoomey · · Score: 1
      Unichrome is the very popular embedded graphics controller for all-in-one VIA motherboards eg ABIT VA-20

      I dont even know if there are stand alone unichrome graphics cards.

    8. Re:Desparate times... by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      Well, the least they could do is release DOCUMENTATION, so WE could rewrite the drivers form scratch.

      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    9. Re:Desparate times... by jejones · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt this move will have any influence on ATI or Nvidia to open things up but we can always hope...

      Well...I don't know about you, but I'm about to write ATI and nVidia letting them know that as soon as the open source drivers come out, I'm dumping my ATI and nVidia graphics cards, switching to hardware from people who fully support Open Source, and recommending to anyone who asks me that they do the same.

      If enough people do that, perhaps ATI and nVidia will pay attention.

    10. Re:Desparate times... by SpookyFish · · Score: 1


      I doubt either uses code licensed from a company they couldn't crush -- If this were the real reason and they really wanted to, a little pressure could solve it quickly.

      I think the real reason is they don't want to expose the code their spies stole from each other.

    11. Re:Desparate times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun playing Doom 3 at 2.8 FPS with your beefy XGI card.

  7. Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The quality of these drivers becomes extremely good in the X tree such that both ATI & Nvidia lose sales because of it.

    The only way those two will release their own drivers as open-source is when they feel a pinch in the pocketbook.

    1. Re:Hopefully.. by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Matrox has had free open source drivers for their cards for quite a while. Hasn't seemed to impact ATI and Nvidia yet. Still, one can hope.

    2. Re:Hopefully.. by linuxbeta · · Score: 1

      Down with Nvidia!

    3. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha. These cards still bottom of the barrel cards, and can't compete with what Nvidia and ATI put out. I'm sure tons of people will have fun playing with the free drivers, and you might get 100% stability out of them. But you will not get them to rival the performance of the Nvidia and ATI cards because of both the better hardware.

      And Nvidia and ATI won't open their drivers out because their drivers don't just 'run the hardware', they are a major factor in their performance, and they won't give those trade secrets away.

    4. Re:Hopefully.. by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      Matrox has had free open source drivers for their cards for quite a while. Hasn't seemed to impact ATI and Nvidia yet. Still, one can hope.
      Pretty sure that's because matrox bet the farm on 2D accellerators when 3D took off and then fell on hard times.

      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    5. Re:Hopefully.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last time I looked, the Matrox drivers that were open source only supported basic 3D stuff, with everything else being in the mga_hal binary, x86-only, module.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Last time I looked, the Matrox drivers that were open source only supported basic 3D stuff, with everything else being in the mga_hal binary, x86-only, module.

      "man mga" reveals it's a bit more confusing:
      The second head of dual-head cards is supported for the G450 and G550. Support for the second head on G400 cards requires a binary-only "mga_hal" module that is available from Matrox , and may be on the CD supplied with the card. That module also provides various other enhancements, and may be necessary to use the DVI (digital) output on the G550 (and other cards).

      So HAL doesn't affect 3D support. My single-head G400 with no TV-out worked fine in 2D and 3D without mga_hal, which is why I bought it, but the 3D was really slow compared to other cards (not good enough for most recent commercial games, but Quake 1, GLtron, and Tuxracer worked OK).

      For cards newer than the G550 (like the triple-head Parhelia), Matrox seems to have stopped supporting open-source entirely, making the Radeon 9250 the best chip with open-source 3D drivers.
    7. Re:Hopefully.. by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      Somehow I don't think open source drivers for embedded 2D graphics cards found in media centers and laptops is going to cause a drop in sales of GeForce 6800s and X800s.

    8. Re:Hopefully.. by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      Yes! That will hurt!

      How much market share does linux have?

      Now how much of that tiny share uses XGI or VIA video hardware?

      Yep, that hurt.

    9. Re:Hopefully.. by lspd · · Score: 1

      For cards newer than the G550 (like the triple-head Parhelia), Matrox seems to have stopped supporting open-source entirely, making the Radeon 9250 the best chip with open-source 3D drivers.

      Is the 9250 faster than the FireGL 8800? Without any doubt, the r200 series are the best DRI compatible cards, followed by the r100s, Voodoo 3/4/5, and Matrox G400. Intel's chips are excellent and well supported, but end up with poor performance because they use system memory.

      There's still hope that the r300 project will get to the point where a Radeon 9800 is a better buy than a Radeon 7200, but the fact that any results have been achieved without support from ATI is pretty amazing in itself.

      There's also some hope that the old Utah-GLX driver for Nvidia cards will be ported to DRI, that someone will produce an AGP card with an Intel video chip, that Mesa performance will improve to the point where a dual-cpu system doesn't need a high-speed GPU, or even that one of the minor players will realize that ATI and Nvidia know how to use a disassembler.

    10. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My G550 is running great under X.org, all opensource, haven't used the binary only mga_hal since my G400 blew up. Even better, the X.org drivers gave me a 30% framerate boost in quake / tribes2 (over XFree86 4.3)

    11. Re:Hopefully.. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Matrox has had free open source drivers for their cards for quite a while.

      No, they USED-TO have open-source drivers. Now, though, their entire product-line is completely closed-source, propritary and incompatible, and has been for some time.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:Hopefully.. by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      See Official Matrox Site for the Parahelia drivers. Seems the latest version (1.4.1) was made available 12 April 2005. Driver README.

  8. Off the cuff quick answer... by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...to the question about free drivers: yes, maybe, I certainly hope, all of the above.

    We already get our drivers for $free on most platforms. Free as in open and easy, I certainly hope so. While we've made great strides in compatibility over the years, getting the hardware people on board and co-operating is still lagging.

    When 95% of each sector of the hardware market is co-operating, then we'll just have to hope coders are doing something useful with the platforms now that they're working.

    I'll put this in my personal "Good News" category for future reference.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  9. Doubt it by soniCron88 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?"

    I doubt it. Just a coincidence. Wishful thinking. Once nVidia releases open source drivers, you may start to think otherwise.

    1. Re:Doubt it by erikharrison · · Score: 2, Informative

      nVidia does release open source drivers. The nv driver in X.org is maintained by nVidia.

      The nvidia driver, however, is not open source. The difference is the nv driver supports 2d acceleration only, whereas the nvidia binary driver supports hardware 3d.

      Unless I misread the XGI info incorrectly, this is exactly the same case with them - they have binary drivers that support hardware 2d and 3d, and they have open sourced their 2d code.

      Not sure about the situation with Via, but overall, I think this is a trend. Assuming that the hardware manufacturers are right, and open sourceing the complete stack would give away proprietary and competitive secrets, open sourcing the 2d path likely holds no such danger - it's old, and 2d ain't where it's at any more. Open sourcing the 2d code wins points, and possibly developers.

  10. not yet by brontus3927 · · Score: 1

    Maybe when ATI and nVIDIA release open source drivers as they are the drivers (pun not intended) of graphics technology

    1. Re:not yet by Stibidor · · Score: 1

      It seems doubtful to me that either ATI or nVidia will open source their drivers any time in the imaginable future. It seems very likely to me that the driver implementation would be tied extremely closely to the implementation of the hardware, and I don't think these capitalistic giants are prepared to give away any trade secrets at this point. We'll see how it all plays out, though. Should be interesting.

    2. Re:not yet by putzin · · Score: 1

      What everyone seems to either forget or to not have ever known is that Nvidia and ATI don't own all the tech in their cards, and so the drivers have to stay proprietary for monetary reasons. And, unless opensourcing the driver makes them enough money to offset having to pay the IP costs to open up the code, it's not likely to happen.


      That said, ATI still seems to be missing the boat in that the drivers don't do much and the stuff they do isn't all that great. Good, not great. Nvidia is better. With hardware mpeg decoding sort of working, and the driver supporting OpenGL very well, along with the TV out portions of the card, saying I won't buy Nvidia because the drivers are not open would be silly. Open drivers would be nice, but if it doesn't happen, I'll still buy Nvidia because the current software is pretty good, and they are doing a bang up job straddling the fence IMHO. Could be better, but Linux still doesn't sell enough hardware like this to justify the costs. I don't blame them.

      --
      Bah
    3. Re:not yet by brontus3927 · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming them for their actions. If I was in their shoes, I would probably do the same (or I would open source it and get fired by the board). I'm just saying I won't expect any great improvement in open source video drivers without ATI & nVidia getting behind the effort.

    4. Re:not yet by putzin · · Score: 1

      I dunno. For the first year or two of Nvidia and ATI linux drivers, they pretty much sucked beyond belief. But in the last 8 to 10 months, Nvidia has release some 4 or 5 revisions, each one getting much stronger in terms of support. ATI just recently got off the snide as well, and make an effort to improve by supporting xorg, amd64, and a few nice features. Still laggin Nvidia, but they are making the effort. Couple more big name Linux games that run on Fedora or Mandriva (the big user friendly versions) and more joe gamers might use Linux as their game platform. Then the money starts to talk.

