Mesa Finally An OpenGL Implementation (On Intel Hardware)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mesa Finally An OpenGL Implementation (On Intel Hardware)

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday September 12, 2012 @04:21AM from the after-dnf-it-had-to-happen dept.

Mesa 3D has famously always not been technically OpenGL (lacking certification), but times are changing: "This is a great day for Mesa and open-source graphics drivers. Just a tad over a month ago, I submitted OpenGL ES 2.0 conformance test results to Khronos for Intel Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge GPUs with Mesa 8.0.4. There were no objections during the 30 day review period, so we are now officially conformant! Finally being on that list is pretty cool. Not only is this great news for my team at Intel, but it's terrific news for Mesa. Mesa has had a long history with OpenGL, the ARB, and Khronos. This is, however, the first time that Mesa has ever, in any way, been listed as a conformant implementation. This is a big boost to Mesa's credibility."

80 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:22 · Score: 0

Only 15 years late.
1. Re:Finally by PylonHead · 2012-09-12 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's been 14 years since I did any graphics programming, and I was thinking back, "Yeah, I remember this being an issue back then."
  
  --
  # (/.);;
  - : float -> float -> float =
Woohoo! by Lord+Lode · 2012-09-12 04:28 · Score: 2

But what about its speed?
What on NVidia and AMD cards?
1. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares- intel's all that matters until NVIDIA and AMD get there act together and release the FULL specifications / documentation / source code. And no. AMD hasn't done that. They haven't even released sufficient code to get a partial driver to run on truly free platforms. Most distributions ship non-free software which is why it works at all. It doesn't even work that great. It's just that the gamers don't care about the issues non-free drivers create or too stupid to realize the root cause. And if your upset because you rely on/make money off/or feel that if you don't support them they'll leave GNU/Linux you can STFU. You aren't helping the situation at all.
  I'm not running a purely free OS either so before you start name calling like a 3 year old I don't agree with everything Stallman says. Both stallman and the free software foundation do a lot of good. There points are generally valid. Even Linus gets mad over NVIDIA's lack of cooperation with the community. I'm not going to excuse my own behavior either. I do run a distribution which includes non-free software. I try to avoid using it. It's just a fact I'm pointing out. You don't have to be perfect. But you should at least try. Don't buy hardware with NVIDIA / AMD chipsets or computers which bundle non-free software. The price isn't the problem and you'll always suffer at the hands of digital restrictions and other issues for doing so. HP, Toshibia, Dell, and Lenovo all ship systems with digital locks which prevent you from replacing components with ones which are compatible.
2. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:26 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  You really need to work on your grammar.
3. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  > I'm not running a purely free OS either ...
  Who cares whether you run a "purely free" OS or not, unless you want to be really idealistic.
  I run Linux not because it's "libre", but because it is much more pleasant to use than Windows (which lacks a lot of Unix goodness, has an ultra annoying updating strategy, has no package manager, and has a philosophy of downloaded programsthat have adware or an installer that wants to install something "extra") or Mac (ok I didn't really ever try Mac but since I like a mouse to have as many clicky buttons as possible I don't think I'm Mac's target audience). So as you can see in the downloaded programs comment, I do find the benefits of open source practical. Just not for an idealistic reason.
  However, without proper graphics drivers, it would not be so pleasant anymore, and that is why I use the NVidia drivers for my NVidia card. So that I can play native games for Linux, games in Wine, and some in virtual machine that has Windows in it.
4. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  I care and millions of people who have AMD and Nvidia cards on their devices (should if they don't) care. I have been running linux for 10+years but I am of the belief that if vendors support proprietary drivers for their devices, I am all for it. OSS drivers haven't caught up with the h/w in over a decade and the h/w is fast evolving, with newer players entering the scene. Even acceptable Q OSS drivers cannot be created in a meaningful way.
  Even intel's linux drivers suck compared to windows drivers. And they actually develop them !
  Vendors cannot just build and give everything away - it is time people accepted that.
5. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I was playing with the nouveau driver the other day (which also has come a long way, by the way, although I can't use it, yet), and I left opengl switched to Mesa accidentally when I was switching back to my nvidia-drivers configuration (it's easy to switch opengl implementations back and forth on gentoo with `eselect opengl').
  
