VIA Will Not Provide An OSS Chrome 9 3D Driver

[Ant P.]

I wonder what's keeping VIA alive at this point? Microsoft bribes?

Their hardware hasn't been worth buying for a long time - other IGPs are already good enough for Windows users who are only interested in shiny window borders, and their track record of instability makes it unacceptable for people who want their OS to actually work.

[susikala]

Now that's a pity. I was really looking into buying the Samsung NC20... it looks like a nice little thing. :/

[bnolsen]

VIA hasn't been seriously pursuing the gamer/enthusiast market for years; they've been setting the standards for small, low-power PC systems. Intel and Nvidia are just now getting around to producing stuff that can compete with VIA in this space.

Let me fix this for you:

...they've been setting the standards for small, low-power, HIGH PRICED PC systems...

and their market evaporated almost immediately after the atom came out.

VIA's history has been about conscienciously squandering every opportunity they ever had. This is no different.

[Svartalf]

as i already pointed out in another thread, intel seems to open up the pulsbo driver in q4 in 2009

If that's the case, then there's been a shift in attitude by Imagination- which would be a rather pleasant surprise. It also translates into access to make FOSS drivers for the OMAP3 GPU since they're in the same series.

But, I'm not holding my breath on it. I'll believe that one when I see it.

[FunkyRider]

VIA is always 'the piece of shit' IMO. I do everything I can to stop people from buying VIA products because it really sux. Now the worst has become even worse. How good could that be?

[Zajec]

Last time I criticized VIA for their (lack of) work on Chrome 9 I got answers from BruceChang and Jon Nettleton that I'm wrong and they just need some time. Yeah, sure. Once again we received nice "F you" :/

Check out "Chrome 9" thread in these two months:

http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-devel/2009-June/thread.html#347

http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-devel/2009-July/thread.html#385

Come on, how many ppl they need to hire to work on open source driver? I'm sure AMD provided it's not a big amount to have nice effects.

[Nille_kungen]

Well i hope that the driver is rejected from the kernel until there's full documentation.
I don't like the idea of an kernel driver that needs an binary blob for 3D.
I hope VIA one day can be as helpful as ATI against the community, but i doubt it.
Intel and ATI shows that it can be done.
So do you think the next generation of VIA graphics will be fully open source?

[chithanh]

Sorry, but you have that dead wrong.

Intel was willing, but unable, to provide EITHER source or documentation for Polusbo.

Intel willingly entered into an agreement with ImgTec which forbade release of source code/docs. That amounts to the same to me. That it left their open source developers in the cold is an unfortunate side effect.

[Regenwald]

as i already pointed out in another thread, intel seems to open up the pulsbo driver in q4 in 2009

[Svartalf]

The situation is very different from Intel Poulsbo. Intel was neither willing to provide open source code nor documentation.

Sorry, but you have that dead wrong.

Intel was willing, but unable, to provide EITHER source or documentation for Polusbo.

They CAN'T as it's not their GPU core like all the other GMA devices.

It's Imagination Technologies' (It's a PowerVR SGX 5XX series core...) design- and they have yet to show signs of even considering the access of technical information for any purposes of anything other than a closed driver for ANY OS. Moreover, they're the ones that've bogged down releasing a blob driver for the flagship OS on one of the flagship SoC's for their chip. It's still...fun...trying to do 3D stuff on OMAP3 devices.