Slashdot Mirror
Intel Gets Called Out Again For Their M.I.A. 3.0 X.Org Driver (phoronix.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The xf86-video-intel 3.0 DDX driver has been in development the past two and a half years without seeing an official release. The last development release even of xf86-video-intel 3.0 Git was 13 months ago with the xf86-video-intel 2.99.917 release. At that time it was said by Intel's lead DDX developer, "3 months have passed, we should make one more snapshot before an imminent release." Since then, there's been no communications about a stable release of this DDX driver that makes SNA the default acceleration architecture over UXA. Over on the intel-gfx mailing list users are bringing up again the state of xf86-video-intel 3.0 and why it isn't released yet, questioning if Intel is "able to maintain its own device driver in a usable way?"
Oh yeah, that's right... they give away the chips for free...
They must not be using Agile methodology and must be missing their Sprints! Their Backlog must be huge! Process Control freaks must be weeping at this news!
How is buying their GPUs not paying them for driver development?
Look no further!
If you buy something based on future development potential, you are quite simply an idiot. No, buying their GPU does not obligate them to give you anything other than the GPU itself and whatever driver comes with it at that point.
Yup, only with a Mac you fall out of support entirely - a Mac Pro released in 2006 wasnt supported by an OS Apple released just 6 years later. Runs Windows 10 fine however. Hows that for stupidity?!
Uh, Intel developers are PAID developers to work on linux drivers for their hardware. It's not like they work on Linux stuff on a volunteer basis during their lunch break.
Well, there are still commits going into the git repo - so there's some work being done.
If the complaint is that they haven't "released" anything In years, then well, it's OSS - technically you can call each new checkin a new release.
So it's far from a dead project, and it'll be far from the only OSS project where the last release was years ago and everyone just pulls the latest source code and settles with that.
Apple doesn't make video cards. I've had to deal with shit like this on a Mac too. Too many times I bought things that supposedly had Mac drivers but they were out of date and didn't work with the latest version of the OS. When you call them they act just like they do to linux users. The sneer in their voice is audible.
I love my macs, but Apple does not sell anything that represents a performance machine, and never has. In fact that is why some of us learned to hate them in the 90s: we can put together a much faster machine, for less than their not so fast machines for users we, frankly, disrespect. Now I'm older and have a life, and I am sensitive to the argument that I want to use the machine not constantly tinker with it, and although I have designed computers literally from copper traces, I respect the investment Apple makes in building a very high quality machine that can last and requires very little TLC. They are the best machines out there for casual use.
But I still wish they made one with a high end processor and a high end GPU (hint: AMD does not make any, but then either does Intel). I don't want to hear about "not needing the performance", that is a horrible answer on many different levels, and in point of fact, is wrong for some of us.
So, Apple having forsaken us, we're forced to use the next best os (Linux) and cope with what drivers the gods of Proprietary Hell (right above Special Hell) deign to give us, and frequently bitch and moan about their idiocy. I don't especially care about Intel graphics myself, I always replace it, but I can understand the attractiveness some might see given the wider array of form factors some of these low end machines can come in, where Intel graphics is a key feature.
I fully expect to replace my laptop more frequently than every 6 years.
The only computer I genuinely used as a primary machine for more than 6 years was the Apple ][+ which lasted for 10. Things have changed since then.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
'It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer."'
For some of us those two things are two intertwined there is little difference. I don't want to spend much time getting my computer up and running but playing with all the latest and greatest toys and understanding how they work inspires me when it comes time to work on things which get me paid.
Servers outnumber personal computers...? Wha?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Dear moderators, please vote my shit up. Thanks! :)
For desktop use, Linux is 2nd best. The linux desktop has become significantly less good in the past few years since Canonical mostly abandoned it, I remain optimistic against all odds that it will improve, but OS X is much cleaner and more responsive. It manages to combine the best parts of unix with the best parts of a modern UI. There are things I'd change, but compared to linux where even on a fast machine X responds slowly and with high latency, I use both and prefer OS X.
