Slashdot Mirror
Ask Harald Welte, "VIA's open source representative"
In this recent Slashdot post kernel hacker Harald Welte was characterized as "VIA's open source representative," but that is just one of many irons he has in the fire, as a glance at his Wikipedia bio will show. You can obviously ask Harald about many interesting things besides VIA's open source strategy — and before you ask about VIA, you ought to read the last few entries on his blog, at least one of which mentions VIA questions he can't answer. But VIA aside, there's plenty to ask Harald about. For example, he won an award from the FSF earlier this year for his work on gpl-violations.org. In any case, Harald is a powerful force for GNU/Linux and Free Software, and we appreciate him taking time out of his undoubtedly hectic schedule to answer your questions. (Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.)
I worry that VIA will stray from staying standards compliant now that it is only making chipsets for its own boards/processors.
Will the chipsets remain more or less as standards compliant and open as they are now or will yet more reverse engineering and mystery registers be on the way?
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
Your Wikipedia bio mentions that you left your position as Lead System Architect for the OpenMoko project in 2007 due to "internal friction and demotivation". What are your current thoughts on the OpenMoko platform, has it made significant improvements since your decision? What are the biggest hurdles it still needs to overcome before you would consider it a successful project? Are there any other upcoming mobile platforms that have you excited for the future of open source development on mobile phones, or is the industry/market perhaps still too premature for open-architecture Linux on the cell phone?
Hi,
A friend just got a Wibrain b1 that came with Ubuntu.
The drivers for all the VIA stuff are binary blobs which prevents him from upgrading the kernel. They also don't seem very reliable as he is seeing crashes.
Is there already Open Source drivers for that kind of hardware or is this part of your mission for VIA?
Thanks
I have an Epia MII mini-ITX board, based around the Eden processor, which I bought nearly 3 years ago to use as a low power media server.
Despite claims about the graphics and media abilities of the board (Integrated VIA UniChromeâ 2D/3D graphics and an MPEG-2 accelerator with motion compensation), playback of DVDs and large video files in Linux using the community-developed Unichrome driver is choppy at best, and largely unwatchable.
Does VIA have plans to provide robust, open source drivers for the Free Software world that match up to the Windows versions for past products?
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Do you prefer the GPL version 2 or version 3?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
... But it has to be asked.
OpenBSD's developers (including OpenBSD 'benevolent dictator' Theo DeRaadt) have praised VIA Padlock functions in the past.
As a user of both OpenBSD and Gnu/Linux, I'd like to know if you share Linus Torvalds infamous appreciation of OpenBSD developpers? Or do you have good relations with all open source projects?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
My recent brush with VIA is when I bought a HP mini-note laptop which uses the VIA C7 processor. Unfortunately, I ended up picking the laptop with Windows Vista and I'm sorry to say that it is not the right operating system for this category of portable laptops. I am much more happier with Ubuntu loaded on the machine now.
My question to Mr. Welte is, how is VIA working with vendors like HP to promote Linux on this new and exciting range of netbooks that coming out?
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Have you ever accused anyone of violating the GPL and then found out that they didn't?
It's my understanding that VIA has recently provided a dump of new "cleaner" code to x.org that supports the Unichrome lineup more properly. (By the way, thanks...)
However, this doesn't help fully in the big-picture sense of things.
Right now, an Atom based netbook will have 3D capable of doing Compiz (I know, I've played with it on at least two differing eeePC models right now...) and some lower-end FOSS 3D games out of the box. With what has been given out so far, you still can't do this with VIA's offerings, which include the netbook designs and the EPIA boards. That, alone, isn't a good thing or selling point, really, for those designs right now. What is VIA planning to do in regards to fixing the 3D situation on the stuff that you have already released stuff for?
The aforementioned only talks to Unichrome/Unichrome Pro/Unichrome II. What's the story with the other Chrome lineup? Are we going to see FOSS support for those chips or are they even relevant going forward?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
How much did IP (intellectual property) concerns weigh on the process of opening the driver code? We've been hearing from companies like nVidia that IP issues prevent them from opening their own code, so I'd be interested to hear just how it is that VIA were able to get to this point in the face of today's treacherous environment regarding IP.
I find it interesting that VIA is doing this so fast when previously they were more or less silent. Did you go to VIA first, or did they come to you? Either way, did it take a lot of effort to convince the other side?
You have stated that your ability to pursue claims against those who violate the GPL is hampered by lack of resources. What amount and type of resources, in your estimate, would be required to pursue all such claims? I'm thinking in terms of everything from vetting the claims to see if they're warranted all the way through the hiring of legal representation to file and pursue lawsuits against the violators.
Intel and AMD both do a fair amount of contributing to GCC and go to some lengths to be sure it optimizes for their processors well. In the past, VIA/Centaur haven't been too participative in GCC or forthcoming with relevant information; among the results is, as the gcc documentation says,
Will detailed specifications dealing with the Isaiah/Nano pipeline etc be released? How will VIA/Centaur be working with GCC developers in the future?
Why do we see a delay from when new hardware hits the market and when open source drivers get released and incorporated? Slow driver releases mean that the hardware is approaching obsolescence before the drivers get widespread acceptance, and that seems to hurt VIA especially in the low-power cpu/mobo area where any delay means the replacement hardware is already on the way.
OpenBSD, along with the FSF, is one of more vocal proponents for free drivers. Unlike the FSF, OpenBSD strongly emphasises the need for driver documentation, sometimes even preferring it to free drivers. They have criticised Intel's free video drivers in the past for obfuscation, magic numbers in the source, and making it almost impossible for anyone but Intel to hack them (I haven't seen any comment from them since Intel provided source in early 2008).
What is the situation with VIA's drivers? Do we get documentation? Why or why not? What are the challenges for providing documentation?