      The Via and XGI announcements mean that the moderate amount of money that Nvidia and ATI were enjoying might start to dissipate. Who knows, things might be much better for this. Or much worse, can't see that far in the future.

      --
      Bah
  11. All I know is by Progman3K · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the performance on those cards is anywhere near decent I'll be buying one.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  12. XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gaming by gmikej · · Score: 3, Informative
    I bought a XGI card for my HTPC thinking that it would be the ideal card for my analog TV (s-video was supposed to be great). It works alright- but it will not boot to ONLY S-video. That means that every time I need to reboot the HTPC I need to drag in my monitor.

    I've heard that newer NVidia cards can boot straight to TV.

    Now I just have to decide on whether I wait for someone to work out a Open source driver for the XGI card or just spend the ~$40 on a NVidia card when I have a perfectly decent XGI card already.

    heh- who am I kidding. I'm cheap. And patient.

    ...
    Come on guys- let's start reverse engineering these XGI drivers!

  13. This is great news. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ha! Finally, hardware manufacturers are discovering the great secret: They're in the business to sell hardware! They're not in the business of producing software drivers for Microsoft.

    And guess what? I think this will ultimately increase their sales. As more drivers are available, choosing hardware to run Linux or some obscure OS won't be so difficult, so people will be more likely to buy a piece of hardware.

    I think this will also improve the quality of their products. Often, drivers, like any other software, contain bugs, which can cause it to appear as if the hardware isn't working as well as it should. Or perhaps the driver isn't quite as efficient as it could be with system resources, so it seems as if the hardware isn't quite as fast as it should be. When these things are released under open source, it is more likely that things like this will get fixed and improved, and that will ultimately improve the vendor's hardware product without requiring any significant effort on the part of the vendor.

    XGI and VIA are doing a smart thing. I'm heading over to write them an email about them and thank them. I suggest that others do the same. This is great news, and I hope other vendors will follow.

    1. Re:This is great news. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      how about they have the balls to put a "compatable with linux" sticker on their hardware? hell have a disclaimer that says , "dont call us for support, we will tell you to sod off, but it works with linux."

      I'm tired of companies enjoying the sales to linux users but refuse to admit that it works or even act linu-phobic..

      that's great they released the drivers, now they need to stick a penguin on the boxes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. Could be by El+Cubano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?

    Only if nVidia and/or ATI follow suit. (I know that in some cases they can't, but they could take an approach like Netscape and Sun did, release everything you do own and leave out the stuff you don't).

  15. XGI drivers are 2D only by olafura · · Score: 5, Informative

    When looking through the kernel source code there is only support for 2D. Kernel bugreport X.org bugreport

    1. Re:XGI drivers are 2D only by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this will be fixed quickly in light of the new situation.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:XGI drivers are 2D only by olafura · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they are going to add 3D but the code seems to be based of an other driver so they had to open source it.

    3. Re:XGI drivers are 2D only by obi · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about this? Drivers in x.org are MIT/X licenced iirc, and that means there's no obligation to open source the derivative like with copyleft (GPL/LGPL) licenses.

      Or do you mean the linux kernel framebuffer driver? (which, as it's part of linux is likely licensed under the GPL)

  16. Sinatra's Elated! by CrankyFool · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Volari, oh oh, cantari, oh oh oh oh
    Let's fly way up to the clouds, away from the maddening crowds....

    1. Re:Sinatra's Elated! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Volari, oh oh, cantari, oh oh oh oh
      Londo Molari from Centuari Prime?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Sinatra's Elated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Dino you insensitive clod!

  17. But what are we really getting? by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are we getting a fully open source GLX driver as well? Does that GLX driver exploit all the features of the chip? If there is hardware shaders can the GLX driver use those? Or are we getting something like the open source "nv" drive that only does 2D?

    1. Re:But what are we really getting? by acaspis · · Score: 1

      I don't know about XGI, but the VIA "open source" drivers contain at least one binary object (libddmpeg.so). "Source", they said ?

    2. Re:But what are we really getting? by labratuk · · Score: 1

      There are no 3d drivers being released here. Only interesting thing is the xvmc support for the via chips.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    3. Re:But what are we really getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GLX sucks.... hope for a DRI driver.

      nvidia shuns GLX because it sucks, you should think it sucks tooo....

      DRI rulez!!!!!

      oh and it had better have a DV driver capabilities also...

    4. Re:But what are we really getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The via sourcecode contains the dri driver, so at least via is providing the 3D driver. I'm not sure about XGI.

    5. Re:But what are we really getting? by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about. GLX is the OpenGL context and transport protocol for X11. DRI is a way to do hardware accelerated GLX.

    6. Re:But what are we really getting? by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Is this not the same source that was released a year or so ago?

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    7. Re:But what are we really getting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You don't know what you are talking about.
      That's it, you tell them, sunny Jim. Oh and welcome to slashdot.org..
  18. Still no rapid open source for All In One Radeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though there are open source video drivers for All In One Radeon, there is very slow development on All In One Radeon tuner applications. I have gone to gatos.sourceforge.net and downloaded the tuner drivers for an older X.org, but now that X.org is improving, I can't watch TV on the latest X.org. I have trouble compiling from source after half a dozen attempts

  19. What do they have to lose?-Their Shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "True, but a lot of hardware companies hoard their IP as though it has intrinsic value. They seem to assume that since it cost something to produce, it must be worth something."

    One way to find out. Give it to your competitors.

  20. I doubt it. by Detaer · · Score: 1

    "Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards" VIA is hardly a leader in the video industry. Seems to me like this type of prediction is just going to wind up letting people down. Hope is nice, but lets not slide down this slippery slope.

    1. Re:I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "slippery slope"

      This does not exist, by the way. Please alter your comment to better fit Reality and re-post.

      Thank You.

    2. Re:I doubt it. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Seems to me like this type of prediction is just going to wind up letting people down.

      Depends on what you expect.

      I was very much let down when I found out that the MPEG accelerated video hardware on my VIA EPIA motherboard bound me to a very limited set of kernel versions, and that I couldn't compile a better one. If this lives up to what it appears to be, I may finally get the MPEG acceleration I've wanted.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  21. Extraordinary coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is it just an extraordinary coincidence that both announcements by these two Taiwanese manufacturers of graphics chips of open-source drivers for Linux were made on the 11th and 12th April, or is there some connection between VIA Technologies, Inc and XGI Technologies, Inc?

    Whatever the background, it's wonderful news. Maybe nVidia and ATI will see some real competition now from these manufacturers with open-source drivers, and push to find a way through the 3rd-party licensing morass which supposedly prevents them from open-sourcing their drivers at the moment.

    1. Re:Extraordinary coincidence? by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Its been a while, but I thought one of the big 3rd-party issues to releasing open source drivers was the S3 texture compression stuff.

      If S3 is mentioned in the article, does that mean the cards that they are talking about don't use this texture compression technique? A whole lot of games do.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    2. Re:Extraordinary coincidence? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      XGI was spun off from SiS.

      SiS and VIA are both Taiwanese companies, and rival companies at that.

    3. Re:Extraordinary coincidence? by Wienaren · · Score: 1

      They have a cross-licensing agreement. SiS will release stripped-down XGI hardware in the future under their brand.

      --
      -- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
    4. Re:Extraordinary coincidence? by Wienaren · · Score: 1

      PS: They = SiS + XGI

      --
      -- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
  22. just a nit by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ... merge the new code into the head branch...


    Does anyone here consider the head to be a branch? IMHO a branch is taken from the head. The head is just a trunk. Not a branch.
  23. They're free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But my video drivers are already provided free with the box... why duplicate the effort?

    1. Re:They're free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the drivers AND card for free. It's just an fcking expensive box.

    2. Re:They're free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the driver, the card, and the box for free. It's the receipt that costs all the money.

    3. Re:They're free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, you know nothing! They're charging you for the air the box contains.

  24. It's a racket and everyone knows it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firmware allows the same card to be resold as a 'professional workstation card' or as a 'consumer card'. I can't remember exactly which but I think some of ATI's FireGL's are identical to several of their 9x00 or X800 cards.

    Secret drivers no doubt also contribute to this scenario. It's just a way of conning people into different rebranded (but physically identical) products.

    1. Re:It's a racket and everyone knows it by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...or you could look at it as giving people only what they are paying for.

      Is it really a racket, then or is it actually more of a manufacturing strategy? On the surface, we all want to think that price should be based on what it costs to make it. But there's more to it and, really, the only time material, labor and overhead costs come in to play when pricing an item is finding out where your break-even point is. After that, it's essentially demand setting the price. The fact is, that there are several markets... the home user market, the professional user market and on and on.

      And forget that you're a technical type and think like a business man who doesn't know tech. When you are told you have these three graphics cards to choose from, each with comparable capabilities, one of them has this ridiculously low price for its class. Are you inclined to buy that one? Most business people don't because it causes them to doubt the lower-cost device. "Why is it cheaper? Must not be as good."

