Tweet
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat
View Post
Anyways, thanks!
-
But it doesn't seem lagging behind by much:
Anyways, thanks! -
Well, maybe so, I don't know enough to make a statement one way or the otherOriginally posted by DanL View Post
But I think there was a recent article here in Phoronix comparing Gallium 3D vs classic Mesa, and G3D kicked ass! So ...Comment
-
I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. Everything in that matrix is marked as "work in progress", which only means that somebody is working on it.But it doesn't seem lagging behind by much:
There is still no Gallium3d driver usable for anything like compiz, let alone running games.
That's only true for the r300g driver, due to some very recent optimization work. The gallium driver was slower than the classic Mesa driver for quite a while.But I think there was a recent article here in Phoronix comparing Gallium 3D vs classic Mesa, and G3D kicked ass! So ...
There is nothing magic about the Gallium3d infrastructure that makes drivers automatically faster.Comment
-
FWIW, a major milestone for the r600g driver should be reached relatively soon (running glxgears and other toy applications). It will probably start getting tested more widely after this point.
Still, it will probably take some time before it reaches feature parity with the classic Mesa driver, and even longer before it is as stable and reliable as it, enough to replace it in a major distro.Comment
-
I am happy that latest r300g does not show screen corruption. However, when running the screen saver I can see problems in the lighting of 3 Surfaces. I wish if I could file some bug reports.Comment
-
Actually, i think there is.Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
The new design is based around the way modern hardware works, and emphasizes the use of shaders, while the classic drivers have a bunch of cruft and rely more on fixed function hardware that is becoming useless on newer hardware.
A poorly optimized gallium driver can still be much slower, of course, but once it gets some serious optimization work done on it there is every reason to believe it should outperform the classic drivers.Comment
-
Where did you hear that? I have and i865G with the DDX intel 2.11, KMS, OpenGL, XVideo, etc. works with no problems.Originally posted by Phoronix
The problem is that right now for some i8xx hardware KMS doesn't work very well, users have to use UMS (which was removed in DDX version 2.10) or disable DRI.Comment
-
You're right in principle, but the r600 Mesa driver was written very recently, mostly from scratch, with the complete documentation available.Actually, i think there is. The new design is based around the way modern hardware works, and emphasizes the use of shaders, while the classic drivers have a bunch of cruft and rely more on fixed function hardware that is becoming useless on newer hardware.
That's why I don't think that it's a major issue with the r600 driver.
Once r600g driver is stable, the optimisations will likely lead to much better improvement, but it won't be automatically faster just because it is running on Gallium.Comment
-
Bah, no edit.
What's I'm trying to say is that the r600g will be much faster than the current r600 /eventually/ but it won't be automatic or immediate. It's just that the current r600 driver is not very optimised for very good reasons.Comment
-
"X.Org plans for Ubuntu"?!
"X.Org plans for Ubuntu"
Hmmmm... Is this just me?
Why would X.Org plan for Ubuntu, and not Debian, Mint, Fedora, OpenSuse, or any other of the distros?!
What does Ubuntu have that the others don't?
According to Mark Shuttleworth Ubuntu is a relabelling of Debian with some changes:
From September 9th, 2006 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/56:
but on March 15th, 2010 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/290I?m of the opinion that Ubuntu could not exist without Debian. So it?s absolutely my intention to see that Ubuntu is a constructive part of the broader Debian landscape. It?s vital that Ubuntu help to sustain and grow Debian, because it?s the breadth and strength of Debian which make up the ?shoulders of greatness? on which we in the Ubuntu community stand when we reach for the stars.
What are the criteria for choosing a common base version?
In both the Ubuntu and Debian cases, we?ll be making a release that we support for many years. So be looked for versions of key upstreams that will pass the test of time. Sometimes, that means they can?t be too old, because they?ll be completely obsolete or unmaintainable in the life of the release. And sometimes that means they can?t be too young. In general, it would be better to be reviewing code that is already out there. But there are also lots of upstreams that do a credible job of release management, so we could commit to shipping a version that is not yet released, based on the reputation of the community it?s coming from.
What if there?s no agreement on a particular kernel, or X or component-foo?
We will almost certainly diverge on some components, and that?s quite OK. This is about finding opportunities to do a better job for upstreams and for users, not about forcing any distro to make a particular choice. If anyone feels its more important to them to use a particular version than another, they?ll do that.
Is is just me who think that the X.Org shouldn't focus on a particular distro. And if they do, why not focus on the one that "Ubuntu could not exist without", and let Canonical cherry pick from Debian Squeeze/Sid/Testing/Whatever/whatever like all others.
This sounds as if Ubuntu is getting X.org to follow Ubuntu's pipe, rather than X.org having an agenda on their own or in collaboration with equals. Maybe this is natural, and maybe this is good, I cannot tell yet. But it sounds strange. The kernel is in such a massive development with so many companies involved I don't think it is an issue there. But if the release plans of X.org follows Ubuntu it sure won't end well.
.Comment
Comment