  After loading HL2 from steam, I found that not only did the game load and work (even that much surprised me), but it was actually clipping along pretty well, although not playable (I'd estimate about 1.5 frames per second). Some (much simpler) 3D games worked at full-speed, with a much higher CPU load, of course. This is also all with direct render still enabled.
  
  While Mesa isn't going to replace hardware-accelerated 3D implementations (I doubt that's their goal, anyway), I was pleasantly surprised at how well it works.
6. Re:Woohoo! by The+Mighty+Buzzard · 2012-09-12 05:57 · Score: 3
  
  Everyone who plays 3D games or uses their gpu for any sort of distributed computing cares. Intel graphics solutions are simply not worth having on a primary desktop and I'm damned sure not going to stop doing the things I enjoy out of some fucked up sense of idealism. Most of us, even among linux users, aren't code-hippies. Sure, we'd prefer FOSS drivers but as long as there is a working solution we really don't care.
  If you want to paint yourself a little sign and go picket outside their offices, have at it. The rest of us will be over here not giving a damn.
  
  --
  Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
7. Re:Woohoo! by aliquis · 2012-09-12 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Would had been nice if one could have some Apple-like ability (I don't know how it works on Apple machines and I assume others have done it to) where you could switch between integrated and "solitary" graphics so to speak.
  Use Intel drivers in the CPU for desktop and playing video but switch over to the graphics card for specific tasks like when you run a game.
  With HDMI I suppose there's no issue hooking them up together since it's digital anyway. Whatever to use an internal bus or not is optional. I guess it would even be possible to have a simple "pixel logic grid" which for instance replaced a space of 1024x768 of the current integrated video output with the data coming from the graphics card.
8. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  There is some work in this direction with DRI-BUF and PRIME support - nVidia is even using the DRI-BUF support to implement their OPTIMUS (on-the-fly switching between video compute resources - video cards) so their driver can clock down if another card that is present can handle the load.
  Graphics in Linux are improving at an accelerating rate, even though they have a very long way to go still.
9. Re:Woohoo! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-09-12 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, that was also true of GLQuake back in the day. You could run under Mesa and it would render more or less correctly at about 1 FPS.
  That suggests that GPUs and CPUs have been on a similar performance slope for the past 15 years, despite massive divergence in features and architectures.
10. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  if you genuinely don't give a damn, then at least have the decency to not piss on those who do.
  the people who are prepared to make an ideological sacrifice here are doing it for your eventual benefit as well. every time you ostracise them, you're putting a dog into the fight for the opposition. i thought you didn't give a damn?
11. Re:Woohoo! by tuppe666 · 2012-09-12 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  I care and millions of people who have AMD and Nvidia cards on their devices (should if they don't) care. I have been running linux for 10+years but I am of the belief that if vendors support proprietary drivers for their devices, I am all for it. OSS drivers haven't caught up with the h/w in over a decade and the h/w is fast evolving, with newer players entering the scene. Even acceptable Q OSS drivers cannot be created in a meaningful way.
  Even intel's linux drivers suck compared to windows drivers. And they actually develop them !
  Vendors cannot just build and give everything away - it is time people accepted that.
  Your argument is out of date. Intel Drivers have overtaken those of Windows in speed and reliability, and routinely have cutting edge features over their proprietary counterparts.
12. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  AMD has released enough specs for someone who knows what they are doing to do the job. (i.e about 10 people in the world or maybe even less).
  (The opensource community has not even managed to keep r200 and r100 working (Which was done with full specs - 4 times slower than XiG's implimentation but it did work)).
  Don't know what has happened with XiG stopping selling to consumers but those guys know what they are doing.
13. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Running a 3rd party blob in your kernel is just plain stupid from the security stand point. Wanting a completely free OS has nothing to do with idealism.
14. Re:Woohoo! by r_a_trip · 2012-09-13 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  What to do if you don't want systems with an Intel processor? Care to point out a discrete graphics cards that is not Nvidia or AMD and comes with fully open drivers?
  