      But back to manufacturing, it's important to lower manufacturing costs where ever possible... if it were your job to do it, you'd probably be no different. It's cheaper to make a bunch of the same product and then disable features and sell them as lower-end rather than to manage that many more product manufacturing lines.

      Is it frustrating to the technical consumer to know this? Hell yeah. I've got a Dell Inspiron advanced port replicator and a Dell Latitude advanced port replicator that are freaking identical hardware and they work interchangeably except that some ports don't function properly. I haven't decided to crack these two things open to find out what's different, but there is a fairly significant cost difference between the two devices.

      Is it a racket? No... I think that goes a little too far.

  25. Hopefully..We'll get our way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The quality of these drivers becomes extremely good in the X tree such that both ATI & Nvidia lose sales because of it."

    If wishes were fishes. So what's the open source timetable for video drivers as good as what Nvidia's producing? Month? Two months? Year? Two years? Keeping up?

    "The only way those two will release their own drivers as open-source is when they feel a pinch in the pocketbook."

    A threat is useless without teeth. That reminds me. How's that open source killer video card coming along?

    1. Re:Hopefully..We'll get our way. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That is the problem. It is like catching up with a moving target. The manufacturers have the specs and lots of advance time before release to make the drivers. While an open source programmer's work would be for obsolete cards by the time he was finished reverse-engineering, implementing and debugging his own.

  26. Moderate Parent Up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +5 Dean Martin

  27. Others need to follow. by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 1

    This is good news. I will be giving XGI and VIA priority on my next hardware purchase.
    Got burned by Matrox (triple head card) when they dropped Linux support after kernel 2.6 came out. They now point you to a third party where you can pay ~US$200 for what Matrox provides to windows users for free.
    Currently using Nvidia. Not open but it works and is easy to install.

    1. Re:Others need to follow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right they still support Linux, they jsut released a new driver. Supports 2.4 and 2.6 kernels.

    2. Re:Others need to follow. by FreonTrip · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may want to know that Matrox just released new Linux drivers for the first time in many months. Head over to their page.

    3. Re:Others need to follow. by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're right. Thanks. I gave up checking their web site sometime after having to buy the Nvidia card.
      Still, I'm pissed off enough to never buy Matrox again!
      Yes, the same thing could happen with Nvidia or ATI or any other binary driver. The next kernel build may break something and we are at the mercy of the corporation to fix it.
      This is what makes XGI and VIA more attractive. Once a driver is open it can never go back to being closed.

  28. moderate root as 'troll' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Non-players soon to be players.

    But they paid you to post what they did, didn't they?

    Huh?

  29. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by modnemo · · Score: 1

    I was able to boot directly to TV (svideo) with my nVidia GeForce 2 MX in linux no problem, I don't think that feature is only reserved for newer cards.

  30. Good Choice by tbcpp · · Score: 1

    I'm interested in seeing how XGI will do with full opensource support. I'd think the opensouce community should be able to help XGI optimize it's drivers. Sure ATI/NVIDIA will still rule the Windoze gaming market, but I can see a cult following developing behind XGI real soon.

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
  31. Desparate times...SUE ME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "It was mentioned in a comment on slashdot somewhere that the code in the ATI or nVidia drivers may be propriatary and closed source as liscensed from someone else. They may have bought code from company x but company x may not allow for that code to be open source. So instead of re-writing the drivers entirely so that nVidia/ATI own all of their own code, they may just stick with the binary drivers to protect other companies IP."

    And of course we ONLY have their word that that's the real reason.* Sounds like the same reason they used for the nForce ethernet driver...until someone reverse-engineered it. Then they suddenly became all helpful.

    *Security (from us) through obscurity.

  32. I was right about XGI by kenneth_martens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm glad to see this positive development from XGI. Releasing open source Linux drivers can't help but give them positive publicity. Back in November of 2003 I said we had "an opportunity to persuade [XGI] that supporting Linux by releasing drivers would gain them positive reviews and have an impact on sales." XGI has released the drivers, now it remains to be seen whether this drives sales.

    I don't know who persuaded XGI to make this commitment to open source but I fully intend to consider XGI for my next video card. I'm using an nVidia card today on the basis of their closed-source driver support for Linux, but I'd rather support a company that embraces open source.

  33. Re:What do they have to lose? Back to how it was ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simply a move back to how it was in the old days (80's / early 90's) of PC's when lots of lowlevel technical information was provided with graphics cards. Good to see this happening (again!)

  34. Why this won't happen with more popular cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Read up on video cards and Macrovision ... if companies making popular cards like ATI and NVidia start open sourcing drivers, it'll allow end users to trivially circumvent DRM plans (also read up on the whole 'trusted path' idea ... encrypted straight from CPU to monitor).

    It's time to shift your support to companies that support open source (and by consequence, oppose DRM).

    1. Re:Why this won't happen with more popular cards by Sweed · · Score: 1

      Of course users will be able to trivially cicumvent the DRM anyway after it gets hacked in two days.

      Any system which requires obfuscation for its DRM is not going to last long.

    2. Re:Why this won't happen with more popular cards by daverabbitz · · Score: 0

      Any system which requires obfuscation for its DRM is not going to last long.

      Or to simplify any DRM is not going to last long

      The nature of DRM in that you can actually view the information somehow, is in itself compromising the security.

      If you can see it you can copy it, that's never going to change.

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  35. Next question... by bad_outlook · · Score: 1

    Is there a PCI-e card that I can buy to replace my OEM ATI card that'll use these free drivers? The card is pretty new, 128Megs and such, but slow, so if I could buy an upgrade *and* get away from the ATI drivers, I will...

    bo

  36. Sorry, but the XGI announcement is a half-truth by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The XGI drivers are 2D-only; you still have to use the binary library provided by XGI for 3D.

    This sucks, too, because the performance of the XGI Volari V8 is comparable to a Radeon 9600 or Geforce 5700. And I'm sure that their drivers suck, so there's probably more performance in them. And it's dirt cheap, too. A 256MB card comes in at just under $100, and a 128MB card at $85.

    XGI needs to be told that this isn't enough.

  37. It looks mostly like the integrated market. by khasim · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    The UniChrome family display driver supports the VIA CLE266 and the new VIA CN400 Digital Media chipsets featured on the popular VIA EPIA M series and VIA EPIA SP series mainboards respectively, and will provide developers with the flexibility to autonomously incorporate support for latest applications based on VIA hardware.
    and
    On top of the UniChrome drivers, VIA also offers display driver sources for the VIA ProSavage and ProSavage DDR integrated graphics controllers as well as the integrated Network driver source supporting six VIA Chipset South Bridges.
    So the really good news is full kernel support for these everything-on-the-motherboard systems (which are usually in the less expensive/less upgradable systems).
  38. Ok this is really good news... by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why? Well, I have a bunch of machines here that use the KM 266 Via Chipset and support is scarce. Even proper 2D support is rare (I've only seen it in Fedora 3 and SUSE). Other than that, most other distros will either report 24 bit color (it's 32), or force you to use the generic VGA driver (which is SLOWwww).

    And 3D support? Non-existant. Not that the 3D is spectacular on the KM series anyway, but it's certainly passable for screen savers, programs like Celestia, and other non-'Doom 3' purposs.

    And it's not as though the KM 266 isn't capable of better. Under Windows it performs just great for what most of my users want - just not under Linux.

    Thank you VIA, it will only help you...

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Ok this is really good news... by praedictus · · Score: 1

      I welcome the news, but I'm still suspicious of the motives. I currently am stuck with an onboard
      VIA KM400 based video after my old MX440 blew up taking out the AGP slot in my old motherboard. I've been using the OSS Unichrome drivers http://unichrome.sourceforge.net/ as VIA's own drivers had a limited selection of distros and kernels.
      The current config here is a 2.4.30 kernel with the r30 Unichrome release, Mesa and DRI from CVS and X.Org 6.8.2 I had to hack in the AGP support from a patch designed for an older kernel, as the chipset isnt supported in the main branch. Most everything works well enough, The Goom plugin for XMMS is ok, though Lemuria is dog slow. Q3Arena works as well as on Windows or better, NWN works better. There are a few issues with the Privateer remake http://priv.solsector.net/ and with UT200x that remain to be fixed. I'm hoping that the crew working on the Unichrome project can fill in the missing pieces now with the source available, as there has been a constant struggle to get necessary information from VIA

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    2. Re:Ok this is really good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your card does not support 32-bit colour. It supports a 32-bits-per-pixel mode where 24 bits of colour information are stored with 8 bits of padding. The distros which report 24-bit colour are correct.

    3. Re:Ok this is really good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those "8 bits of padding" may also be used as an 8bit alpha channel. A lot of cards these days support RGBA blits.

