Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Jan 2011 10:40 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones Yesterday, the ninth Firefox 4.0 beta was released. One of the major new features in Firefox 4.0 is hardware acceleration for anything from canvas drawing to video rendering. Sadly, this feature won't make its way to the Linux version of Firefox 4.0. The reason? X' drivers are "disastrously buggy". Update: Benoit Jacob informed my via email that there's some important nuance: hardware acceleration (OpenGL only) on Linux has been implemented, but due to bugs and issues, only one driver so far has been whitelisted (the proprietary NVIDIA driver).
Order by: Score:
Not exactly news
by AdamW on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:06 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

"He further requests help from Xorg developers and distributors on this issue, since they are still working on it for the future. In other words, if you happen to know people from those parts, be sure to let them know about the difficulties the Firefox team is apparently having with X. "

Please, please - don't bother. The fact that the OpenGL implementations in current X drivers for many cards are buggy is hardly news to anyone, least of all the developers. Inundating them with 'OMG WHERE'S MY FIREFOX ACCELERATION U SUCK!' messages is not going to help.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Not exactly news by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:23 UTC
RE: Not exactly news by somebody on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:00 UTC
RE[2]: Not exactly news by Savior on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:38 UTC
RE[3]: Not exactly news by ndrw on Sat 15th Jan 2011 14:27 UTC
RE[4]: Not exactly news by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:22 UTC
RE[5]: Not exactly news by Veto on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:54 UTC
RE[6]: Not exactly news by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:13 UTC
RE[5]: Not exactly news by ndrw on Sun 16th Jan 2011 05:30 UTC
RE[4]: Not exactly news by renox on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:27 UTC
RE[3]: Not exactly news by renox on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:21 UTC
RE[4]: Not exactly news by Neolander on Sun 16th Jan 2011 13:05 UTC
RE[2]: Not exactly news by Neolander on Sat 15th Jan 2011 13:40 UTC
RE[3]: Not exactly news by aliquis on Sun 16th Jan 2011 14:28 UTC
RE[2]: Not exactly news by edvim on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:49 UTC
RE[3]: Not exactly news by avgalen on Sun 16th Jan 2011 02:07 UTC
RE: Not exactly news by fran on Sat 15th Jan 2011 21:14 UTC
White list ?
by torturedutopian on Sat 15th Jan 2011 11:43 UTC
torturedutopian
Member since:
2010-04-24

Oh no... But that was expected.

Couldn't the openGL mode be enabled on a whitelist basis ? I thought the Nividia proprietary drivers were pretty good, as far as 3D is concerned (you can use pretty recent games under Wine for instance) ?

I thought the situation was pretty good, with the Video Acceleration API, compositing & 3D accel being pretty good with nv cards.

Reply Score: 2

RE: White list ? by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:52 UTC
RE[2]: White list ? by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:53 UTC
RE: White list ? by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:47 UTC
Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 15th Jan 2011 14:39 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

what about on proprietary drivers from nvidia and ati? they are buggy too?

is there a way to manually turn them on/off?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:43 UTC
RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by anda_skoa on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:43 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:46 UTC
RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by anda_skoa on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:55 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:17 UTC
RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by anda_skoa on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:34 UTC
RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by jacquouille on Sun 16th Jan 2011 16:16 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu by mat69 on Sun 16th Jan 2011 00:33 UTC
If it's that bad
by SlackerJack on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:30 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Then just support the the most stable driver then. I'm pretty sure most people use the NVIDIA binary, so just detect it and enable 3D support.

Adobe supports VDPAU in their Flash beta, so it's time to stop making excuses and support what's established, stable and working, which the NVIDIA binary is. AMD binary driver too.

Reply Score: 4

RE: If it's that bad by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:17 UTC
Reverse engeneering sucks
by spiderman on Sat 15th Jan 2011 15:47 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

