Slashdot Mirror


The "Bloody Mess" That Is Intel's Poulsbo Driver

AdamWill writes "Phoronix writes about the mess that is the Linux support situation for Intel's new graphics chipset, the GMA 500 — aka Poulsbo. Near the end they refer to my own post on the topic ('Okay, so after a whole day spent bashing around at this crap, I can very confidently and conclusively say, it's utterly broken'). Intel has a reputation as one of the most clued-up open source-friendly hardware companies, but if they can't sort out the mess surrounding the driver for this chipset — which is already used on the Dell Mini 12 and Sony Vaio P, and will be used on many future Intel-based systems — that reputation will take a serious hit."

57 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Bloody Mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It must be that time of the month for intel....

    1. Re:Bloody Mess by awrz · · Score: 3, Funny
      Oh wait. Read that wrong. I thought that gave them +5% damage and gory dismemberment when an enemy is killed in VATS.

      My bad.

      --
      "--wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." --Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Bloody Mess by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It must be that time of the month for intel....

      Crap like this is what will drive companies _away_ from open source. Look at all the flak that Sun gets regarding it's handling of Open Office. Or countless other examples. The community should be grateful that these companies support FOSS at all, instead, it looks like any company that comes to the FOSS table will be eaten when it doesn't do this right, or doesn't do things 'in the spirit' or takes their time with something.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Bloody Mess by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crap like this is what will drive companies _away_ from open source. Look at all the flak that Sun gets regarding it's handling of Open Office. Or countless other examples. The community should be grateful that these companies support FOSS at all

      No, this is not OpenOffice, because drivers are only useful to customers who pay for hardware. When I shop for a laptop, I buy something with good driver support by my chosen OS, which is Linux. So if Intel wants me to consider buying something with their chips, they'd better fix the driver problem. The idea of being "grateful" to somebody making something I might want to buy is neither here nor there.

    4. Re:Bloody Mess by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Crap like this is what will drive companies _away_ from open source.

      Why? If I buy some hardware I expect it to work properly no matter what operating system I'm running (so long as that OS has drivers). It doesn't matter whether you're supporting Windows, Linux, OS X, or whatever - if you release drivers for your hardware and they don't work then you're (quite rightly) going to get flak - people have paid for some hardware which doesn't work as expected.

      Or are you saying that companies will also be driven away from supporting Windows because people complain their crappy software doesn't work there (a pretty frequent occurrence)?

      The community should be grateful that these companies support FOSS at all

      How about the companies being grateful that we're buying their hardware at all?

      These days I buy Intel graphics hardware because it generally _does_ work out of the box with Free drivers. The same can not be said about the likes of nVidia. Same goes for 802.11 hardware. Intel seems to be having problems with this driver, but I'm pretty confident that they are working on fixing the problem because they do seem to understand that they don't have some god given right to expect customers to buy their hardware no matter how badly supported it is.

    5. Re:Bloody Mess by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By all means, offer them constructive criticism. But don't attack them. "Bloody mess"? If someone called the Linux kernel a bloody mess on LKML do you think that his criticism would be heard?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Bloody Mess by AdamWill · · Score: 2, Informative

      No X.org developer called anything a bloody mess. I used some choice terms (and I actually *edited* my post shortly after making it...), but I'm not an X.org developer. Phoronix introduced the 'bloody mess' term specifically, and they're not X.org developers either.

  2. Reputation? by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought the intel video chipset reputation was already something like "it sucks, ATI or nvidia are much better choices".

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Reputation? by lbbros · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually they are fine (I can even run a composited desktop on my EeePC, and that's a GMA 900), but in this case the technology isn't theirs, it was acquired from some third-party.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    2. Re:Reputation? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really though, you'd think Intel would negotiate an IP license which would allow them to release good drivers. It seems IMG should be getting ready to release some sort of Linux drivers around this time though ... perhaps this will address the GMA500 situation too?

      http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard/browse_thread/thread/ec1427fdb8f9ef8d/14af5abb79383525?lnk=gst&q=POWERVR#14af5abb79383525

    3. Re:Reputation? by AdamWill · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's the reputation of the power of the hardware. Yes, as far as playing your 3D games goes, you're not going to get very far with Intel.