  39. Where are the ProSavage/DDR source downloads? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    I haven't managed to get the DRI drivers to compile, install, and run from CVS/SVN in quite some time - I keep hoping there'll be a new release that supports it (yeah, I know, it's not ATI or NVidia performance, but I can't exactly swap the graphics chip in my laptop...)

    I tried following the links, but the download section for my actual ProSavage/DDR chipset only has Windows drivers...

    1. Re:Where are the ProSavage/DDR source downloads? by bobbuck · · Score: 1
      Can you use the source from the unichrome project?

      Check out http://sourceforge.net/docman/?group_id=102048

      I've been using DRI with kernel 2.6.11.something and VIA KM400. I get ~800 fps on glxgears and Xv works.

  40. XGI floored by fireshipjohn · · Score: 1

    Well we seem to have slashdotted XGI at http://www.xgitech.com/

    So I'm sure they are getting good feedback :)

    Now if their sales increase at the same rate...

  41. Not as big a deal as the headlines say by jensend · · Score: 4, Informative

    The XGI release is 2d only (the kernel code is for fb support, not DRI), and from what I see on the Unichrome driver effort's mailing list archives the VIA source release is just making available to everyone what has been available through a "developer portal" for some time and does not make any more of the chipsets' features usable.

    So the only possible real news here is a shift in the attitudes of these companies. We'll see how that works out in the future (whether enough information is released to allow open-source 3d drivers for XGI and full support for the VIA MPEG enc/dec acceleration).

  42. xgi by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    who here has actually used an xgi card, and what was your experience?

    I am extremely curious--they are cheap, but I want to know about performance.

    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  43. Something i wonder is... by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...are there open source video drivers for Windows? Can they even be made by an individual, or do you need special software for it (namely, libraries and so)?. Do they need signatures?

    I ask because outside nVidia, Windows drivers are usually lacking one way or another, specially when it comes to stuff like OpenGL. It could be interesting if someone worked independently on Win drivers for mainstream videocards.

    PS: It's great to see some companies realizing they are on the hardware buissnes, not software. Thank you. I had interest in the S3 Deltachrome/Unichrome series, and now i'll most certainly try one out.

    1. Re:Something i wonder is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful! The VIA Unichrome and S3 Deltachrome are not the same thing! The VIA Unichrome drivers will not work with the S3 Deltachrome series, and to the best of my knowlege no Open Source Deltachrome drivers exist.

  44. I applaud their efforts, but... by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    I applaud the efforts of these hardware vendors to support Free drivers, but:

    These guys are NOT the market leaders - they are very much in a niche market. They are behind and falling even more behind in terms of market penetration - as more embedded systems move to Intel, nVidia, and ATI these guys lose ground.

    They are hoping that by having Free drivers, they will pick up some sales in embedded widgets that they might otherwise not get. Yes, these guys make their money on hardware, AND they don't feel there is any "magic" IPR that can be exposed by releasing their programming specifications.

    So, what is the likely impact upon ATI and nVidia?

    Almost none.

    Now, *IF* we start seeing ATI and nVidia slipping in their sales to hardware vendors (laptop makers, makers of embedded widgets, etc.) *then* we *might* see ATI and nVidia getting worried. And if a winning lottery ticket happens to blow into my hand I might be a millionare.

    But since the segment of the embedded market to which ATI and nVidia sell (as well as the laptop market and motherboard manufacturing market) are still 90% or more "powered by Windows®", there is still little motivation for ATI or nVidia to re-examine their stance on releasing information about their chips - they will continue to fear that releasing programming specs will somehow reveil the "magic" in their chips.

  45. Great... by TheCoop1984 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, in return for them being one of the first gfx card makers to release OSS driver, possibly starting an OSS revolution in the graphics card/hardware industry, we melt their web server?

    --
    95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
  46. I don't care until... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...I can play Unreal 2k4 and Doom 3 with my ATI Radeon All-in-wonder. It's not X.org's fault though. It's ATI's fault because they are idiot arrogant bastards who won't release specs. I have two of those cards and they are sitting in boxes because there is no really good X driver that supports 3D acceleration. I've had to go over to the dark side and buy NVidia cards (they are the dark side because they killed off 3DFX who WAS Linux friendly). That's my only option though. Either that or just don't play the games. As it is right now, I only have one Windows box at home and it's probaby going to disappear in about a year. (Thanks to the Fedora crew!)

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:I don't care until... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Show me a graphics card with open source drivers that support all the features on the card AND that has the power to play all the latest games and I (and probobly many others here) would buy it in a heartbeat.

  47. Re:3D or just 2D? by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

    Unichrome has basic 3D hardware and the new drivers seem to support this.

  48. Suggestion on a new moderation type by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Slashdot needs a new moderation type - "Potentially Insightful Answers". This moderation class should +1 a post, however whenever any child post is given +1 Insightful, the parent should have 1 point removed (to a minimum of 1). So if someone asks "Where in Soviet Russia can I find Natalie Portman's hot grits?", they can be moderated up to give visibility to potential answeres. However once someone answers the question, they are moderated up at the cost of the original post.

    As it is, it's a tried-and-true karma whoring technique of asking an obvious, every-wants-to-know question as quickly as possible. Every moderator that wants to know the answer will mod it up, hoping that truly insightful/informative people will come along and see it. Yet the question itself isn't insightful/informative whatsoever, and is usually a very cheap post.

    1. Re:Suggestion on a new moderation type by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As an aside, I realize that the OP was an AC (and thus theoretically can't be a karma whore), yet the motivation is still there - even as an AC a lot of people will revisit to feel a sense of pride that their post was Score: 5. This is the same reason that Karma: Excellent posters still like seeing mod ups.

  49. Open Source Hardware by rinkjustice · · Score: 2, Informative

    Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?

    There's even open source hardware from the Open Source Project (OGP) coming out (info here and here, and the /. story here). for those who don't read the Developers section.

    The PCI version is due soon, and reported to have resolutions up to 2048x2048, dual-link DVI and TV-out (but won't be capable of playing HalfLife2 or anything like that).

  50. Re:What do they have to lose? [OT] by LocoBurger · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You actually put the difference between their/there/they're in your sig, but you get loose/lose wrong? Come on...

  51. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by mbyte · · Score: 1

    I would also be interested in a good, cheap, silent, low power 2d card for my HTPC, which card did you excactly have ? How much for it ?

    For the boot to tv, i think you can try to fool the card that there's an monitor attached, if it really demands a connected monitor. (just need to short some pins at the vga connector)

  52. VIA released the complete drivers by ericbinet · · Score: 1

    I just downloaded their drivers and they seem to include everything you need for 2D, 3D and mpeg2 decoding.

    kernel 2.6 drivers

    It's nice to see a company actually releasing useful open source drivers.

  53. XGI's "efforts" by Wienaren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cool. XGI took a very old version of the SiS driver, stripped out many useful features, uglyfied the code beyond belief and calls this *their* effort of open source development.

    And the worst part is that my name is all across "their" source.

    Finally, probably needless to say, the 3D part is not included.

    --
    -- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
    1. Re:XGI's "efforts" by mAriuZ · · Score: 1

      Yes i saw the winischhofer in the source code

      --
      developer http://flamerobin.org
    2. Re:XGI's "efforts" by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Well there goes about 90% of all the hope I had built up inside...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    3. Re:XGI's "efforts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you'd be able to fix it up then. What are you waiting for?

  54. Dear Mr Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We have noticed this development and we are taking notes in the event we become a second-rate video card vendor with pitiful marketshare. Until then, we'll be continuing to hoard our driver secrets so we can eventually kill nVidia and become the video card overloard. Pay no attention to the quality of our drivers compared to nVidia.

    Sincerely, ATi

    ps: When we become overlords, please do not continue to ask for free drivers, as we can not afford any insurgency in our dominion.

  55. This is great, but... by PsychicX · · Score: 0

    The cards everyone really cares about, the nVidia and ATI ones, are covered in several layers of NDA. Hell, we don't even know what ISA the GeForce 6 uses, and AFAIK the Radeon X--- series is similarly shielded.

  56. Probably makes no difference by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    The chipsets in question are minimal-functionality low-performance cards which can't even remotely compete with top-of-the-line chipsets.

    Linux support for low-end chipsets has never been lacking. This release isn't news at all.

    If you want decent performance and reliability, NVidia's binary-only drivers are still your only option. :(

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  57. lets hope nVidia and ATI follow suit by Dimble+ThriceFoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    whichever went first would score a real coup against the other.

  58. Finally VIA chipsets, thanks God by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    You guys can't even imagine how this IS important for wilde scale low-end computers out there. Binary drivers from VIA have been always crap, and let's hope in the right hands they will make Linux desktop expierence for lot of people much much better.

    p.s. Yeah, it is God with big G. Don't ask me :)

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  59. not the whole story by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I certainly welcome more open-source drivers, but the reason there aren't as many isn't just because companies think they're in the business of producing software drivers for Microsoft. They also fear that opening up their drivers will give information to their competitors in the hardware market.