  --
  # touch universe # chmod +rwx universe # ./universe
15. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  If you reason like that, you can as well run nothing. Not using a computer is quite secure from that standpoint.
  However, doing so is also useless. Similarly a Linux without 3D graphics is also less useful (for someone who likes coding 3D graphics). So I use the best that's available (and no, Intel integrated CPU graphics aren't gonna cut it).
Why OpenGL ES? by edxwelch · 2012-09-12 04:28 · Score: 1

I thought Ivy Bridge integrated graphics are for desktop OpenGL
1. Re:Why OpenGL ES? by h4rr4r · 2012-09-12 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't OpenGL ES a subset of the desktop version?
  Might be easier to work your way towards a totally conformant stack by hitting the low hanging fruit first.
2. Re:Why OpenGL ES? by Tough+Love · 2012-09-12 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  OpenGL ES is not quite a subset of OpenGL... yet. ES 3 is almost a subset of OpenGL 3.3, including having a nearly identical shading language.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
3. Re:Why OpenGL ES? by UnknownSoldier · 2012-09-12 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  No. My day job is working with OpenGL ES 1.x, 2.x, and WebGL. You will want this link. Don't let the title through you -- WebGL *is* OpenGL ES 2.0
  http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/WebGL_and_OpenGL_Differences
4. Re:Why OpenGL ES? by Guspaz · 2012-09-12 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  But the good news is that OpenGL ES is just different enough to break the vast majority apps that use the GPU on desktop Linux if your graphics drivers only implement OpenGL ES and not OpenGL. Try running Ubuntu on an OMAP. The lack of 3D acceleration support in any app (since they all expect OpenGL) is painful.
Great by binarylarry · 2012-09-12 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's awesome having a totally open source graphics stack, from Intel's open GPU drivers all the way up to stuff like the OpenGL interface.
The GPU packaged with the ivy bridge release is almost competent, so I'm excited to see what future generations will bring.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
1. Re:Great by Tough+Love · 2012-09-12 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm excited to see what future generations will bring.
  Compute shaders would be nice.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
2. Re:Great by jvillain · 2012-09-12 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Intel has been doing a lot of really great work on the open source video front. I wish we could say the same for AMD and NVidia but we just can't.
3. Re:Great by hobarrera · 2012-09-12 09:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If Intel keeps up the pace, and nvidia/ati don't want to start loosing market, they'd better follow the example.
  Intel is already taking over the medium-end market for non-gamers, and low-end market for gamers. Especially due to the huge power saving differences.
4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  medium-end? Which end is that?
5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  The end in the middle, of course!
Intel support on MY Linux Box by lord_rob+the+only+on · 2012-09-12 04:30 · Score: 2