If the manufacturers did release proper specs for their cards maybe we could have first class drivers for Xorg.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Reverse engeneering sucks by UltraZelda64 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:07 UTC
RE[2]: Reverse engeneering sucks by BluenoseJake on Sat 15th Jan 2011 17:03 UTC
RE[3]: Reverse engeneering sucks by spiderman on Sat 15th Jan 2011 17:45 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by BluenoseJake on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:32 UTC
RE[5]: Reverse engeneering sucks by spiderman on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:00 UTC
RE[6]: Reverse engeneering sucks by BluenoseJake on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:08 UTC
RE[7]: Reverse engeneering sucks by spiderman on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:37 UTC
RE[7]: Reverse engeneering sucks by gilboa on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:26 UTC
RE[6]: Reverse engeneering sucks by ndrw on Sun 16th Jan 2011 06:29 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by aaronb on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:44 UTC
RE[3]: Reverse engeneering sucks by Carewolf on Sun 16th Jan 2011 15:01 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by tyrione on Tue 18th Jan 2011 18:58 UTC
RE: Reverse engeneering sucks by Oliver on Sat 15th Jan 2011 16:18 UTC
RE[2]: Reverse engeneering sucks by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:47 UTC
RE[2]: Reverse engeneering sucks by tyrione on Sun 16th Jan 2011 02:48 UTC
RE: Reverse engeneering sucks by nt_jerkface on Sat 15th Jan 2011 17:27 UTC
RE[2]: Reverse engeneering sucks by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:48 UTC
RE[3]: Reverse engeneering sucks by nt_jerkface on Sun 16th Jan 2011 05:35 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by jabjoe on Sun 16th Jan 2011 08:41 UTC
RE[5]: Reverse engeneering sucks by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Jan 2011 21:51 UTC
RE[6]: Reverse engeneering sucks by Nth_Man on Thu 20th Jan 2011 00:30 UTC
RE[7]: Reverse engeneering sucks by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Jan 2011 09:55 UTC
RE[2]: Reverse engeneering sucks by gilboa on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:34 UTC
RE[3]: Reverse engeneering sucks by nt_jerkface on Sun 16th Jan 2011 06:13 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by gilboa on Sun 16th Jan 2011 06:34 UTC
RE[5]: Reverse engeneering sucks by nt_jerkface on Sun 16th Jan 2011 20:13 UTC
RE[6]: Reverse engeneering sucks by gilboa on Mon 17th Jan 2011 03:42 UTC
RE[7]: Reverse engeneering sucks by nt_jerkface on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:10 UTC
RE[6]: Reverse engeneering sucks by Nth_Man on Mon 17th Jan 2011 08:39 UTC
RE[4]: Reverse engeneering sucks by PlatformAgnostic on Sun 16th Jan 2011 08:13 UTC
RE[5]: Reverse engeneering sucks by gilboa on Mon 17th Jan 2011 03:49 UTC
jacquouille
Member since:
2006-01-02

Another way that the title of this story is inaccurate is that we do have hardware acceleration on linux thanks to XRender --- and we have had for years.

So if your drivers have a good XRender implementation then your Firefox can blow the competition into orbit in 2D graphics benchmarks such as:
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/PsychedelicBrowsing/D...

What's blacklisted on buggy X drivers is OpenGL. It is used for WebGL, and for accelerated compositing of the graphics layers in web pages.

However, for the latter (compositing), we are still working on resolving performance issues in the interaction with XRender, and that won't make it into Firefox 4, so we don't enable accelerated compositing by default (regardless of the driver blacklist) so if you want accelerated compositing (at the risk of losing the benefit of XRender) you have to go to about:config and set

layers.acceleration.force-enabled

to true.I'm happily using it here, and it can double the performance in fullscreen WebGL demos.

Reply Score: 4

so.....
by pabloski on Sat 15th Jan 2011 18:25 UTC
pabloski
Member since:
2009-09-28

...after all we really need gallium and wayland on linux ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: so..... by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:02 UTC
Mozilla may end up with egg on their face
by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:05 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

It's open source, someone else can do it if they can't. There is a graphics drivers problem, but it's getting much better and the future is bright (gallium3d and friends), but even with what we have now, many many many applications manage to do OpenGL just fine on X (even with the crappy closed NVidia drivers I must run, that crash X about once a month). They will look like fools if some else does a fork of FireFox with working OpenGL. My guess is that this will be what will happen because they are effectively throwing down the gauntlet. If this does happen, it will be the soul purpose of the fork and Mozillia will probably quietly take the code, grumbling under their breath. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by tuma324 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:37 UTC
RE[2]: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 21:36 UTC
RE[3]: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by tuma324 on Sat 15th Jan 2011 22:11 UTC
RE: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by Neolander on Sat 15th Jan 2011 20:50 UTC
RE[2]: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by jabjoe on Sat 15th Jan 2011 21:49 UTC
RE[4]: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by jabjoe on Sun 16th Jan 2011 09:08 UTC
RE[6]: Mozilla may end up with egg on their face by jabjoe on Sun 16th Jan 2011 10:31 UTC
Misleading (troll-y) article?
by fithisux on Sat 15th Jan 2011 19:10 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

Xorg drivers are buggy. Yes ... sure. Buggy are the crap called GFX that are

1. Not standardized
2. Under documented

If the GFX had a hardware standard for access, more people could improve the OpenGL stack (coincidentally this happens with Microsoft. however vendors write blobs to standardize to their interfaces) . We live in 2010 and graphics cards after all the technological advancements could not export a common hardware access API. It makes me wonder about the author's unfair and inaccurate description of the GFX situation in general. Why not have HW accelerated browsers in Haiku or Syllable. Because people would be involved in an eternal hunt for documentation. The only answer is standards. There enough FPGAs out there to burn a standard driver in it. If you want my 2 cents

1. GFX should handle interface to the monitor and do elementary 2D acceleration via a standardized way (Have you heard about VESA?)
2. 3D/GP computing should be re-factored to another chipset (APU by AMD is a good terminology) that could be put on PCIE card to provide standardized access. Put an FPGA to do the translation from standardized calls to vendor HW.