    With graphics cards in particular, there's actually quite a lot going on on the driver level, and some of the "trade secrets" are even how to write optimal drivers themselves---if nVidia's drivers are 10% more efficient than ATI's in utilizing the card, it makes their card look 10% more efficient, and they sell more of them. You can also glean a lot of details about the hardware if you have the driver source code, especially the original un-obfuscated source code that lets you infer what the programmers were thinking when they wrote it.

  60. It would be nice! by timothy · · Score: 1

    "Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?"

    Boy, I hope so! Most Linux distros nowadays are really nice out of the box, graphically -- for 2D. Since I am close to a non-gamer (weaknesses include frozen bubble, kbounce, and similar addicitive brain-rotters), this isn't much of a problem for me.

    (And Yes -- you can disagree with me happily, but my main issue, as a distro-fickle klutz and permanent newbie, is how it behaves out of the box. If I have to download, compile, install, change settings, perform voodoo, my incentive must be that much greater.)

    Some cards obviously work better than others, but in the machine I'm working on right now, I happen to *have* built-in "S3 Unichrome" graphics, and it would sure be nice if I could finally play TuxRacer smoothly :) (I saw it played *very* smoothly even 4 or 5 years ago on Dell laptops with built-in 3D acceleration, but I always buy low on the computer food chain. Which means I can't really complain, per se, but I can still hope.)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  61. It's not just an ownership issue by T5 · · Score: 0

    Both nVidia and ATI have much to lose if their driver code gets out. Their specific hardware and software optimizations, relatively easily gleaned from the driver source, would be as gold in their competition's hands. Also, they've both been caught cheating by optimizing for specific benchmarks/games to boost their framerates in order to boost their bottom lines. When the difference in selling your new top-of-the-line video card for $500 US versus being in second place and your top card only able to command ~$350 or so, there's a lot of money on the line. And with the six month product cycle that we've seen for the last few years, there's a lot of money to be made or lost.

  62. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by Wienaren · · Score: 1

    No, the opposite is true - at least for SiS cards (which are pretty close to XGI's): If there is a monitor connected, they will NOT enable s-video. Physically disconnect the monitor before booting, and have the TV switched on.

    --
    -- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
  63. Reverse Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all of the recent discussions of reverse engineering BitKeeper, I wonder if it is possible to reverse engineer the ATI and nVidia drivers. In the same manner that the first IBM PCs were done (ala clean room.)

    1. Re:Reverse Engineering by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in fact some are working on this. However it is a hard problem made worse because new cards are coming out all the time, and each is different from the last. Each card needs to be reversed engineered separately. (Though once you have done one you will find much that still applies. However you still need to check everything to see what changed)

      Pay my wages and I will join the effort to do this. Until they I don't have time to reverse engineer new drivers. I don't really have time to fix drivers that I do have source and specs for. (And I do that once in a while anyway)

  64. Text of the VIA license (found in each src file) by frag+thief · · Score: 2, Informative

    /*
    * Copyright 1998-2005 VIA Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    * Copyright 2001-2005 S3 Graphics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    *
    * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
    * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
    * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
    * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sub license,
    * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
    * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
    *
    * The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the
    * next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions
    * of the Software.
    *
    * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
    * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
    * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
    * VIA, S3 GRAPHICS, AND/OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
    * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
    * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
    * DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
    */

  65. For Linux? by lofi-rev · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the download site:
    To install the driver, save any unsaved work and close all applications then click on the driver download link (above). Choose the "Save File" option and save it to your folder under Windows where you file your drivers. Unzip the file. (To unzip the file right click and highlight "Extract All") Then double click on the Setup.exe file to run the installation program. Follow the prompts and restart at the end of the installation.
    Do you need WINE installed too or something?
  66. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I was able to change the primary display on my GF4Ti4200 (is that newer?) to the S-Video, and have it use the S-Video exclusively, including the boot, POST, et cetera.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  67. Already great Free drivers available for Savage by crush · · Score: 1

    Thanks to the hard work of Tim Roberts (and lately Alex Deucher) among others who have made it possible to run these cards for many years now. Check out the main site for Free Savage drivers

  68. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, really, how can i fbe used against them? There's nothing about what it is doing internally, so you can't use it to engineer a workalike GPU.

    What?!?!

    1. Re:How? by davidyorke · · Score: 1

      You made my eventual point after your question. They released A (singular) software solution, but releasing the hardware specs (what is needed to cheaply and quickly create another reliable software solution) would invite some unscrupulous competitor to start pounding out knock-offs.

    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source and full programmer level specs would really not help a lot in making a knock off.

    3. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea how hardware is designed and what a programmer level spec looks like, do you? I'm sick and fucking tired of retards like you talking out of your fucking ass all the time. If you don't know, just shut the fuck up, please.

    4. Re:How? by davidyorke · · Score: 1

      Forgive me, m'lady ... I meant you no harm.

      Sanctuary! Sanctuary!

  69. Nvidia Drivers by David+Saxton · · Score: 1

    If only Nvidia could do likewise. Although they've done some wonderful work supporting their Linux drivers, a quick browse of the nvidia linux forums (which are by far the most popular at the nV News forums - not coincidentaly) shows the huge number of people who've been experiencing bugs (and in particularly the "screen frozen, but mouse pointer moves" bug) who would love to help, but can't.

    Graphics card drivers are precisely the software that needs to be open source. It is simply too crucial an element of a stable system to let one company attempt to handle the vast range of systems and configurations out there.

    1. Re:Nvidia Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh i had the screen frozen mouse pointer moves bug but it was when I was using my geforce 5600 on an older via board. I read a ton of web pages until I read one explaining via screwed up when they made the chipset so I realized it would never work the full 4x.. and 2x was kind of broken too. I hard coded the driver and got my card fixed at agp 1x and I didn't lose much speed in games because agp was still enabled, and it didn't freeze anymore. You have to realize though my machine only had two options agp 2x or 4x.. and both of these would crash so forcing it to 1x was great for me.

  70. BSD Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well at least the BSD license flavor is alive and well.

  71. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

    "I've heard that newer NVidia cards can boot straight to TV."

    They sure can. I've done that more than once, in scenarios where I had no monitor at all save for a TV screen. In fact I'm actually surprised there are cards that can't do this.

  72. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by gmikej · · Score: 1

    I have the Volari V3XT (I believe). I really would rather just pull the monitor over as opposed to shorting some pins. I also got the V3XT because it has DVI out- and someday I'll want a new TV.

  73. drivers are rarely done 100% in-house by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful



    This is not completely fair. Most hardware companies depend on code in their drivers that their staff did not write. As contracts generally go, the outside developer usually imposes limits on use and distribution of their work. It's invariably more expensive to purchase outsourced code without restrictions.

    1. Re:drivers are rarely done 100% in-house by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      This is not completely fair. Most hardware companies depend on code in their drivers that their staff did not write. As contracts generally go, the outside developer usually imposes limits on use and distribution of their work. It's invariably more expensive to purchase outsourced code without restrictions.

      That does not excuse manufacturers from releasing the programming specifications for their cards. The mantra from the Free software people has always been - give us the specs, we'll give you the drivers.

      In this case, Via and Volari have gone a step further, but in the long run, good specs are actually more useful than just driver sources because you still have to reverse engineer the specs from the driver source if you want to do anything substantially new or different.

      Note, I don't know if they released formal documentation too, I'm just making a general point.

    2. Re:drivers are rarely done 100% in-house by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



      You are very correct. I agree with everything you've said here. I appreciate you covering the other aspects of this issue that I left out in favor of brevity.

      Seth

  74. ATI still garbage. by Inoshiro · · Score: 4, Informative

    Won't compile with 2.6.11? Check.
    Compiles with BIG, LARGE warnings about depreciated features being used in 2.6.10? Check.
    Won't work under x64_64? Check.
    2D part of drivers buggy? Check.
    Infrequent releases that don't correct problems? Check.
    No support for X RandR? Check.

    Sorry, the ATI drivers don't pass muster. Perhaps I should've realized sooner with the constant weird 2D bugs I had with the ATI driver. Or the fact it wouldn't compile on 2.6.11. Or the fact it just plain won't work as advertised on 64-bit Linux.

    I took out my Radeon 8500, put in a Geforce 2MX I had, and installed the nVidia driver. It was actually wrapped in an installer, rather than me having to manually untar and run scripts ala ATI. It asked if I wanted 32-bit compatibility OpenGL libraries. It told me that the 2.6.11 kernel fixed some AGP issues and was reccomended (which was good since I already had it, and only used the 2.6.10 because of ATI). X RandR started to work with the nVidia driver. 64-bit and 32-bit apps work flawlessly with each other.

