Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 174

Thread: Intel Wants YOUR Linux Questions, Feedback

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post



    Sorry, I don't know what the issue is, and I don't have any i7 around... I'll see what I can find out.


    Here's the sample of this issue

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rei7_970&num=2

    this image
    http://www.phoronix.net/image.php?id...ftown_oops_med

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    138

    Default

    What is the state of VAAPI support for h264 and vc-1 on G[M]4x series graphics?

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    The truth is - the way we work, we work directly on upstream. So if upstream (X.org, kernel, ...) settles on how to support options in a cross-device and mainstream way, without giving a preference to one unique tool, this is what we do. This is why we work on upstream xrandr support instead of intel-settings tool for instance. This gives the freedom of choice to select how you want to control those settings. In kde, you have systemsettings; in gnome, you have its control panel; in console, you have man xrandr, and so on.

    If you need a user-friendly control panel for the driver options, the most correct solution is to ask your distribution to add it. They know for certain who their users are. We provide them all with support and give no preferences nor discriminations to any distribution or desktop environment - but how those settings are visualized and used, it is up to them.
    Thats GREAT, and like i said expected... BUT, my point was that the move of creating a useful GUI should come from Intel, and not say... Ubuntu.
    Cause they are probably NEVER going to ask for that, AND its in Intel's best interest to have a real GUI option for settings, easier bug reports, etc.

    Windows has its own 'graphics settings', like gnome and kde, -BuT-, and thats a huge but, that doesn't keep intel from taking the initiative and -also- creating its own solution, -to further support- its users on windows, beyond the basic stuff...

    My question was more in the lines of: when are you guys gonna wise up and go beyond what is normally requested?
    Intel is the only really relevant(as in thoroughly used) OSS Driver that we have, the other two GPUs out there mostly rely on binary blob, so to be on par with the binary junction Intel needs its own GUI form factor solution, like nvidia-settings for example.

    I hope Intel realizes the importance of this in the future.

    Thanks a bunch for the kind responses

    cheers

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Nice work, room for improvement

    Hi,

    I'd like to begin by saying that I find what you (Intel driver team) are doing is just amazing, for maybe 15 years I have been dreaming for hardware manufacturers to seriously invest in open support for their products, and after all these years you are one of the few who seem to really want to do things right. Graphics drivers being as primordial as thy are (I can work without printer, webcam or wifi) I think your work is very important and you seem to be doing a great effort, with very good results. I have bought Intel graphics systems for years, and even if it has not been smooth riding all the way, it has always been far from the terrible headaches I had with the two other vendors, and in recent years the experience has become much smoother - recently I have had hardly any issues, I even find the situation better now than I used to have in windows. It just tends to work, great !

    I recently bought a laptop however, and by default the backlight just wouldn't light. I know this is peripheral to your main work, and I managed to find a workaround (after days of effort), but now I must manually switch the light on with a key combination. Maybe I shouldn't complain too much, as it can be made to work, but I consider unsatisfactory any system for which the screen does not work out of the box, and really on a laptop I shouldn't have to switch the screen on independently from the machine. I filed a bug, and after a little complaining I got decent attention and I expect that this is fixable. This issue is present in many machines across vendors, and has been present for over a year - hundreds of users are complaining on forums across distributions, and it is not easy for a non techie to work around.

    Now to my question : could you not buy a few tens of common machines, with diverse hardware configs, then have an intern test your drivers on each before any release ?

    I noticed you say "I don't have any i7 around" for testing, if you don't have one around, I do hope you have access to one. Looking at the problems in bugzilla, it would seem to me that if you installed your drivers on a range of hardware you would come across many of these issues yourself. With testing on more configs, couldn't you avoid having users trip over the bugs ? Wouldn't it be easier to fix problems if you yourself had the offending system in front of you, rather than diagnosing via bugzilla ?

    Thanks for the great work. All the best !

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default Nice work, room for improvement

    Hi,

    I'd like to begin by saying that I find what you (Intel driver team) are doing is just amazing, for maybe 15 years I have been dreaming for hardware manufacturers to seriously invest in open support for their products, and after all these years you are one of the few who seem to really want to do things right. Graphics drivers being as primordial as thy are (I can work without printer, webcam or wifi) I think your work is very important and you seem to be doing a great effort, with very good results. I have bought Intel graphics systems for years, and even if it has not been smooth riding all the way, it has always been far from the terrible headaches I had with the two other vendors, and in recent years the experience has become much smoother - recently I have had hardly any issues, I even find the situation better now than I used to have in windows. It just tends to work, great !