I had bought a motherboard with an onboard integrated Intel graphic chipset, and I've always had problems with it for everything concerning 3D (even a small transparent 2D window using the 3D chipset sometimes crashed).
Finally I've bought an ATI (the cheapest model as I don't want to play games) and I'm happy with it and free drivers.
1. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by h4rr4r · 2012-09-12 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Which chipset was it?
  I have been using nothing but intel, unless for gaming, for the past few years at least. These days their integrated stuff seems fairly competent for gaming too. I base that on running portal 2 on an integrated chipset.
2. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by Tough+Love · 2012-09-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Your bug report goes here.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
3. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by lord_rob+the+only+on · 2012-09-12 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Asus P5QL-VM EPU. This motherboard uses the chipset Intel G43 Express.
4. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  It must have been an old AMD chipset. Anything newer to 4000 series seem flaky to me in Linux or FreeBSD. I've got an A series APU in my laptop. The free drivers don't work and the binary blob is very buggy on a 3.2 linux kernel. I've been buying nvidia cards lately because they have binary blobs for both Linux and FreeBSD and the nv opensource driver is tolerable for desktop use. We do the same at work. My current box is a FreeBSD 9.0 desktop running the nvidia blob driver with a intel core i5 cpu. This might mean we could use ivy bridge chips on the next upgrade cycle which would save us money per machine and lower power consumption to boot.
5. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by gman003 · 2012-09-12 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  The older GMA chips are pretty terrible - even on Windows the drivers frequently crash and burn, and the performance is abysmal. I'm not sure if the drivers have been open-sourced, but I don't think they have. They discontinued these long ago - just how old is your motherboard?
  The newer "Intel HD" chips (integrated into the CPU, not the mobo chipset) are a completely different beast. Brand-new design, fully open-source drivers with significant Intel support, and surprisingly powerful (especially per-watt).
6. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by Bengie · 2012-09-12 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Valve is working with Intel to better Intel's drivers for the Linux Steam release. We should be seeing improvements over the next 6month-1year.
7. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I too have had terrible problems with a G43 board and the symptoms you describe. I believe it to be a symptom of the chipset over all. It is important to note, though, that your G43 is 2, almost three generation's behind Intel's current. The Sandy Bridge HD graphics were not bad, and the Ivy Bridge is downright usable, even for gaming at 720P and reasonable settings. I've stopped speccing out client machines with discrete graphics for this very reason.
8. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta admit AMD APU is amazing. I have A6 and it topped all my dreams. Cataclyst 12.8 graphics drivers work like a charm on ubuntu 12.04.
9. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by wierd_w · 2012-09-12 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I recently built a system for a friend of mine using ans AsRock 4 extreme, and an 1155 based i5 CPU with ivybridge.
  As I am not made of money, we cheesed it and coaxed an old ATX power supply with molex plugs into working for us (with some cheap adaptors), and used the integrated video. He rarely games anyway, and we agreed it was a good foundation to work from for later purchases.
  As a system torture test, I installed a copy of TES V Skyrim.
  For the first time in a very long while, I was impressed with how far intel's video offerings have come. It was able to run on medium settings at 1280x960 or some such, at a fully playable speed.
  Still not at match for my now older nVidia GTS 440, but for integrated garbage video, it has certainly come a long way. I didn't see any of the usual 3d texture alignment and geometry "issues" normally associated with intel video.
  If they can keep up that level of improvement, be ubiquitous, cheap, and open, nVidia and AMD are going to start hurting.
10. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by evilviper · 2012-09-12 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  As I am not made of money, we cheesed it and coaxed an old ATX power supply with molex plugs into working for us
  That's the epitome of false-economy...
  You can get an 80%+ efficient Seasonic PSU shipped to you for $45. The savings in electricity makes it easily worth it, and the reliability and extremely low noise make it an extremely good investment.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
11. Re:Intel support on MY Linux Box by wierd_w · 2012-09-13 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  He gets access to an endless stream of ewaste from his employers, who are a city govt. He... had PSUs to spare. This one was a 700W, and was free. We spent 10$ on some adaptors.
  The plan is to replace the old PSU with a good rosewill 1000w some time later, and actually make use of the board's PCIe16x slots with a real video card in the future.
Credibility? by Luthair · 2012-09-12 04:32 · Score: 1

Not to be a jerk but.... Does anyone really think of Intel bestowing credibility in the graphics realm?
1. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes!
  (Intel has invested a massive amount of efforts into Graphics on Linux and anyone not recognising this is just another random slashdot troll.)
2. Re:Credibility? by Krneki · 2012-09-12 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  They have some in the notebook segment, where low power GPU are very important.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
3. Re:Credibility? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-12 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  In pure performance? Not particularly. In 'just supposed to work, and ships on some enormous percentage of all x86s churned out every year'? That's Intel.
4. Re:Credibility? by JDG1980 · 2012-09-12 04:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not to be a jerk but.... Does anyone really think of Intel bestowing credibility in the graphics realm?
  In terms of raw performance? No.
  In terms of stability and compatibility? Yes. Keep in mind, Intel is the largest provider of x86 graphics hardware in the world.
5. Re:Credibility? by Tough+Love · 2012-09-12 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Intel graphics are fairly respectable these days. Still far behind AMD but not a joke any more.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
6. Re:Credibility? by larry+bagina · 2012-09-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The issue isn't their linux graphics work, it's that their piece of shit integrated GPUs.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
7. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yes- it works better than NVIDIA/AMD. These don't work at all on FREE platforms. They only work on proprietary pieces of junk "Linux" platforms. At best they're a crutch until one smartens up and realizes all the harm being done to our community. Unfortunately what Linus says and does are two different things. He criticizes NVIDIA and then sets a policy of inclusion.
8. Re:Credibility? by binarylarry · 2012-09-12 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  That's because Linus is generally a pragmatist.
  He wants shit to just work, he doesn't get religious about things.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
9. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind, Intel is the largest provider of x86 graphics hardware in the world.
  Not to mention the only provider of a free software video stack. AMD/ATI has made parts of of the driver free but without the proprietary bits, it's still completely useless. Nvidia doesn't care at all.
  I think Intel might become a much more viable video provider thanks to power usage instead of speed. Mobile is where the future is and at least there power suddenly is an interesting problem.
  Mesa certification doesn't mean anything to me.
10. Re:Credibility? by deroby · 2012-09-12 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The older stuff, yes.
  Those new core i3/i5/i7 CPU's : the integrated graphics have become VERY potent.
  And yes, I have an i5 that comes with HD Graphics 3000 so I should know.
  In fact, I also have an Nvidia NVS 4200M sitting in my Dell Lattitude that automatically kicks in when I require 3D stuff (read : games) and battery is not a concern. So for fun I started AION on the Intel hardware goofed around a bit, closed the application and then started it up again but on the Nvidia hardware (easy thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Optimus). Im not saying AION is the new standard to test things on, but for a 3D game it looks good (lots of details & eye-candy) and I simply happen to have it on my machine. (1680x1050 btw, I had the settings on automatic)
  To be honest I'm a bit shocked to notice they both look VERY alike. The nvidia picture seems to have more hmm 'powerful colours' (?) while the intel gfx were a bit more washed out but then again seemed to have less visible edges (AA?) though some of the effects looked 'simplified'.
  Otherwise, both maintained a steady 45+ fps which is more than good enough for me. wow.
  If you're more of a numbers guy, feel free to compare yourself :
  * http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+NVS+4200M/
  * http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphics+3000+Mobile
  Seems they come pretty close to each other and the difference in DirectX version supported might explain the noticed difference in effects. They were still there, but just slightly less... hmm... complex.
  Sure there are a lot more powerful dedicated gfx cards around (hey, laptop here!), but trust me when I say that for 95% of the market, these integrated graphics are more than sufficient ! If you're in the 5% of users that 'needs' a powerful 3D processor, then by all means do; but claiming all Intel IGP's are a piece of shit is like saying that you don't have a decent printer if you don't go for the Xerox iGen 150 !
  