    ATI is shit. Their card hardware may be good, but without a driver, it might as well be an ISA SB16 for all the use I get out of it.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:ATI still garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Huh? When's the last time you tried these drivers? I had them working perfectly under 2.6.10 and they compiled fine under 2.6.11 as well. No warnings, no errors.

      They also have drivers for x86_64.

      2D support buggy? What's wrong? Everything looks fine to me. 3D support may not be all there compared to nvidia, but 2D is fine.

      You score points for the last two though. They do have infrequent releases that don't resolve problems and there's no support for X RanR as far as I know.

    2. Re:ATI still garbage. by kangpeh · · Score: 4, Informative

      ATI does in fact run quite nicely under Linux using the fglrx drivers. With a little bit of effort (i.e., compiling the driver, loading it into the kernel as a module, re-configuring your x-org configuration to use fglrx rather than ati/radeon, and so forth), X-org will run very smoothly and rapidly with an ATI video card.

      Try comparing the amount of frames per second you get with glxgears using the Mesa 3D Open Source ATI drivers versus the proprietary fglrx drivers supplied by ATI. I think you will get 100 times more frames in a second with the ATI fglrx drivers.

      Using the fglrx drivers, I am able to play all games, including Legends, Cube, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Americas Army, Frozen Bubble, Super Tux, Tux Racer, Counterstrike, and others, just to name a few.

      The only setbacks seen with the fglrx drivers would be that of the mentioned lack of XRandR support as well as a lack of XCompMgr support (for drop shadows/transparency). However, such minor setbacks on 'beauty' shouldn't be a big decision when choosing which drivers to use.

      ATI does not "fail it." While, they do not support the open source community as much as we would like (as, persay, NVidia Corp), they do in fact give us enough support as of right now to be comfortable. ATI's main clientele, as are most video card manufacturers/distributors, are Microsoft Windows users. You'll need to keep in mind, their programmers/staff should be put forth to work on what is important to the financial situation of the company rather than pleasing us Linux users - for now.

      After all, a company does not exist without money.

    3. Re:ATI still garbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nvidia's drivers hang randomly for lots of users; look at the Nvidia Linux forum and search for 'Xid'.

    4. Re:ATI still garbage. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      ATI does not "fail it." While, they do not support the open source community as much as we would like (as, persay, NVidia Corp), they do in fact give us enough support as of right now to be comfortable.

      For me, an ATI customer, they do. I'm not comfortable at all with the support I get from ATI. I'm able to install the drivers, but I DO have a problem with the driver's 2D performance. For 2D, you are better off open source drivers then to use Fglrx. Games aren't everything. Hell, to me games are what I play on my Gamecube. I want to have decent performance in a 2D desktop environment considering that 2D acceleration is old hat by now. Now everyone measures a card by its 3D performance (where the flgrx drivers still lag greatly in compared to the windows drivers....)

      The only setbacks seen with the fglrx drivers would be that of the mentioned lack of XRandR support as well as a lack of XCompMgr support (for drop shadows/transparency). However, such minor setbacks on 'beauty' shouldn't be a big decision when choosing which drivers to use.

      It might not matter to you, because you (like me) have an ATI card and you've never actually seen this stuff at work. The other day I tried it out on my girlfriend's laptop (with a Geforce 420 Go, a card theoretically not half as good as my 9600 pro), and that fading trick when it was properly accelerated was the coolest desktop effect I've ever seen. Makes desktop use a lot easier on the eyes. Also, when xcompmagr is running on hers, the entire desktop feels faster and more responsive then my much faster desktop with the ATI card in it. Since I (like many people) use my computer more for work than games, my ATI card is not acceptable. Thats why I bought a 5200 Nvidia card a few days ago, because I'm sick of fighting with crappy drivers only to have my 2D performance SUFFER!!!! I'll keep the old card around, to remind me not to buy ATI again...

    5. Re:ATI still garbage. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I took out my Radeon 8500, put in a Geforce 2MX I had...

      That's odd. I had a Radeon 8500 in a Linux machine (removed it due to flakey DVI port). I seemed to recall the open source drivers worked really well for it, and would work well with all the cards that were based on the 8500 (up to the 9200SE, I believe). It's the newer ATI cards that don't play well with Linux.

    6. Re:ATI still garbage. by kangpeh · · Score: 1

      While what you hath stated in your honorable reply to my respectable reply may be true, you must consider the fact that time still goes on. Right now, myself and thousands of others hath been enduring the rath of the delay in driver completion for the Linux operating system from the beloved company, ATI. However, do not lose faith in humanity. Maybe not now, maybe not even in a year - however, one day, drivers for your beloved ATI video card which shall be comparable to the Nvidia competition shall exist in the Linux world. Fear not, as we must believe in humanity, and the love of innovation which we as a human race exist for. While some may innovate for financial gains, some may innovate for prosperity, some may even innovate to find a suitable girl to fulfill their deepest desires... but for whatever reason they undergo the process of innovation, the outcome shall remain equal - prosperity.

    7. Re:ATI still garbage. by Karora · · Score: 1
      The only setbacks seen with the fglrx drivers would be that of the mentioned lack of XRandR support as well as a lack of XCompMgr support (for drop shadows/transparency). However, such minor setbacks on 'beauty' shouldn't be a big decision when choosing which drivers to use.

      And also the ATI inability to survive a suspend / resume cycle.... That's the one that kills the fglrx drivers every release for me, and I've had this laptop for 18 months now with that issue.

      Hopefully it'll be working before I hand it on to someone else :-)

      --

      ...heellpppp! I've been captured by little green penguins!
  75. Re:Desperate times... by FreonTrip · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's a lovely idea. But XGI's shifty and deceptive hijinks pretty much bork the idea of a complete switchover, and nice as VIA's integrated hardware is, it doesn't hold a candle to any reasonably modern solution by the two main graphics card companies. Now I fully support VIA's decision here. It's been a sticking point for lots of people, and is very much The Right Thing(tm) to do. XGI, on the other hand, is still pulling the same crap SiS and Trident were so infamous for. Whee.

  76. You people just don't get it by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    Both XGI and VIA do budget GFX cards with subpar performance for anything 3D. They're doing this as a marketing ploy.

    Numerous posters have noted "why doesn't nVidia/ATI do this since we have to buy the HW anyway?"

    Since the drivers communicate with the low-level hardware, they reveal partially the design of the hardware and I would assume there's some clever optimizations as well. They're not worried about Joe Sixpack having the source. They're worried about another card company looking at the code and thus making drivers/cards with better performance.

    While open source is great for many things, I'm perfectly comfortable with not editing my video driver source code. Why do we really need it? It's not like this is a webserver, a browser, or anything I'd want to try to improve.

    I'd much rather have these companies keep their drivers closed-sourced and use some of their profits to fund OSDN or the EFF.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:You people just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's not like this is a webserver, a browser, or anything I'd want to try to improve.

      While open source is great for many things, my grandmother doesn't hack on webservers or browsers much. Why do we really need the source code for these things?

      And now a little poem...

      Just for you, here's half a clue: "CU"

    2. Re:You people just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a piece of hardware from a Company, I expect to be able to use it the way for what it was designed to do, work with what ever Operating System/Software I so use at that time.

      why should i fork out $500 for something that is no better then for giving me a constant ear-ache from the fan, frying eggs/whatever, keeping my house warm in the middle of summer, sucking jesus knows how many watts.

      Would you buy a house from Estate Agent, showing only a picture of your supposedly great big glorious new house, costing $250,000.00 only to find it's some pissing caving in the middle no-where, right in some bog land? no? my sentiments exactly.

      All developers really need is DOCUMENTATION and/or SPECIFICATIONS, not code.

    3. Re:You people just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a piece of hardware from a Company, I expect to be able to use it the way for what it was designed to do, work with what ever Operating System/Software I so use at that time.

      im all for open source drivers but im sure it said no where on the box it works with linux, so don't be stupid,if you want linux support research
      before you buy. if its unsupported don't buy it

  77. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by morpheus800e · · Score: 1
    I've heard that newer NVidia cards can boot straight to TV.
    That definitely isn't only available in "newer" cards, as I had a 4MB Riva128 card that would boot to composite or s-video with no monitor attached.
  78. Still limited... by tenco · · Score: 1

    Yes, Tim Roberts did a good job. But the free ProSavage (DDR) drivers are still limited. To date theres no working support vor XvMC for this card(s).

  79. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by metamatic · · Score: 1

    VIA S3 Savage can boot straight to TV. Use a VIA M10000 or similar Mini-ITX for your HPC and you'll be able to run Linux with open source drivers for everything, and boot to TV.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  80. Too late by Lomby · · Score: 1

    This is clearly too late: it just seems a move to get some attention for two families of GPU that did not receive much attention.

    If VIA and XGI really believe in Open Source, they should give out the source and all needed documentation BEFORE the chipset hits the market, not after months or years.

    This means having Linux/BSD/Else drivers ready when the chipset is finally available for the end user.

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping XGI was some kind of eXtreme SGI department.

