Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VIA's Open-Source Efforts A Bluff?

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

  • #11
    As an owner of a Via system I REALLY hope that they are genuine in their most recent commitment and are just being slow. I would love to have a fully functional system with an Isaiah processor. If their level of support remains the same, I won't be buying another

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Max Spain View Post
      As an owner of a Via system I REALLY hope that they are genuine in their most recent commitment and are just being slow. I would love to have a fully functional system with an Isaiah processor. If their level of support remains the same, I won't be buying another

      I hope they do as well. Although, I've just had an EPIA MII 10K die on me due to duff capacitors (which apparently is the norm)... so I'm not about to vouch for their quality... just the quantity.

      TBH though, with the strides Intel have made I'd wager a Core 2 Vs a C7 or Isaiah would have very little difference between them in terms of power usage... the Core (especially the mobile versions) can be very frugal when it wants to be. Of course you'll usually find the Core 2 bolted to massive disks and gigantic GFX cards which tend to skew things somewhat

      Comment


      • #13
        And this is exactly what makes it a shame about the HP mini-note,

        Suse looks and runs very average on the HP, And there is a shocking video of the Unichrome graphics running compiz on youtube. Via have some serious support to fix if they are going to fight off up and coming intel and AMD low power processors of the next 12 months.

        Its a shame because when i heard about them opening up, i thought great! there will be usable drivers up and going within a few months, i can still buy the HP. Looks like a Asus Eee 900 will be in my future.

        Comment


        • #14
          @SarahKH
          While I can see where you're coming from and agree with some of what you've said, my issue is with the article. As far as what you've said, I'm not sure what you mean about ALSA code (their full tree with all source code for their HD AUDIO is in my previous post actually), and as a previous poster has pointed out they already gave away what was needed for Envy24 (years ago in fact). Also, please keep in mind you are comparing a company with less than ~2000 employees (VIA) to AMD who has roughly TEN TIMES that, while Intel has approx. FOUR TIMES as many employess as AMD.

          First of all the article says, "with a few other drivers but all in their binary form", however as I've clearly pointed out in my previous post there is full source code for VIA HD audio as well as full source code for LAN components.

          This PHORONIX article was posted on May 2nd. Regardless of the LinuxFoundation summit (which only occured a few weeks ago when VIA's intentions were first announced), VIA's press release was issued April 30th on their own site, which clearly states their intent (emphasis added):

          "The VIA Linux Portal will initially offer graphics drivers for the VIA CN896 digital media IGP chipset for the new Ubuntu 8.04 LTS distribution. Documentation and source code for these drivers will be released over the coming weeks, with official forums and bug tracking scheduled for implementation later this year. The VIA Linux Portal will also adhere to a regular release schedule that is aligned with kernel changes and the release of major Linux distributions."

          Seems like a clear case to me of what is actually going on with VIA. If you want to roast and baste VIA for not following through with their statements after-the-fact, then I've got no problem with that. While raising concern towards a company's motivations is not necessarily a bad thing (nor is referring to past related circumstances particularly wrong), it is however premature and in my fair opinion rather distasteful to print such a thing.
          Last edited by edged; 05-05-2008, 01:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by edged View Post
            they already gave away what was needed for Envy24 (years ago in fact).
            The documentation is incomplete. I am quite aware of what was released.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by edged View Post
              @SarahKH
              Seems like a clear case to me of what is actually going on with VIA. If you want to roast and baste VIA for not following through with their statements after-the-fact, then I've got no problem with that. While raising concern towards a company's motivations is not necessarily a bad thing (nor is referring to past related circumstances particularly wrong), it is however premature and in my fair opinion rather distasteful to print such a thing.
              Baiting them so soon is I agree a little untoward, but with their previous odd bod 'commitments' is it totally unneeded? Personally I'd say no. Given half a chance VIA will do the minimum and tout their opensourceness... their needs to be a 'we're watching you' mentality until they fully participate in the community.

              It's on a much smaller scale, but if SCO suddenly turned round and said, "we surrender, here have some kernel patches" it'd be quarantined and fully dissected before going near the mainline kernel... but I admit VIA is not a company in my good books due to the 200+ EPIA melting down after, realistically, 6 months of use despite its actual age.

              Comment


              • #17
                VIA just submitted 16,434 lines of code for Linux framebuffer

                VIA engineer Joseph Chan just submitted over sixteen throusand four hundred lines of code (16,434 to be exact) to the Linux Framebuffer Development mailing list (linux-fbdev-devel) that will enable Linux to natively support VIA graphics using framebuffers instead of clunky old VESA BIOS.

                http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev-deve...5858525664&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev-deve...5859325677&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev-deve...5861425733&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev-deve...5861025719&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121015873525951&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121015873125929&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121015872925924&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121015917626649&w=2
                http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121015848325468&w=2

                That shows real commitment on VIA's part, certainly more than NVIDIA has made so far.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by stan View Post
                  VIA engineer Joseph Chan just submitted over sixteen throusand four hundred lines of code (16,434 to be exact) to the Linux Framebuffer Development mailing list (linux-fbdev-devel) that will enable Linux to natively support VIA graphics using framebuffers instead of clunky old VESA BIOS.
                  Interesting development - i think when the response finally arrives from nvidia we will be stoked

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    BTW, technically via never released the specs for the Envy24's. That was IC Ensembles doing who were later bought out by Via.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by hmmm View Post
                      Interesting development - i think when the response finally arrives from nvidia we will be stoked
                      Indeed. Nvidia are now definetley the odd man out of the graphics chip people.

                      A 'nicely done' and round of applause to VIA I guess

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X