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.)
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
Do you prefer the GPL version 2 or version 3?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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
Hi Harald,
Any plans to bring another keg of beer to OLS next year?
Regards,
Daniel
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Can you illuminate the relationship between S3 and Via for us? I've tried in the past getting basic technical specs (e.g. textures per pass, triangle rates, pps, fill rates) on the video hardware that comes with Via boards. This kind of information is readily available from other manufacturers, and occasionally a whitepaper will show up from Via or S3 for a random chipset, but asking Via for this kind of information results in stacks of legal forms to be signed in duplicate, allegedly because of NDA's between Via and S3. Yet, S3 bills itself as "a VIA Technologies, Inc. joint venture company". Doing open source work, I've avoided the NDA entanglements, and ultimately went to ATI for video hardware because I could find specs reliably without 'buying one of each' (this was actually suggested to me). Mostly it's all very confusing for people who just want to develop stuff, and I wonder how this relationship affects the open source drivers and the stuff that's not currently available (3D, hardware media decoding) but is essential for some embedded work.
The related question would be does Via realize that we're out here and want to buy their hardware but are being forced to rule out Via due to secretiveness?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So I'll just go ahead and ask it, get it over with.
Is VIA planning to release detailed register-level specs for their graphics chipsets?
It's a sad, sad kind of DRM that requires bleeding TV OUTPUT to be DRM'd. Like, MacroVision or some completely pointless shit such as that.
And H.264 decoding assists? Fuck me sideways they're stupid if they think this will stop people from decoding H.264 video on Free Software: it's not, and those people will just go patronize AMD or Intel instead.
VIA has a history of releasing chipsets packed full of great video acceleration, but no drivers to make use of that acceleration, sometimes there are even no windows drivers either.
Looking at the linux drivers for instance[1], there are big gaps, and it is disapointing to see no drivers to support the base MPEG4 acceleration let alone new features such as h.264 acceleration.
I have an EPIA SP8000E and the MPEG2 acceleration (XvMC) implemented by the openchrome drivers is awesome, such a shame more than that cannot be supported.
VIA has once again re-launched their linux drivers[2], and once again the support is very limited, only a small number of distributions, a small number of chipsets, and a small number of hardware features supported. Furthermore applications that can make use of these drivers features are almost non-existent
Wouldn't it be better to work with the the established driver teams such as openchrome, who have broad distribution support, broad chipset support, and are broadly supported by applications, to add the missing hardware support?
[1]http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=HardwareCaveats
[2]http://linux.via.com.tw
If you use the openchrome drivers instead of VIAs own drivers, then the MPEG2 acceleration, subject to hardware caveats[1] is supported by stock xine, mplayer, and myth. No need for special forked builds like viaexp.
The MII board features a CLE266 chipset which is fully supported for MPEG2 hardware acceleartion
[1]http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=HardwareCaveats
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?
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?