  81. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by doofusclam · · Score: 1
    I've heard that newer NVidia cards can boot straight to TV.


    So can older ones - the 5200 in my Shuttle for example just detects the TV. Actually so does the Radeon 7000 I had in there briefly, too.

    We had a rep from a taiwanese embedded mobo manufacturer at my workplace today trying to sell us boards (we make display equipment for bookmakers). He didn't know that VIA had brought out open-source drivers for their integrated graphics and was pleased to have another selling point. It would have helped a year ago when we were speccing the hardware, but there you go.
  82. Unichrome project alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a welcome move in some respects, it certainly shows that VIA now considers the Linux user as a valuable customer base that must be supported.

    However, there is already a thriving open source driver implementation for this platform: link providing code that was based on a version of VIA's code that they released to a limited number of open source developers a few years ago.

    It is also worth noting that the "VIA Open Source" package still relies on a proprietary binary library to provide MPEG acceleration on their hardware. This library provides a completely non-standard API that applications must interface to to implement MPEG support. This is in contrast with the Unichrome project's solution, providing full source code for their MPEG implementation and implementing the standard and well established XvMC API in their driver.

    The Unichrome project has also been responsible for implementing support for VIA MPEG acceleration in Xine, MPlayer , MythTV. Again this contrasts with VIA's solution to application support which has resulted in them producing forked VIA specific versions of Xine [VeXP] and MPlayer [VeMP] without involving the donor projects in the process or contributing back to them.

    Along with many performance, feature and stability enhancements to the codebase the Unichrome project has also been responsible for reorganising and cleaning the codebase to a state that is now acceptable for inclusion in the base X.org source tree and resolving the security issues in the DRM code so that it can be included in the official Linux kernel.

    It is, therefore, a shame that VIA decided to make this grandiose eye catching announcement, rather than just getting involved in the existing open source communities and simply helping and contributing to the Unichrome, Xine, MPlayer and MythTV projects. That might have been less eye catching or press release friendly, but it would certainly be a better way to win friends in the Linux community.

    1. Re:Unichrome project alternative by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      I beg to disagree: getting involved and contributing would have been just as eye catching if the marketing campaign was correctly done.

      Thanks to the unichrome project I have been enjoying a near silent HTPC for quite some time. The VIA drivers opened are the same slow buggy ones that I dropped well over a year ago.

      There is no alternative: the unichrome x.org driver is the only choice for the CLE266!

      --
      realkiwi
  83. I just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Since the drivers communicate with the low-level hardware, they reveal partially the design of the hardware and I would assume there's some clever optimizations as well. They're not worried about Joe Sixpack having the source. They're worried about another card company looking at the code and thus making drivers/cards with better performance."

    Your post is predicated on the assumption that:

    1) Competition lacks the expertise to reverse-engineer either the software or hardware.

    2) They're complete idiots when it comes to the principles, and mathmatics of computer graphics, and other aspects of hardware and software design.

    3) That the computer graphics field is not as insular as people think it is.

    4) Nvidia's actions as it relates to the nForce ethernet drivers.

    In other words, we don't buy what your selling.

    "While open source is great for many things, I'm perfectly comfortable with not editing my video driver source code. Why do we really need it? It's not like this is a webserver, a browser, or anything I'd want to try to improve."

    DRM! Or do you need a worse excuse?

  84. The question is.... by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

    What difference does it make if drivers are open source or proprietary?

    1st of all, Since nVidia (or ATI, or VIA) made the card, I'm pretty sure they know best how the hardware works and therefore they should know how to make the drivers.

    2nd, I'd be scared of having some serious issues with OSS drivers. For the same reasons talked about above.

    3rd, I don't care if the drivers are OSS, if it lets me use my device (not just vid cards, and drivers) and it's stable then what more do I need?

    4th, isn't there a LSB on drivers? If there is, as long as they all meet the standards, why does X.org need the source code in order to use the video card "properly" sounds like X.org is the one with the issues.

    5th, how many forks of the drivers would you be happy seeing? I mean there's like 8 Red Hat forks, so, and lord knows how many debian forks... would you like everybody to start making forks of the drivers? I'll re-code it so that left is really right, and up is really down, and call it the "Erehwon Edition"

    --
    DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    1. Re:The question is.... by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      Forking drivers most likely won't happen. The reason software forks is often because developers decide that they all want the project to move in a different direction. With drivers there is not much choice as to the direction of the software, as it can only have one purpose and that is to support all the features of the hardware at the best speed and quality.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    2. Re:The question is.... by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      1st point maybe, but if the specs are published anybody could "know best" as well. 2nd point, open source has nothing to do with quality control, quit misinforming people. 3rd point, current binary drivers only let people use the hardware on a small subset of the systems supported by the kernel. 4th point, means nothing at all. 5th point, you can choose where you want to get your drivers from. But as far as I can tell from what I see with current linux drivers there are very few if any forks.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    3. Re:The question is.... by joto · · Score: 1
      1st of all, Since nVidia (or ATI, or VIA) made the card, I'm pretty sure they know best how the hardware works and therefore they should know how to make the drivers.

      Absolutely, that's why we all run an operating system made by Intel engineers

      2nd, I'd be scared of having some serious issues with OSS drivers. For the same reasons talked about above.

      Again I agree. I much prefer binary rpms of drivers hooking into a vendor-built kernel. I have never had any trouble with making them work. On the other hand, the drivers included with the stock linux kernel always gives me trouble.

    4. Re:The question is.... by Vanders · · Score: 1

      When you don't use X being able to obtain usable source for drivers is very important. If we all subscribed to your model of software development, we'd all be using Windows because Linus would never have been able to write enough device drivers for Linux to make it usable.

  85. The truth about X.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how to tell you this, but as predatory as it might sound, X.org's serfs are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. I guess I should start by saying that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, I want to thank X.org for its principles. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how footling X.org can be. Although disorganized, eccentric big-labor bosses are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. Let me carry my thoughts on this subject a bit further. X.org's compeers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. Devious and temperamental, X.org's criticisms resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that ever since X.org decided to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public, its consistent, unvarying line has been that its refrains prevent smallpox. If I am correct that X.org is talking out of its posterior, then people often get the impression that grotesque parasites and X.org's cringers are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that X.org hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to derail X.org's intrusive little schemes. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that any effort to negotiate with X.org or appease it is akin to spitting into a hurricane to quiet its fury.

  86. Mod parent up - corrects Matrox misconception by gehrehmee · · Score: 1

    curse my lack of mod points.

    --
    "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  87. Re:What do they have to lose? [OT] by Dwonis · · Score: 1

    I think (hope) that's what that winking smiley ";)" was for...

  88. Unichrome response by orv · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Unichrome response by slander · · Score: 1

      At last! a useful and technically-minded response to the VIA announcement.

      VIA have always been afraid of releasing their MPEG accel code. This release keeps this code hidden in a library. Why?

      Perhaps:
      1. Because the MPEG code cost them dollars to produce, and they don't want to give away an asset, OR
      2. VIA ripped the MPEG code off from someone else (a GPL'ed somoene else, perhaps?) and are worried about being caught out.

      For my money, this announcement simply confirms that 2. is indeed the case. That is, VIA have 'borrowed' this code, and are embarrassed by that.

  89. XGI - Total Age Discrimination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking on XGI's website: http://www.xgitech.com/about/about_hr_employee.asp

    Company Age Distribution:
    Below 20: 0%
    20-29: 55%
    30-39: 42%
    40-49: 2%
    50+: 0%

    Would you call this ridiculous age discrimination?

    So I guess I should shoot myself when I hit 40.

  90. Kudos to VIA! by Aumaden · · Score: 1
    They just made a sale. I've been pricing SFF PCs to build a game system for my son (MAME, PyDance, etc). I'd resigned myself to having to add an ATI or NVidia card to get the graphics acceleration. Now, I'm looking at an EPIA M10000. They get some money. I save some money (no extra video card). We both win.

    That I can now have acceleration on my laptop is just more sugary goodness.

  91. The beauty of open source drivers by mandreiana · · Score: 1

    After using NVidia on Linux, with binary driver installs (which works 95% of the time), and reinstalling after kernel update or new distribution, I gave up.

    I switched to intel i845GV and i865GV chipsets. Completly open source drivers, included in distributions, 3D works out-of-the-box. Tuxracer, Enemy Territory, America's Army work great (I haven't tried UT). I love when stuff just works and I don't have to spend time to setup drivers.

    I hope more producers will follow and we can finally stop paying for the CD with drivers and software included with hardware products (my motherboard has lots of drivers+norton antivirus, my dvd writer has Nero, I don't need them!)

  92. Well, this is good news. by dot_borg · · Score: 1

    Looks like my next graphics card will come from one of these two companies.