    I recently bought a laptop however, and by default the backlight just wouldn't light. I know this is peripheral to your main work, and I managed to find a workaround (after days of effort), but now I must manually switch the light on with a key combination. Maybe I shouldn't complain too much, as it can be made to work, but I consider unsatisfactory any system for which the screen does not work out of the box, and really on a laptop I shouldn't have to switch the screen on independently from the machine. I filed a bug, and after a little complaining I got decent attention and I expect that this is fixable. This issue is present in many machines across vendors, and has been present for over a year - hundreds of users are complaining on forums across distributions, and it is not easy for a non techie to work around.

    Now to my question : could you not buy a few tens of common machines, with diverse hardware configs, then have an intern test your drivers on each before any release ?

    I noticed you say "I don't have any i7 around" for testing, if you don't have one around, I do hope you have access to one. Looking at the problems in bugzilla, it would seem to me that if you installed your drivers on a range of hardware you would come across many of these issues yourself. With testing on more configs, couldn't you avoid having users trip over the bugs ? Wouldn't it be easier to fix problems if you yourself had the offending system in front of you, rather than diagnosing via bugzilla ?

    Thanks for the great work. All the best !

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    Just like with windows drivers, you cannot expect to install Nvidia drivers for latest series of their graphics cards,
    I just want to remind nVidia still update 96, 173 series of the drivers and add support of new version of Xorg to this old drivers. Also I want remind GeForce 6 Series launched at April 14 of 2004 is still officially supported by latest nVidia proprietary driver (I have nVidia 6100 - it's really working). AMD is still working on R300g driver (R300 hardware introduced in August 2002). As you see nVidia and AMD is working very hard on support of old hardware.

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    and expect it to power up Riva TNT2 card and allow you to run Crysis.
    No one expect Crysis on Riva TVT2, everyone just want keep old working hardware used, without:
    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    But if you do install the supported drivers (which you can find in form of older kernel releases + older mesa releases + older xf86-video-intel), they will work .
    Installing old kernel releases, old mesa and old xorg driver.

    Also I just want to let you know: with nVidia and AMD GPU and APU Linux users usually have a choice between FOSS and proprietary drivers. If something wrong with FOSS driver we can install proprietary one, if something wrong with proprietary driver we can just uninstall it. This is not the option in Intel case. It's not bad itself but if there some bugs it's a great problem for user so because of that is very important keep driver regression-free and old hardware just working. Please sook at this post and you will understand what I mean. So did you understand?

    Ping:
    1. When the end of SB and IB support life cycle in the FOSS driver? Any guess?
    2. What about Hi10P video decoding?
    3. What about cooperation with R600g and nouveau projects in support of hybrid GPU goal? I know about David Airlie work but you can implement solution for move whole rendering on discrete GPU side (especially it's important for MUXless laptops) without special tricks in X server (this already work in fglrx for laptops with two AMD GPU). Please take attention to this problem!

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    What kind of binary driver releases would you be interested in?
    In my opinion official Intel PPA for Lucid, Natty and Oneiric that provide everything that user need to use very latest Intel hardware (just after add PPA and system upgrade) is a good start point. Also you said before about downgrading kernel, mesa and driver for support of old hardware - so then set up separate PPA (for some old Intel GPU's) that downgrade kernel, mesa and driver in two latest Ubuntu (peoples in GMA500 Team on Launchpad already create such PPA so probably it's possible for Intel too). What you think?

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    Yeah, another very interesting question.

    The truth is - the way we work, we work directly on upstream. So if upstream (X.org, kernel, ...) settles on how to support options in a cross-device and mainstream way, without giving a preference to one unique tool, this is what we do. This is why we work on upstream xrandr support instead of intel-settings tool for instance. This gives the freedom of choice to select how you want to control those settings. In kde, you have systemsettings; in gnome, you have its control panel; in console, you have man xrandr, and so on.