For example I buy a cheap standard 2D gfx card and a standardized accelerator board cheaper because it is more oriented on GP computing and weaker in 3D (I want solve differential equation with octave on FreeBSD for example ). If you want to be cheaper, buy only the first, let you 8core CPU do the rest.

So, we could have 2 markets, cheap 2D standardized cards, like OHCI, OHCI1394, PCI-ATA cards and accelerator / co-processor cards that should be also standardized. Less unemployment.

What we have now? Everything combined in a proprietary, non standard compliant uncompetitive manner and older vendors killed. OSS is part of the global market and making drivers for special OSes is uncompetitive. Even the mighty windows need a vendor driver.

There is always the cheapness factor. But would you sacrifice price for freedom and standards compliance? If yes, then , in my opinion, computing is not for you.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Misleading (troll-y) article? by siride on Sun 16th Jan 2011 04:21 UTC
RE[2]: Misleading (troll-y) article? by fithisux on Sun 16th Jan 2011 15:58 UTC
RE[3]: Misleading (troll-y) article? by siride on Sun 16th Jan 2011 16:06 UTC
RE[4]: Misleading (troll-y) article? by fithisux on Mon 17th Jan 2011 08:21 UTC
RE[2]: Misleading (troll-y) article? by vodoomoth on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:28 UTC
Not working under Windows either
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Jan 2011 21:13 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I just tried beta 9 and well, either I get a completely black window or it flickers like Speedy Gonzales having an epileptic seizure. Not really what I would call useable :/

Reply Score: 3

v Another shot at X's ass
by Jason Bourne on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:15 UTC
RE: Another shot at X's ass by jacquouille on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:24 UTC
RE[2]: Another shot at X's ass by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 15th Jan 2011 23:32 UTC
RE[3]: Another shot at X's ass by jacquouille on Sun 16th Jan 2011 00:24 UTC
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sun 16th Jan 2011 02:20 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Sadly enough, GL drivers on Windows aren't that great either," he notes, "This is why WebGL is done via Direct3D on Windows now... But that mostly a matter of performance issues."


Colour me confused by why is it a bad thing that WebGL is implemented on top of Direct3D instead of OpenGL? if the outcome is consistent with WebGL implemented using OpenGL then why is it even a problem? I mean if the outcome is the same then why is it a 'sad situation'?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai by tyrione on Sun 16th Jan 2011 02:50 UTC
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai by kaiwai on Sun 16th Jan 2011 02:56 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai by Neolander on Sun 16th Jan 2011 12:14 UTC
RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai by moondevil on Mon 17th Jan 2011 08:08 UTC
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai by tyrione on Tue 18th Jan 2011 19:01 UTC
What?? WebGL through Direct3D?
by shmerl on Sun 16th Jan 2011 15:56 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

ATI is partially to blame for bad OpenGL drivers on Windows (since ATI cards are quite widespread). They never invested the same effort as into DirectX drivers. Nvidia on the other hand produces decent OpenGL drivers across all platforms.

Still, this whole situation is a mess.

Reply Score: 2

Heh
by Wodenhelm on Sun 16th Jan 2011 23:15 UTC
Wodenhelm
Member since:
2010-07-16

So where's all the X-lovers now? Wayland brings forth his hammer.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Heh by Mellin on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:12 UTC
RE: Heh by shmerl on Wed 19th Jan 2011 02:48 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

I was reading that the DirectX 10/11 API was successfully ported to Linux, though not 100% done at the time i read it, but it was already running Direct3D demos and such.

Ah yes, here:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=mesa_gallium3d_d...


If it becomes a little more mature, we could see Directx becoming an alternative to OpenGL on non-windows systems...(kinda shows the sad state of opengl right there...)

Reply Score: 2

Switching
by Mellin on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:09 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

i'm going to switch to chromium

Reply Score: 2

Maybe ready for Firefox 4.1
by lemur2 on Mon 17th Jan 2011 23:37 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTAyMA

Ideally these open-source developers will be able to get the WebGL issues on Mesa straightened out quickly. However, it already would be too late to get them fixed and then white-listed for Firefox 4.0. Mesa 7.10.1 / Mesa 7.11 will likely not be out for a couple of months and if these next releases do carry the WebGL fixes, for most users it's then a matter of waiting for the distribution vendors to pick-up the new packages. Maybe in time for Mozilla Firefox 4.1 these Linux GPU acceleration issues will be sorted out.


Finally, some movement towards OpenGL 3.0 support in Mesa:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTAyMQ

Reply Score: 2

Well, well, well...
by 1c3d0g on Tue 18th Jan 2011 17:02 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

...*clears throat*...ahem, so isn't this going to push Wayland developers to move even faster so Linux can' finally have a proper graphics server? About damn time they retire that stupid kludge of a software called X.

Reply Score: 2