  93. Maybe this'll help... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

    Get the floppy images, or the iso image for the latest stable release of FreeBSD (which is currently at 5.4 RC1) and do a small install including kernel sources and ports. Copy the example make.conf file in /etc, change the processor type in it to what you own, change the compilerflags to O2 adding -funroll-loops and -ffast-math (see google or yahoo!), follow the handbook on how to build and install world and kernel (pretty easy) and then start compiling KDE or Gnome (or whatever WM you want).
    Go through the list of ports to see what you can add, if using Nvidia get the port of nvidia-driver.

    First time I recompiled the whole thing on my laptop I was rather surprised and very pleased at how fast the thing is. It's only now that I found out how fast the thing really can be after using Windows on it for so long... Been tracking FreeBSD 5-STABLE since the release of 5.3 (used 4-STABLE for some time before) and I'm very pleased with the performance. (hoping to get a second laptop to follow progress on 6.x)

    I can't force you to use it, but I think you should give it a try. The worst it'll cost you is a few days. :-)

    --
    home
    1. Re:Maybe this'll help... by WarmBoota · · Score: 1

      I'll second this, FreeBSD is pretty damn easy to get set up (assuming compatible hardware). I started with a floppy in a clean system and had a functioning system a couple of hours later. I never even downloaded or burned an ISO during the install process.

      With that said, I am now running Gentoo. I won't say I didn't have my share of problems (HP multifunction scanner/printer), but the Gentoo forums and community are second to none. I now have network bonding, printing/scanning, 3D Video acceleration, on-the-fly VNC sessions over SSH, CD/DVD writing, Java Home Media Option for Tivo, Nomad Jukebox support, etc.

      I had tried Red Hat (7.3) between FreeBSD and Gentoo, but little things were missing (libcss, the IOSlave in KDE that allows drag and drop MP3 encoding, etc). If your goal is to be productive immediately, go with a SusE or similar distro. My goal was to learn a bit more about the process without doing the Linux From Scratch thing and that's why I chose Gentoo.

      One, more thing - Knoppix does a damn good job of figuring out your system configuration no matter what distro you use. You can always cheat and see how things are set up there. If you like it enough, you can even install to your hard drive permanently.

      --
      90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
  94. time so switch back to a 3dfx Voodoo..! by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    you can get updated drivers for your 3dfx card here . you can also get cool tips, tweaks and tools for various other things as well as Nvidia and ATI drivers(if you must). Game patches to run games such as Quake 3 and Doom 3 among many others can be found here . enjoy!

  95. Gamers are fickle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing that everyone appears to have overlooked is that gamers are fickle.

    As such, if either Nvidia or ATI were to fall behind the competition from a performance standpoint by too large a margin, unless they continued to get good OEM shipments they would be doomed.

    Hardware is only part of the problem in giving good performance, driver technology is attributable for much of the performance.

    Neither Nvidia nor ATI want the competition to know what tricks they are up to inside their driver code.

  96. linuxdevices.com has more details by John+Seifarth · · Score: 1
    There's a writeup at linuxdevices.com describing VIA's offerings in more details.

    Here's the quick summary:

    Via has released source code to Linux 2.6 and Xorg/XFree86 drivers for the Unichrome graphics capabilities on northbridge chips in its popular mini-ITX boards. The drivers offer 2D, 3D, and hardware MPEG2/4 acceleration, as well as video overlay, and support both the CLE266 and CN400 northbridges.
  97. Matrox, are you hearing this? by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

    *shakes fist at sky*

    --
    Free as in mason.
  98. The VIA driver is partially obfuscated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've downloaded the source to the CLE266 video driver from the VIA Arena site under the Open Source section. It looks like they've removed the register names and bitfields for the 3D registers. Take a look at via_driver.c on line 5859 - that's no use to anyone who needs to work on the driver.

    VIASETREG(0x43C, 0x00100000);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x00333004);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x10000002);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x60000000);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x61000000);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x62000000);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x63000000);
    VIASETREG(0x440, 0x64000000);

    How are we supposed to know what that does? It might as well be proprietary.

  99. Here's a real life answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Nvidia driver were open source, I, as well as others, would be able to poke around in it and try to fix the bugs that Nvidia's engineers don't seem to care about right now. Then I can actually use the driver without it freezing up my machine. As it stands, the driver is closed source. So I am left to sit around and wait until Nvidia decides to fix my problems for me. In the meantime I get to use the unaccelerated slow Xfree driver that doesn't support all of my cards features. Do you understand the difference now?

  100. Re:XGI is decent for desktops but lacking in gamin by dbIII · · Score: 1
    I've heard that newer NVidia cards can boot straight to TV.
    With your XGI card it may be worth trying to boot the system into the X runlevel with a the default mode set up for your TV.

    The fairly cheap NVidia I have displays at 1024x768 scaled nicely to show on a TV which runs at a much lower real resolution. To show DVDs full screen it is rescaling twice, but looks very good.

  101. ATI already has - a little by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The current FOSS ATI X drivers are based on information (and, OTTOMH, code) released by ATI and good for cards up to the 9200 series. Higher-powered cards will run also, but the more advanced hardware features aren't used.

    NVidia didn't even release the source to a commodity item like their nForce LAN chipset, so we had to clean-room our own for that one.

    The Volari cards look good. I'm pleased that the hard-working lab-rats there have finally managed to convince management to Open their 3D drivers too (they Opened their 2D stuff more than a year ago). Now all I need to do is fine someone in Western Australia who sells the XGI cards other than as a novelty item.

    The VIA S3 cards suck. S3 cards have always sucked, from their horrid little every-one-different pre-Virge series on down. The CyberBlades sucked less, but were still not in the same league as their competitors, not even on par with Intel's basic integrated chipset. At least now we might be better equipped to work around some of the suckiness.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:ATI already has - a little by willfe · · Score: 1

      No, what sucks is having to run an S3 UniChrome Pro KM8x series adapter on a notebook in !@#$ing VESA mode because x.org's Unichrome support doesn't yet properly grok this chipset. I've got a 1.8GHz 64-bit CPU in this monster with plenty of RAM and disk space and it's all throttled by having to use X in a damned compatibility mode. The S3 chips may suck but they can do 2D way better than standard VESA.

      --
      Read my stuff.
    2. Re:ATI already has - a little by schon · · Score: 1

      You seem to know a bit about the inner workings of what's going on.

      The Volari cards look good. I'm pleased that the hard-working lab-rats there have finally managed to convince management to Open their 3D drivers too

      Hmm.. how do you reconcile that with
      this post, which says that they're not opening their 3D drivers - who's right? (The website doesn't really have any info on that.)

      I'm thinking about buying a new video card in the near future - I'd love to support XGI if their drivers are fully open source.

  102. s/fine/find/ by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Also, to clarify on the S3 cards, the original Tridents didn't suck much more than their peers, but a lot of said peers went through revolutions and quantum improvements (and other got killed off), but the Tridents just missed out.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  103. Losing control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they keep the driver under wraps you have to get another video card for the next release of windows without worrying about hackers modding the driver so they have to compete with their own and other legacy products.

  104. Too little, too late by tomRakewell · · Score: 1

    Dear VIA,

    Thanks a LOT. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for releasing open source drivers for the CLE266 chipset nearly two years after I first started purchasing these boards for use in my business.

    Thanks for making me struggle for those years trying to install various proprietary, binary drivers on my "unsupported" Gentoo Linux workstations. Thanks for suggesting that I just use the abysmally slow VESA drivers for over a year on your forum. And thanks for letting me spend countless hours downloading the lastest Xorg tree from CVS so I could install reverse-engineered 2D-only drivers that finally made my systems functional, even if the more advanced features of your hardware have never, ever worked right.

    I've also spent a lot of time investigating alternatives to your product, and I can say that at long last I've got a functioning, low-power, compact, ULTRA-QUIET Unix workstation, and all the hardware actually works. Yes, my new Mac Mini is a revelation, and I am about to deploy these new boxes throughout my shop.

    Well, VIA, thanks for all the memories! My old Mini-ITX boards will soon start showing up on eBay, just in time for some new chump to try and install Linux on them using your new open source drivers. Maybe in another 2 years, when nobody really cares anymore, you'll release drivers for the accelerated MPEG hardware!

  105. They're out there now.. by itomato · · Score: 1

    The chips and the linux boxes are out there in numbers.

    Those ProSavage cards are commonly found in, inexpensive datacenter specials.

    The OS/Chip ratio is good, and the numbers are pretty high in general, compared to 5 years ago when this kind of story would have been real news.

    Still, I doubt that any of those machines would be used for their open source display capabilities.

    Still good.

  106. 2D opensource, yes. by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any evidence that the 3D worked at all, especially with GLgears getting such terrible frame rates.

    ATI's driver was the only one that allowed 3D accel, and it was the shits for everything.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:2D opensource, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true. Radeon's 8500 - 9200 work great with open source drivers, using DRI for 3D. ATI released specs back then, but they didn't do it for r300 or newer cards (reverse engineering effort is in progress at r300.sourceforge.net ).