      However, up till now Intel has had a very good reputation for open source friendliness with regards to supporting the hardware, disregarding the actual power of the hardware. Intel are actively involved in maintaining the (100% open source) driver for all other Intel graphics chipsets, and they also contribute to general X.org development and the development of new technologies within X. Intel graphics hardware is generally the least powerful of the big three, but until this mess, it's been by far the best (and most openly) supported hardware in Linux.

    4. Re:Reputation? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My understanding is that it's not for 3D gaming. The GMA500 performs poorly on that front but it supports a lot of video decode features that are AWOL in the GMA945 etc.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Reputation? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't recommend composting on a laptop. If you must compost, I'd place the heap in the furthest corner of the back yard.

    6. Re:Reputation? by Jorophose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not necessarily. i810 is woefully broken. You get artifacts left and right, wrong resolution that can't be changed, no openGL working whatsoever (I was doing transparencies with Xfwm but that was it). From what I understand I need one of the latest kernels with GEM to make it stop.

      Yeah, thanks intel.

    7. Re:Reputation? by Chops · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seemed to me that i810 was fine up until Intel got involved with it. I have an unusual chipset (855GM on a desktop with no LVDS output), and new versions of Intel drivers keep totally failing to work on it in various exciting ways. Before Intel engineers started showing up on xorg bugzilla (i.e. when the module was called 'i810' instead of 'intel'), this happened once in a blue moon and I got responsive, polite fixes reasonably quickly. Now, it happens constantly, and I have to beat the engineers over the heads just to stop them closing a bug with comments which more or less translate to "we can't be bothered, sod off". When bugs do get fixed, it tends to take them a respectable fraction of a year to do it.

      Interacting with Intel engineers on xorg bugzilla has sort of made me yearn for the days when GNU/Linux hardware drivers were crappy, desperate efforts slapped together with enormous difficulty without any specifications to work from.

  3. Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft threatening Intel unless they knock off the Linux integration. Now, all of a sudden, Intel is having all kinds of problems with their Linux drivers.

    Coincidence or anti-competitive behavior in action?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (Wiki quote)

    2. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by dattaway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Coincidence or anti-competitive behavior in action?

      I've noticed lots of Microsoft news articles recently too.

    3. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it is more about the lines of "omg, there is new sublaptop market here, quick, we need solution. Damn, our video chip uses too much power. Ok, there is some niche chip which could suit us. But there is lot of NDA and proprietary stuff. Heck, let's ride with it and see if it sticks. If not, we will abandon a driver."

      It is clearly a totally different video card with different chip (which have closed parts not developed by Intel). So it ends there where usually such drivers goes - to trash can.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    4. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by Cally · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No malice needed; it'd be stupidity for Intel to cave to Microsoft at this point. When the 25 stone gorilla's choking on a fishbone, d'you break out the Heimlich maneuver?

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    5. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having spent a lot of time in various beurocracies, I can attest that malice and stupidity work very well together. While one does not guarantee the other, they are often interlinked.

    6. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      All this really seems to say to me is that people online get into heated arguments, and that the inevitable result of heated arguments online is that someone will call someone the worst name they could think of - Hitler. So basically, if you invoke Godwin's Law thinking that anyone automatically comparing someone to Hitler (like, say, someone with Fascist tendencies), you're the idiot because you don't know what Godwin's Law says.

      The reason why you "lose" when Godwin's Law is invoked is because it indicates that the thread has gone on long enough that anything worth saying has already been said. In other words, when people drag out the Hitler analogies, the discussion's over, even if they haven't realized it yet.

