Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Open-Source Intel GMA 500 Driver Appears

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I was so hoping the first line of the article would say "It's supper effective!"

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      None of that changes the fact that most people want a working solution regardless of if the code is free or not, like it or not. Period. End of fact. If it is open, then that is considered a bonus to some.
      deanjo - i apologise for raising this with you. i will leave it to other people to continue conversing with you on this topic, should they so wish.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        I believe that is the point that he is actually making. People also have various definitions of what is freedom and what is not. Having freedom of a source code that someone can tinker with vs the freedom of being able to enjoy full featured solution. Most people that use computers are users, not programmers.
        You are free to use your hardware with several closed source operating systems.

        You do not have the freedom to dictate that the rest of the world should not be able to use open drivers.

        You have plenty of closed drivers to choose from, we have nothing. That's why this is important.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          None of that changes the fact that most people want a working solution regardless of if the code is free or not, like it or not. Period. End of fact. If it is open, then that is considered a bonus to some.
          Yes. That's why most people use Windows.

          This is obviously false for people who actually choose to use a free system, but we've discussed this before.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            would be closer to the truth. A vast majority of users just want a working solution regardless of the capability of the source code being open or not.
            The vast majority of users DO have a working solution -- they use Windows with Windows closed drivers.

            It's the Linux users who do not have a working solution -- the reason for this is that some hardware manufacturers hate open source and hate Linux as a result. This is why we need open drivers, instead of hoping that Linux-haters will give us a working driver if we promise to abandon open source.

            Comment


            • #21
              insights

              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              The vast majority of users DO have a working solution -- they use Windows with Windows closed drivers.

              It's the Linux users who do not have a working solution -- the reason for this is that some hardware manufacturers hate open source and hate Linux as a result. This is why we need open drivers, instead of hoping that Linux-haters will give us a working driver if we promise to abandon open source.
              mm it's a leeetle more complex than that in the case of the "upcoming" embedded GPUs, with their proprietary software, they are not only coping with a meteoric rise to fame from tens-to-hundreds of $100k licensees as customers suddenly into the limelight, but also with the feature of being ground into the bedrock of a patent lawsuit landslide from the "big boys", ATI, NVidia etc.

              add to that the fact that, for example in imgtec's case, that they have quite a significant SDK, which emphasises "how proud they are" of the "worthiness" of their GPU, and how, if you use that SDK, you can "get the most out of it", it's a real uphill battle that can (and has) sometimes only be broken by reverse-engineering efforts.

              this is a _really_ useful presentation to read, btw:
              https://wiki.linaro.org/ChristianRei...u-lca-2011.pdf

              but - really: regarding the rest of what you wrote (about how everyone else has "working" stuff and gnu/linux users "don't"), i think it's basically down to a combination of intelligence and integrity.

              intelligent people have the ability to live with gnu/linux quirks, but an intelligent person with no integrity will soon choose convenience over the ethical implications of what (for example) dr richard stallman writes at in his own unique way. the intelligent person, willing to stick to their chosen level of integrity, will go *out of their way* to research and purchase compatible hardware, or will simply live without the "features" or "benefits". period.

              technology and convenience is _not_ as important as principles, to these people. these are the people who view proprietary software in the same way that slavery is viewed, and child labour in life-threatening conditions and so on. once you've made that kind of intelligent and ethical connection, it's not a line you cross.

              a person with integrity but lacking the intelligence to cope with linux will either drive themselves nuts or drive other people nuts, or will get a mac as a compromise, until their intelligent integrous friend tells them about how apple bare-face rips off macs and runs cartelling iRings around their iWondrous iProducts.

              let's not describe the case with people that have no integrity and no intelligence.

              Comment


              • #22
                What I meant in the first place, is that the priority for most linux users is having a good acceleration, a lot of people are happy with nvidia and catalyst drivers, I would also prefer a open driver, but the thing I disagree about is that michael said that we all need open-source drivers, out of all computer users 1 or 2 % care about having a open-source OS, of that people, 90% cares more about the driver being good, rather than being open, so what most users need is a good driver be it open or not, so I disagreed with the asumption of "open-source driver is what is needed to please users", because I think that good drivers are needed to please that 90% of users and open-source is needed for the other 10%

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by damipereira View Post
                  What I meant in the first place, is that the priority for most linux users is having a good acceleration, a lot of people are happy with nvidia and catalyst drivers, I would also prefer a open driver, but the thing I disagree about is that michael said that we all need open-source drivers, out of all computer users 1 or 2 % care about having a open-source OS, of that people, 90% cares more about the driver being good, rather than being open, so what most users need is a good driver be it open or not, so I disagreed with the asumption of "open-source driver is what is needed to please users", because I think that good drivers are needed to please that 90% of users and open-source is needed for the other 10%
                  you aren't running an open-source OS if you include a large binary blob into it to run a piece of hardware.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by airlied View Post
                    you aren't running an open-source OS if you include a large binary blob into it to run a piece of hardware.
                    Exactly. Unfortunately, many people still don't get it because they just don't care - that's like being so hungry that they no longer care what their food is made of. In other words, way too many people are still used to adding unknown (possibly even lethal) ingredients in their food just to make it taste a little better.
                    The fact that something is considered acceptable by the majority doesn't make it right, because that would be like saying "drinking poison is fine because most people do".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by damipereira View Post
                      What I meant in the first place, is that the priority for most linux users is having a good acceleration, a lot of people are happy with nvidia and catalyst drivers, I would also prefer a open driver, but the thing I disagree about is that michael said that we all need open-source drivers, out of all computer users 1 or 2 % care about having a open-source OS, of that people, 90% cares more about the driver being good, rather than being open, so what most users need is a good driver be it open or not, so I disagreed with the asumption of "open-source driver is what is needed to please users", because I think that good drivers are needed to please that 90% of users and open-source is needed for the other 10%
                      where do you get these numbers from?

                      Sure, there are Linux users who do not care, but I've never met one who wouldn't prefer an open driver to a closed one.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by airlied View Post
                        you aren't running an open-source OS if you include a large binary blob into it to run a piece of hardware.
                        Huh. Hope none of your devices require firmware blobs, like every wireless card that exists.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by locovaca View Post
                          Huh. Hope none of your devices require firmware blobs, like every wireless card that exists.
                          Huh never learned to read?

                          I said linked into the kernel, all the other firmware runs on the device, devices have always had firmware, even the 3c590 network card had an arm in the chip, just back then they had ROMs.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by airlied View Post
                            Huh never learned to read?

                            I said linked into the kernel, all the other firmware runs on the device, devices have always had firmware, even the 3c590 network card had an arm in the chip, just back then they had ROMs.
                            No, actually, you never said "linked into the kernel". You said an Open Source OS, of which most distributions include a firmware loader and various version of firmware that are closed source blobs. Perhaps you meant to say linked into the kernel, but you did not say that.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X