    If you need a user-friendly control panel for the driver options, the most correct solution is to ask your distribution to add it. They know for certain who their users are. We provide them all with support and give no preferences nor discriminations to any distribution or desktop environment - but how those settings are visualized and used, it is up to them.
    @Michael
    Phoronix just killed my reply, i spent like 20min typing something and then phoronix ate it, it prob had to do with the fact that i had to login to reply, but still... very strange.

    @Intel
    Ok i had a long response, but since it was -Terminated-, im just gonna go the small route.

    *My point was that under windows, Win has its own settings tools, like gnome, and kde, -BUT-, and this is a very relevant but, that has -not kept Intel from whipping up its own proper GUI solution 'to further support its users under windows, with advanced options'.*

    Intel is the only big player relying on OSS, AMD and Nvidia use proprietary blobs, and they ALSO provide their own GUI form factor solution for a great many reasons, Intel doesn't.
    SO my question was more in the lines of, when is Intel going to realize that users -need- a proper GUI form factor, and also provide a reliable one under linux.

    If you expect say Ubuntu to request that, as daring as they may be sometimes, thats like saying 'we don't really care and are not gonna do it', because honestly they are not going to ask for one. Its in Intel's best interest to have one, -not- theirs.

    Its like saying, 'oh if you want an expansion pack for your game you can go to your local retailer and demand one'... What?! The retailer only sells it! Its the DEVs that have to do it... Provided they are interested in say... Profits?

    Basically its the same thing, and i REALLY hope Intel realizes in the future, the importance of said tools for greater usability and direct interaction with linux users. Really it makes me wonder who actually works at Intel's marketing department, i mean if i was there i would do anything to get our logo everywhere, creating a proper GUI tool would be just another excuse to get it all over the place, even if it was just

    "Hi there, you are using a intel GPU, look at how cool our GPU is, it has its own GUI tool, even under LINUX! Wow-yeah-i-know. Sadly, this tool doesnt really have any proper, uh...Tool options, nothing really... Its more of a place holder... still! YOU are more then welcome to use you DE's editing tools! ;P
    We were kinda short on people you see... so no advanced stuff... yeah... Well uh anyways... Thank you for buying our product!
    And remember, 'always chose Intel, the Intel-igent choice!'"

    , It would still be better than nothing.


    Sorry for my sarcasm, no disrespect intended, and I'm really grateful for the kind responses,

    Thanks again,

    Cheers.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
    I just want to remind nVidia still update 96, 173 series of the drivers and add support of new version of Xorg to this old drivers. Also I want remind GeForce 6 Series launched at April 14 of 2004 is still officially supported by latest nVidia proprietary driver (I have nVidia 6100 - it's really working). AMD is still working on R300g driver (R300 hardware introduced in August 2002). As you see nVidia and AMD is working very hard on support of old hardware.
    By all respect, I personally prefer Intelīs approach to the problemacy around Linux.

    I have AMD Radeon 64 DDR (R100). I also have Nvidia 6800GT. They are useless!
    Why?
    - they cost 20$ tops
    - they consume more energy than today entry-level solutions for 20$.
    - they have no features what modern solutions have.
    - supporting them in terms of human resource requires serious amount of effort.

    This effort is way better invested in supporting more modern hardware for two reasons:
    1) When you buy Intel, you invest with your money into newest hardware with top priority under Linux. When you buy AMD, your support will be lagging several months in closed source and several years(!) in opensource. Because they are busy fixing my Radeon 64DDR technology. This makes their opensource driver "second class" per definition. This is *WRONG* approach to FLOSS! If spread wide globally, this would mean Linux is second hand OS.

    2) It is much better to get newer hardware supported and only then, go backwards and fix all those outdated, not-on-shelf systems.

    Best regards

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    2) It is much better to get newer hardware supported and only then, go backwards and fix all those outdated, not-on-shelf systems.
    Not if you think that:
    1) maybe a 20$ board is more powerful, but it's still 20$ to spend.
    2) This. (This page has some interesting info too...)
    Last edited by stqn; 01-15-2012 at 11:15 AM.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    Not if you think that:
    1) maybe a 20$ board is more powerful, but it's still 20$ to spend.
    2) This.
    1) New generation is more energy efficient if you compare performance per watt with vintage hardware. You will spend 20$ for new hardware but how much you will save on electric bill every month?
    2) This one is OK. But today netbook has power of mainstream PC box from year 2000. Smaller PC = less waste.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •