Slashdot Mirror


VIA Releases 16K-Line FOSS Framebuffer Driver

billybob2 writes "VIA has released 16,434 Lines Of Free & Open Source code that enables Linux natively to use the framebuffer on VIA's graphics chipsets. This comes a month after VIA announced that it will provide Open-Source drivers and documentation on its Web site so that its hardware will work out of the box with Linux distributions. This gives VIA-powered systems that come pre-installed with Linux — such as the gPC, 15.4" gBook, CloudBook, and Zonbu — the ability to output graphics through digital connections such as HDMI, and probably makes them the best-supported framebuffers Linux has ever had. Look forward to documentation and X.org drivers from VIA as well in the near future."

10 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. More like giving up by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This seems more like Via giving up than wanting to properly support Linux. Look at how they supported the C7 platform - it was supposed to have hardware H.264 decoding, but it was only supported by an open-source patched mplayer on Linux and never under Windows.

    Via just don't want to develop their Linux drivers any more. Watch as support disappears now they don't have to.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:More like giving up by Cillian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Community support is often better than that given by companies, and now community support is possible. I think it's be difficult to see this as a bad thing.

      --
      -- All your booze are belong to us.
    2. Re:More like giving up by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Only problem is, it doesn't decode H.264 in hardware, at least not on Windows. The only option is to use a special version of mplayer on Linux:

      And why would you expect random software to know about and make calls to VIA's API? H.264 decoding isn't exactly a DirectX function as far as I know. Indeed, isn't this why you have to install an H.264 codec in the first place?

      There are loads of posts on the Via forums about this. The cryptographic acceleration is next to useless as well, since nothing much supports it. Vendors should be expected to support the features they claim to have themselves, not rely on open source projects to do it.

      Absurd. You got what you paid for. It's up to cryptography library writers/PMs to determine whether they want to fold VIA encryption acceleration into THEIR libraries. This is true whether the library writers are targeting Windows or Linux. VIA is not responsible for the actions of third parties, though they do seem to be interested in helping these third parties support their hardware with as little trouble as possible.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:More like giving up by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, you are right, I guess for a second I forgot how drivers had to be written at such a low level (I program mostly in python...) and yes that would make porting drivers a pain.

      As for the licensing, I was assuming that VIA would release most code under some license other then the GPL (such as the BSD license) that would allow use in proprietary products. And, as in true /. fashion, I didn't read TFA.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:More like giving up by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm. Community support is sometimes better than that given by companies. Sometimes it is not. In this case community support is now possible thanks to the support given by the company.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Re:Does "framebuffer" mean no HW acceleration? by Dred_furst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if anything of what their current driver release for linux is, it has full 3d accelleration plus the much needed xv interface, I presume this code is in the release of the Framebuffer

  3. Re:Lots of code? by naasking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Why tout 16K lines? Why give an exact number? It's like it's a boast. Except it doesn't really take that long to write 16K lines, so it's sort of a weak boast.

    Well, studies have repeatedly shown that a single developer only adds about 20 correct lines of code per day. Assuming this is high quality code that has been well-tested, those 16K lines of code are nothing to scoff at.

    2. On the other hand, I wonder why so many lines simply to give me a framebuffer? The card has to be programmed into the right mode, sure, but how can that possibly require 16 thousand lines?

    That was my first thought too.

  4. Re:Lots of code? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think they're legitimate criticisms.

    That said, I'm also going to seriously look at VIA the next time I build a MythTV box. You're never going to escape criticism, no matter what you do -- but VIA absolutely did the right thing there, and I applaud them for that.

    Thank you, VIA. Looks like some genuine competition for Intel as the "most well-supported Linux video cards."

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  5. Re:Because they've played this game before. by glitchvern · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will an article from phoronix.com do? They quote an irc conversation with Luc Verhaegen who started the Unichrome Project, and also quote what Xavier Bachelot, an Openchrome developer, told them in a message. They don't say what kind of message (email, irc, whatever). The article gives a very good overview of why people doubt what Via says until they have code and/or documentation in hand. Part of Xavier's quote is particularly relavent, "I certainly wouldn't want them to claim that they support Linux and FOSS, like they did several times in the past, and don't put their money where their mouth is." I don't know if this most recent release contains any unknown useful material and will reserve judgement until X dev's speak. Please note the phoronix article and quotes are from before this release.

  6. Re:Lots of code? by node+3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, studies have repeatedly shown that a single developer only adds about 20 correct lines of code per day. Absolute nonsense.

    First, let's assume there is such a study, and your recital of the findings are accurate. There's no way you can say something like, "a single developer only adds about 20 correct lines of code per day". It just doesn't make any sense.

    Even if you reword it to say, "the average developer..." you still have a fairly meaningless statement. That's like saying "the average basketball player cannot slam-dunk", which is true, but doesn't tell you *anything* about any particular basketball player. After all, the vast majority of basketball players are children and at-or-below average height people playing street ball. Even a reasonably tall person (say, 6'5"), is going to have a hard time dunking a ball without a lot of effort.

    Back to the "studies" (studies? really?), they really only measure an average of whatever specific development teams they measured. For example, at the start of a project, you probably write hundreds of lines of code, and as the project approaches completion, you write less and less code, perhaps only a handful of lines per day. It also doesn't take into account some developers who have very little to contribute to a specific project (i.e., do they count the UI guy's code across the whole lifetime of the project? Will that developer bring the average down from the developers who add potentially hundreds of lines per day?).

    After all, American's average 1.5 children per couple, or something silly like that, as well, but it's exceeding rare to find a couple that actually has 1.5 children.