  --
  If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
11. Re:Credibility? by Guspaz · 2012-09-12 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Define "piece of shit"; the most recent Intel iGPUs outperform low-end discrete nVidia and AMD cards, and their drivers are decent these days (particularly on Linux, where they've put a lot of effort).
  I fired up Portal 2 on an Ivy Bridge Mac Air recently, at native resolution (1400x900), on the default settings (which had pretty much everything on "high"). It got ~40 FPS in typical gameplay. Not exactly setting the world on fire, but a pretty impressive showing for an iGPU.
12. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  At best they're a crutch until one smartens up and realizes all the harm being done to our community.
  I lol'd...the horror!
13. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  NVS are only designed for 2D.
  If you want a 16:10 matte screen these days you need to get a mobile CAD workstation which will come with a decent Quadro.
What is Mesa? by Hatta · 2012-09-12 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I never really understood what Mesa was. I thought it was what you installed if you wanted software rendering of OpenGL. If you wanted hardware rendering, you installed drivers for your hardware. But now Mesa is providing hardware accelerated OpenGL? What's the point if we have open source Intel drivers?
I don't get it.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:What is Mesa? by binarylarry · 2012-09-12 04:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Mesa provides a software renderer. Technically, all opengl implementations are supposed to also provide software implementations of functions not supported in hardware. They're supposed to gracefully fallback to software (and the lovely performance that gets you).
  Mesa's software renderer means that it's easier to write drivers, so you can have a fully working implementation as you reimplement various features with hardware support.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:What is Mesa? by Bobakitoo · 2012-09-12 04:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I never really understood what Mesa was. I thought it was what you installed if you wanted software rendering of OpenGL. If you wanted hardware rendering, you installed drivers for your hardware. But now Mesa is providing hardware accelerated OpenGL? What's the point if we have open source Intel drivers?
  I don't get it.
  Mesa is the user-space API that talk to the driver. Some driver(eg: nvidia) may provide their own libGL.so, other may use libGL.so from mesa(eg: open source drivers). Also mesa can be use to render in software and even off-screen(eg: batch processing images files or video).
3. Re:What is Mesa? by finity · 2012-09-12 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've wondered this before too. How does it all fit together. I found this very helpful: http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/06/the-linux-graphics-stack/#rendering-stack
4. Re:What is Mesa? by finity · 2012-09-12 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here's the relevant part (sorry, editing on a phone isn't that easy...):
  Now comes the fun part: modern hardware acceleration. I assume everybody already knows what OpenGL is. It’s not a library, there will never be one set of sources to alibGL.so. Each vendor is supposed to provide its ownlibGL.so. NVIDIA provides its own implementation of OpenGL and ships its ownlibGL.so, based on its implementations for Windows and OS X.
  If you are running open-source drivers, yourlibGL.so implementation probably comes from Mesa. Mesa is many things, but one of the major things it provides that it is most famous for is its OpenGL implementation. It is an open-source implementation of the OpenGL API. Mesa itself has multiple backends for which it provides support. It has three CPU-based implementations: swrast (outdated and old, do not use it), softpipe (slow), llvmpipe (potentially fast). Mesa also has hardware-specific drivers. Intel supports Mesa and has built a number of drivers for their chipsets which are shipped inside Mesa. The radeon and nouveau drivers are also supported in Mesa, but are built on a different architecture: gallium.
5. Re:What is Mesa? by MostAwesomeDude · 2012-09-12 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  MesaGL is an implementation of the GL API that can use any of several backends to do its actual work, including a couple software renderers and also hardware renderers for many Intel, AMD/ATI, and nVidia chipsets. Your distribution probably splits each renderer into its own package for historical reasons.
  