    7. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by pestilence669 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I argue for coincidence. First of all, even Microsoft relies on Linux for their infrastructure. As much as they try, it's just not possible to do many "things" on Windows. I wish I was allowed to go into more detail. Intel does realize the importance of solid Linux support. They are a leader in this area in ways they simply don't have to be. To snub Linux could compromise their foothold on the embedded market, which is significant. It's just not possible that this is intentional. Mistakes happen. I blame the outsourcing, which was probably some middle-manager's perceived ticket to promotion and praise. Companies this big can't always put their best resources on EVERY project. Since Slashdot has made this problem known, I can't imagine it'll exist for more than 30 days. The Slashdot effect is a great motivator in shifting corporate priorities. Seriously. I hate Intel. I do. In this case, however, I don't see that they've done much wrong. They will most likely issue a massive fix and add this component to their maintenance queue. Priorities.

    8. Re:Wonder if this is one of the reasons? by Tycho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems to me, that when Intel hypes a new forthcoming CPU that it often fails to mention the poor performance of the chipset to be paired with that CPU. The CPU ends up using the newest and greatest process, but saddles the CPU with a process at least two process nodes back. Not surprisingly, when the CPU and processor are matched together, the performance is often atrocious, due to the low performance chipset. Intel also has bad habit of attempting to save silicon die area by just dropping portions from the chip. Another company making the same chip could never get away with dropping the portions that Intel does in their designs. Intel gets away with it though because it essentially has a monopoly on x86 chips and Intel sets their poor performance as the baseline for the industry. Basically, Intel no longer cares about anything else other than raking in the cash.

      I look forward to seeing Microsoft and Intel ending up being broken up and no longer being a force in the computer industry. Intel and Microsoft have each acted so egregiously, that Antitrust charges are probably being worked on by government lawyers for both companies.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  4. You are correct when it comes to 3D performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel graphics chips are not for games. However, if you don't play games and you want a solid graphics card with enough 3D performance to run compiz or Quake with fully open source drivers, then Intel is what you want.

    Or, it used to be. I don't know what the deal is with this new chipset.

    1. Re:You are correct when it comes to 3D performance by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 3D is licensed from PowerVR, aka Imagination Technologies which used to be called Videologic for those with long memories.

      It has nothing to do with Intel (other than that they licensed it), and historically Videologic, when they where in the PC graphics card business where tight lipped about their stuff, rather like nVidia are.

      Which all sorts of sucks because the chipset does pretty good 3D for virtually no power. Which should finally mean some netbooks with decent battery lives.

    2. Re:You are correct when it comes to 3D performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quake is not a game. It is a murder simulator.

    3. Re:You are correct when it comes to 3D performance by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. Quake is not a game. It is a network performance analyzer.

  5. !gonvidia by paroneayea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm noticing the tag 'gonvidia', and it's true... as in terms of hardware, Nvidia does seem to be the best. But as in terms of the linux community, they pretty much create problems for everyone. And yes, I know, to the end user that's not always apparent. But the linux desktop really would be a lot farther along if it weren't for nvidia's refusal to open up to the free software community.

    If Intel's new open source graphic drivers suck, then obviously yes, that's shitty. But between them and nvidia, if you're going to praise one or the other in the Linux community, it shouldn't be nvidia. Intel's graphic cards still don't support GLSL and the like, but at least you can run an open source driver and it works.

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
    1. Re:!gonvidia by dattaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly, distributions with closed source drivers are very fragile and easily break. Having an open source driver, its easy to find what went wrong with the changes and fix that. The closed source drivers don't like change. That's my 10+ years with Linux.

    2. Re:!gonvidia by Racemaniac · · Score: 4, Informative

      i don't know how it is in this case, but most of the times, the problem is that there is no information about the hardware. so even though the open source community would love to code uber awesome megadrivers, they haven't got any documents on how these chipsets work, so they can't write drivers for them

    3. Re:!gonvidia by AaronW · · Score: 2, Informative

      The performance issue should be fixed now in the latest driver version. It was a known bug and nVidia fixed it. I have no problems with the 180.25 driver.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    4. Re:!gonvidia by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the linux desktop really would be a lot farther along if it weren't for nvidia's refusal to open up to the free software community.

      nVidias stance is pretty simple: No open source support, period. No specifications, no features of really any kind in the open nv drivers, no help to those who ask, no nothing.