For server use, for multi-user, or for a workload that is largely headless, there's no question that linux is best.
I'm typing this on a 20-year old machine. Granted, I have replaced some parts here and there at various times (like the cpu, keyboard, screen, ram, motherboard, drives, case, video card, nic, modem, mouse, etc.) and it's still working fine...
If you buy something based on future development potential, you are quite simply an idiot.
No, they are buying something based on future development promises, which is still stupid but which is also not quite the situation you make it out to be. Intel has promised to develop these drivers, it's not like people are buying the hardware because intel has the capabilities to develop the drivers. They stated plans to complete them. They are now obligated to do so, for some very small value of obligated.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mint is actually the superior experience these day and Mint w/ KDE is a superior experience to anything Canonical ever produced or what you get on your Mac.
Explaining to me the business concerns does not change my opinion on the product I need, that is not my problem.
Maybe not; but it IS Apple's "problem". And like every manufacturer of every product, they have to do a cost/benefit analysis for each and every major design decision of each and every product. In your little "me-centric" world, you may not recognize that metric; but then you've likely never been the CEO of a Company the size of Apple (nor have I).
The Mac Pro is targeting a vanishingly small segment of the market, but Apple has stood behind it...
Barely. When is the last time you heard "Mac Pro" in an Apple Keynote? Heck, they don't even include it when they haul out the "Mac Lineup" Slides at those events! I REALLY wish it weren't so; and I agree that it is a incredibly bold and frankly gutsy engineering and packaging achievement; but the "trashcan" Mac Pro seems destined to be discontinued...
I believe Apple could solve this neatly, way better than what we currently do with aftermarket cards, and manually mounting sensitive electronics.
You know what I think? I think that's why Apple has such a "nudge and a wink" attitude toward the Hackintosh community. My friends who like OS X, but want a bleeding-edge gaming system invariably build "Hacks". And you KNOW that Apple COULD lock-down OS X to REALLY only run on Apple hardware in about 2 seconds (remember, they were GOING to put Trusted Computing hardware/software into the Mac lineup (the original couple of Intel Macs actually had the chip); but then didn't. Why? My theory was that it was an intentional "backdoor" that allowed the hacker community to satisfy their desire for a "Mac" that was outside of what Apple could economically support. I also think that Apple hoped that high-end peripheral manufacturers would jump on the Thunderbolt bandwagon with both feet (the Mac Pro has SIX TB2 Ports, FFS!!!); but, for whatever stupid reason, they haven't been able to pull-off the same thing with Thunderbolt that they did with USB and the original iMac. Even high-end audio companies like Focusrite STILL haven't embraced TB wholeheartedly, and TB is tailor-made for that kind of application, preferring to use a TB to FW solution. They have only NOW come out with a few offerings that directly support TB (good on them!). Same thing with high-end video hardware. Yes, the original TB wasn't quite fast enough for high-end video; but that has changed... So where's all the high-end TB "video cards"???
:
However, by OFFICIALLY supporting Windows as a Dual-Boot system (with zero performance penalites), Apple TRULY created an environment where Gamers (and others with a want/need to run Windows) COULD have the best of both worlds.
What's not to like with that scenario? A Hackintosh will ALWAYS be cheaper than an equivalent Mac, just because there is no R&D cost, no Warranty cost, etc. Personally, I am not a gamer; so I would not likely build a "Hack"; but I think that Apple HAS actually "run the numbers" and decided that this is the best solution for everybody, without them getting into the whole "clone licensing" debacle again, and without admitting that they simply don't care what you install OS X onto (VMs other than on Snow Leopard Server notwithstanding).
And, I submit that Apple ALSO KNOWS when OS X is installed on a NON-Mac (all it takes is one little "phone home"), and is keeping track of those numbers for two reasons (and NOT for anti-piracy, which they could solve in other ways)
1. To see what percentage of HARDWARE sales they are losing to Hackintoshes
2. To see if perhaps there IS enough demand for machines outside of their current offerings.