  --
  ~ C.
6. Re:What is Mesa? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > Each vendor is supposed to provide its own libGL.so
  Wrong. Each vendor is supposed to provide a *_drv.so module which is loaded either by the X server (for indirect rendering) or by libGL (for direct rendering).
  For indirect rendering, libGL doesn't need to know anything about the hardware the X server is using; it just converts GL calls to GLX protocol and sends it to the X server.
  Unfortunately, nVidia just has to be different, so they provide their own libGL. At least newer versions can handle talking to X servers which aren't necessarily using nVidia hardware (an X client can talk to different X servers on different runs, or even talk to multiple X servers concurrently; what hardware the local X server is running only matters if you're talking to the local X server).
Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Well done! I hope Intel is providing the beer and champagne for your celebration. They should have plenty left over from their IDF.
What has /. come to by marsu_k · 2012-09-12 05:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Now we have Jar-Jar Binks writing headlines
1. Re:What has /. come to by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  I actually laughed out loud at your comment. (Funny because it's true)
2. Re:What has /. come to by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  +1 Funny.
3. Re:What has /. come to by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Best laugh of the day.. :D
4. Re:What has /. come to by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  What is Mesa? Mesa is a Gungan!
5. Re:What has /. come to by exomondo · 2012-09-12 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, i don't have any modpoints but you get an LOL :)
And why? by gr8_phk · 2012-09-12 05:26 · Score: 1

But what about its speed? What on NVidia and AMD cards?

MESA was supposed to be a software implementation of OpenGL. As such, it has always sucked in terms of performance - even for software rendering. I never understood why it became a sort of wrapper for 3D hardware drivers. My understanding was that Gallium3D, some state trackers and Wayland were going to make Mesa irrelevant. Where did that go wrong?
1. Re:And why? by TheCycoONE · 2012-09-12 06:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Mesa is the OpenGL state tracker for Gallium3D. Why throw out what you can still use?
Re:BUT DOES IT RUN APPLE !! by Jeng · 2012-09-12 05:51 · Score: 1

Sorry, it is only compatible with Orange and Kumquat.
Or were you trying to see if it ran on OSX and/or IOS?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Yup, every improvement is proof of failure... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:09 · Score: 0

I guess that since it took years for photoshop to get CMYK and 16bit colour depth per channel, that proves PS is crap, right?
1. Re:Yup, every improvement is proof of failure... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  I guess that since it took years for photoshop to get CMYK and 16bit colour depth per channel, that proves PS is crap, right?
  Bad example. It took less than 3 years for Photoshop to add those features.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history
Congrats! by GeekBoy · 2012-09-12 07:02 · Score: 1

Certainly an achievement which has to be satisfying for the developers. Good job guys.
Re:BUT DOES IT RUN APPLE !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:04 · Score: 0

If you ask this, then you don't understand what the fuck us grown-ups are talking about.
Go outside and play.
Yup. Years. Tosspot. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:15 · Score: 0

no text.
photoshop's 16-bit colour depth wasn't really by Chirs · 2012-09-12 10:44 · Score: 1

I actually did some tests of Photoshop's 16-bit colour depth support. Can't remember if it was PS4 of PS6 though.
Anyways, it turns out that when writing 16-bit TIFF files, it only actually included 15 bits of colour depth. I have no idea if this was an internal limitation for some reason or a flaw in their TIFF routines, but I did confirm that it was true.