      What they have delivers is addition to hardware is a great closed source driver which have simply been the best in terms of perforamnce, features and quality for anything better than integrated graphics. Catalyst (AMD/ATIs driver) has been a mess and despite improving greatly since AMD took over, they're not there yet. While AMD has opened their specifications, the open source Radeon drivers are far, far off from the closed source drivers still. AMD has still said their primary commitment is Catalyst, so who knows when if it'll ever get as good as that, which I said isn't as good as nVidia's.

      nVidia has constantly been the ones pushing the boundries for what the Linux desktop can do. Just recently before Christmas they delivered the first working hardware accelerated h.264/vc-1 HD playback /VDPAU) and it's available on pretty much all mainstream nVidia cards. ATI is thinking of maybe adding UVD support to their closed source driver and any open source support is unlikely and certainly not coming soon. Poulsbo is the first I've heard from Intel that actually supports VA API and it sure isn't mainstream motherboards.

      You talk as if nVidia has been keeping open source back and maybe the open source infrastructure would have been better if nVidia worked with them instead of doing their own thing. But the Linux desktop? I doubt it. It's been over a year since AMDs first release of specifications, go check out the current state of the open source drivers. When you come back, you might realize that for a long time, the best way to show a Linux desktop has been a nVidia machine with proprietary drivers, not ideologically pure but it works well. But sure, blame the guy up front plowing the road for not towing the open source community too. If the open source community could pull it off, they have the chance now as AMDs specs are in the open, that excuse is gone. Put up or STFU.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:!gonvidia by ion.simon.c · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the problem, boss.
      The PP lives in a video-game-playing world. You and I live in a desktop-effects and xrender-acceleration world. Our world gets the short end of the stick 'cause it's not very sexy.

    6. Re:!gonvidia by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your zealous fanaticism for open source is clearly apparent and clouding your judgement on the situation.

      I find it humorous in the middle of an article about how shitty an open source driver is that you see it fit to blame nvidia for breaking a developer release of KDE. The worse part is you think it matters.

      Do you get this angry when an open source driver has a bug? No.

      With older NVIDIA cards, I have worse performance than on my EeePC (GMA 900).

      Your old cards aren't as good as your new ones? shock! horror! Say it isn't so!

    7. Re:!gonvidia by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux open source purists want special treatment from manufacturers, and it makes no sense. ATI opens specs but their Linux drivers suck. nVidia has great Linux desktop support that advances the state of the art for Linux, as you admit, but they didn't release an open-source driver so you knock them for that.

      But nVidia does not release the source code for Windows, either. They are treating all the operating systems exactly the same. Why would a non-zealot go with ATI when nVidia's closed source driver is far superior?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    8. Re:!gonvidia by budgenator · · Score: 3, Informative

      every time my kernel upgrades I hold my breath and hope X starts up due to nVidia drivers being proprietary.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:!gonvidia by ericrost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No one had noticed before because no one had tried to do that stuff.

      Shock, you mean an untested, unused feature in their driver didn't get the bugs worked out of it till someone tried to use it? That's SO different to a an open source driver. nVidia has been the best thing to happen to the linux desktop since sliced bread. I can play 3d games, accelerated video, and have a slick composited desktop that doesn't freeze every time I try to switch terminals. Any time I tried to do those things with any other product I came up short.

    10. Re:!gonvidia by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that you never ever absolutely have to upgrade your kernel if everything is working hunky-dory, right?

      Spare some love for non-Linux OSes. I had a choice with an Nvidia card in my FreeBSD system a while back: upgrade the kernel to fix security vulnerabilities or keep using my graphics card. Nvidia had deprecated my card, so the driver that was compatible with the new kernel didn't support it. Since it was an AGP 2x motherboard that couldn't accept newer cards, the choice really came down to upgrading the kernel, graphics card, motherboard, CPU, and RAM, or sticking with an insecure system. Yay, binary blob drivers!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. BUILD YOUR OWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean you're not using open source chips?

