VIA Releases 16K-Line FOSS Framebuffer Driver 159
billybob2 writes "VIA has released 16,434 Lines Of Free & Open Source code that enables Linux natively to use the framebuffer on VIA's graphics chipsets. This comes a month after VIA announced that it will provide Open-Source drivers and documentation on its Web site so that its hardware will work out of the box with Linux distributions. This gives VIA-powered systems that come pre-installed with Linux — such as the gPC, 15.4" gBook, CloudBook, and Zonbu — the ability to output graphics through digital connections such as HDMI, and probably makes them the best-supported framebuffers Linux has ever had. Look forward to documentation and X.org drivers from VIA as well in the near future."
Re:More like giving up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More like giving up (Score:5, Insightful)
How does a summary that reads "VIA announced that it will provide Open-Source drivers and documentation on its Web site so that its hardware will work out of the box with Linux distributions" translate, in your mind, to "Via just don't want to develop their Linux drivers anymore"?
The story sounds more like they are opening development up to the FOSS community, not "giving up". This should be applauded.
Re:Lots of code? (Score:1, Insightful)
less lines same task = better.
I remember IBM used to (around about the same time they wouldn't hire guys with beards in the 80's) look at productivity by the lines of code instead of the task..off topic ramble...
Re:More like giving up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of code? (Score:5, Insightful)
(2) Why are the first few comments so negative? First you criticize all the graphics vendors becuase they won't open up their code, then when VIA goes and *does* open up their code, the first reactions are so critical? What the hell? Just take it for what it is: a gesture of openness and an opportunity for the community to pick up VIA's code and maybe make some interesting things out of it?
long history of VIA refusing to release documntn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lots of code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patents and driver signing requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
Which has what, exactly, to do with a Linux framebuffer driver?
Sure, having the source, we could proably port it to the Windows world, but the Windows world has no shortage of drivers already. Granted, they don't always count as the most reliable option, but at the risk of sounding a tad snarky - You run Vista 64-bit, "reliable" doesn't really enter the picture.
Re:Lots of code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty cool in my books.
Re:More like giving up (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD and Linux drivers for framebuffers will be rather different.
VIA will never ever support my OS of choice (Plan9) and I don't expect them to, thats what the documentation is for. And no, source code is not documentation when it comes to drivers, it's one person's interpretation of what they read/fiddled with to get it to work. Porting drivers is more work that you seem to think.
Re:More like giving up (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say there, but I read it as "BSD can just copy the source code from Linux". If that's the case, there's a technical reason why you're wrong, and a non-technical reason why you're wrong.
Most "Linux things" can run on BSD because they are both UNIX-like operating systems, meaning they both implement enough of POSIX to make porting back and forth easier than porting to a non-POSIX system. But that only works for user software. The underlying kernel architectures and code are massively different, and anything that has to interact directly with the kernel, such as device drivers, are significantly different between the two operating systems. It's nowhere near as trivial as you imply.
Secondly, even if it were technically possiblethe license for BSD and Linux aren't necessarily compatible. BSD kernels and (most) drivers are under the (shock) BSD license, which, for better or worse, is more lenient than the GPL. The result is that you can't copy Linux code into BSD kernels because BSD allows the source to be used in a closed source product, while the GPL doesn't.
Re:More like giving up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More like giving up (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's easier to make working documentation out of working code than working code out of non-working documentation.
Sadly not. Most hardware documentation is wrong, and errata updates are the exception rather than the norm. However, understanding what the hardware was supposed to do from reading the documentation is often better than reading a magic number filled chunk of source code. Please note that this is not a criticism of the VIA code, which may be a model of well written and documented code ...
Re:More like giving up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot == press release wire (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of code? (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends which 16K lines.
Re:Slashdot == press release wire (Score:3, Insightful)
mod abuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm concerned that giving moderation access to most everyone is counterproductive. This didn't require any moderation at all. Flamebait? No. Redundant maybe, but not to the point that it's annoying. This should not have been moderated at all. The point of moderation is to find and highlight gems not bitch slap people at random.
Thanks,
Anon.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents and driver signing requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking some arbitrary good deed by a hardware vendor and tacking a cynical "I bet it doesn't work on Windows" doesn't make you smart or insightful -- it makes your just another slashdouche.
Re:More like giving up (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. It's good to know that I've been running my computer on docs all this time. No, docs just let you write more drivers.
And writing drivers is more work than you seem to think. Do you honestly believe that writing a driver from scratch, given the docs, is easier than porting a working driver given the docs?
Re:More like giving up (Score:5, Insightful)
VIA wasn't obligated to do this for you, you aren't paying them, how about you say "thank you, we appreciate your help" and support their product. They may just help out the FOSS community more in the future. If you spit in their face then they won't do this sort of thing again.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
A Win for Free Softare Either way. (Score:2, Insightful)
What matters is that vendor support of free software is here to stay. This is a direct break in the Microsoft monopoly, as the Intel graphics effort was, and others will follow. Via realized it's more their best interest to have hardware that works than it is to try to extract control over people.
Size has nothing to do with this. If the code is small and complete, it shows that Nvidia and ATI never had much to offer and we should all wonder why they never bothered to cooperate. If the code is incomplete, more has been promised and will be delivered. All of this is great news.
Thanks VIA. Good graphics joins good power efficiency in the VIA appeal.
Re:Patents and driver signing requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, they exaggerated how much hardware help they had.
Regardless, I don't see how this affects us, either. These are drivers for Linux, so it's good that they're open. It means they can't be GPLv3, but neither can Linux itself. And it means we can't then port them to Vista 64-bit -- seems like a small loss to me.
Re:More like giving up (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not h.264-specific, but it is a generic way to provide any codec. So all they have to do is provide their own DirectShow h.264 codec, and every app that uses DirectShow codecs will have hardware-accelerated h.264.
At that point, if, say, Flash isn't using DirectShow (I don't know either way), then that will be their fault. But it looks like VIA didn't even try.
In software, most crypto seems to be done by openssl or gpg, both of which have fairly centralized, well-established libraries.
So it's pretty clear what you'd have to do to get the crypto stuff supported by pretty much every Linux app that isn't statically linked.
Re:Patents and driver signing requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, they exaggerated how much hardware help they had.
Re:More like giving up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot == press release wire (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't think these are the best-supported framebuffers Linux has ever had, provide a counterargument.
Re:Patents and driver signing requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if you had a sensible legal system where lawyers could not demand a penny in payment before a verdict was delivered, then it would be much harder for unscrupulous corporations to drag out court cases to the point where people who are in the right can't afford to fight on. Just saying is all.
They would need to invalidate all patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More like giving up (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly not. Most hardware documentation is wrong, and errata updates are the exception rather than the norm. However, understanding what the hardware was supposed to do from reading the documentation is often better than reading a magic number filled chunk of source code. Please note that this is not a criticism of the VIA code, which may be a model of well written and documented code ...