    1. Re:BUILD YOUR OWN by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Informative
  7. If it's open source, fix it. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the Linux community wants open driver development, then, it should write them. Intel made an open source driver, and now the author is condemning the code? Geez, how about fixing it! If you want something to be community owned, well that community has to step up. It's not Intel's responsibility.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:If it's open source, fix it. by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the driver is open source, the chipset documentation might not be. As others have mentioned, it's hard to know how to write a good driver working with nothing more than a bad driver. You need good documentation.

    2. Re:If it's open source, fix it. by Ritchie70 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Based on reading the various linked things, it appears that one primary complaint is that it isn't, in fact, sensibly released. There are bits and pieces of it scattered about but AdamWill can't actually find a whole release that actually works.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    3. Re:If it's open source, fix it. by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is undocumented and it has binary blob. Though scenario, even for very smart Xorg driver fellas.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    4. Re:If it's open source, fix it. by AdamWill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Intel *didn't* make an open source driver. If you read my post, you'll note that there's three different closed-source components to the driver, without which significant features break.

      Aside from that, what's needed for meaningful open source development is not "here's some code, have fun". There needs to be a proper development process hosted in an accessible fashion, and proper documentation. The 'intel' driver for previous Intel chipsets satisfies all of these goals. It's 100% open-source, it's developed within X.org and so easily accessible to external contributions in a widely-understood fashion, and the hardware is properly documented.

      This 'psb' driver satisfies none of the goals. It was previously hosted within Moblin (which doesn't really have much of an external development community), and even that version of the code is now not being used. It now only shows up in obscure Ubuntu Netbook Remix repositories, with no independent source that anyone can find. So there's no sane development process to which external people can sensibly contribute. It contains large closed-source chunks. And there's no public hardware documentation, which makes it very hard for anyone else to work on it in the first place.

      This is what I (and anyone else stuck with one of these chips) am complaining about.

  8. Re:Bit of a tangent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Possibly because your friend is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about? Intel release huge amounts of documentation, freely, they were one of the first companies to write and push their own drivers into the Linux kernel tree and almost all of their hardware is well supported with OSS drivers.

  9. Re:Bit of a tangent by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel's wireless 3945ABG Linux drivers are pretty good. The firmward microcode is released under a closed-source license, but the drivers themselves are open source (and in fact are part of the Linux kernel). That may be offensive to some OSS purists, but I'd rather have good, open-source drivers with closed firmware than non-functional open-source drivers.

    It's the same with my opinion about nvidia's drivers. Sure, they're closed-source. But I'd rather nVidia give us working 3d drivers than be stuck with the crappy open-source 2d-only nv driver. It'd be nice if they were open-source, but I'm not going to refuse to use them out of some misguided idealism.

    Put another way, if I'm dying of thirst, and a known thief offers me stolen water, I'm going to drink it - it's not like the water is tainted. Maybe that makes me an accessory to a crime (or, in software terms, maybe it encourages closed drivers) but it's better than dying of thirst (or, better than having no 3d drivers at all). nVidia has no real motivation to give us open-source 3d drivers in the first place, so refusing to use their closed driver won't make them change their minds.

  10. Re:Bit of a tangent by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd agree. I had a rather nasty return on a DV6990 HP laptop. It was trash, but that's aside the point.

    I went and bought a T61, all intel down to the graphics card. Better wattage drain and complete open source drivers. Ubuntu detects everything on here, with exception to the HD APS system, which I can do without (it drains batt 2w extra).

    And then, I find out that Intel releases everything about their 3d system.. And because of that, Linux devs are working on a Graphical Memory Manager, called GEM. Come to find out, it only works for Intel because they're soo open. They know they sell hardware, not their drivers.

    Hopefully, AMD/ATI will follow and do the same. Wonder where that leaves nVidia...

    --
  11. Re:Bit of a tangent by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    You got modded up, so I get to correct you.

    GEM (Graphics Execution Manager) is only working for Intel because they have more people working on it. There's only around four or five people working on Radeon stuff, and of those, only two of us are dedicated to ATI work, and we're both students.

    If you grab development snapshots, you can see Radeons working with DRI2, GEM, KMS, and all that fancy stuff.

    --
    ~ C.
  12. Re:Bit of a tangent by Nick+Ives · · Score: 2, Informative

    The firmward microcode is released under a closed-source license

    That'd be because it contains the code to physically setup the device and any variation to it would cause it to break its FCC certification.

    There's a fuzzy line between device level firmware which nobody ever wants to change (because it could cause your machine to literally blow up) and the driver code which, of course, we want to be free. Apparently it's because hardware manufacturers have shifted away from having firmware on a ROM and instead started distributing the microcode with the driver instead. It cuts manufacturing costs and makes microcode updates less dangerous.

    I can't be arsed finding a link but even RMS accepts that it's OK for such microcode to stay as a blob.

    --
    Nick
  13. Compositing = Easy by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Informative

    Compositing doesn't take a lot of power, despite how Linux has struggled with it. I mean, come on, at worst it's two triangles per window, with textures and alpha-blending. Maybe an extra four tris with colour and an alpha map for shadow. My 2001 ibook could do it in OS X, and that was running a Rage Mobility M3. I think it's 16MB.

    1. Re:Compositing = Easy by ogdenk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On your 2001 iBook it was a mobile Rage 128-based GPU and it wasn't capable of using Quartz Extreme for 3D-accelerated compositing. They went from the Rage 128-based chip to a Radeon 7000 I believe in the G3 iBooks.

      It was done in software with Quartz and some 2D acceleration. Still worked f**king great though. Impressively snappy even on an old 350mhz G3 tower. Much more usable than the XRender-based compositing offered as an alternative to XComposite in KDE4.

  14. Re:Bit of a tangent by makomk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny story really... originally, everyone was working on something called TTM, which did much the same thing as GEM does now, and was designed to be suitable for all graphics cards. Progress was slow (mostly volunteer developers) but steady. Then the Intel driver's developers decided they wanted to go their own way, and ripped it out in favour of their own simpler solution, GEM - which only worked for Intel graphics hardware. Since Intel was the only open hardware at the time, they got their way. So the real reason that GEM only works for Intel hardware is because it was designed to support Intel graphics and Intel graphics only.

    (This also set development of the equivalent functionality for other hardware back a bit, since the developers were set on TTM, and GEM was useless to them as it stood.)

  15. Intel caught me on this one too :( by HRbnjR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I fell in love with the Poulsbo based Panasonic CF-U1 ruggedized MID. Once I saw Intel did the graphics hardware and that they had a Linux driver, I bought the thing. Knowing Intel has been doing such a great job maintaining their desktop Linux stuff (i810 driver, etc) I just trusted them, and as you can see by this article, what a mistake that turned out to be.

  16. Re:Bit of a tangent by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just to be an asshole, I'm going to correct you too with a car analogy!

    GEM is working on Intel because they're the ones who initially wrote it. It's a bit like showing up at a road race with an antigravity mach-1 craft invented in secret, then handing out schematics to it to the other drivers and speeding off over the horizon.

  17. Sounds to me like windows drivers. by drolli · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly, i am sure this is how many "we have to hit the shelfes before 8am yesterday , because this chipset is now the cheapest one"-drivers for windows are developed. Copy and paste everything into your driver instead of defining the dependencies correctly. After all in the end it is a single dll which may be several megabyte of size, nobody looks into that anyway. Nobidy cares in five year. until that time, recommend to everybody using the recovery CD. If things break by an windows update, it's clearly MS fault, isn't it? BTW. MS never certified the driver, so MS clearly says its the manufacturers fault. Just turn of the acceleration - good luck.

    In this game there a now three compnaies involved, all of which want to earn money. And the customers of none of the three companies care right now about this driver issue.

    -Dell: Customer is happy with Ubuntu, turned it on, worked. When ubuntu upgrades the kernel, dell will pay the driver developer
    -Driver developer: copying and pasting saved some time, specification most likely said: should run on ubuntu. Dell is obviously happy
    -Intel: Dell as a customer is happy to buy cheap parts.