Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th May 2007 18:17 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Intel "The Intel 965GM Express Chipset represents the first mobile product that implements fourth generation Intel graphics architecture. Designed to support advanced rendering features in modern graphics APIs, this chipset includes support for programmable vertex, geometry, and fragment shaders. Extending Intel's commitment to work with the and Mesa communities to continuously improve and enhance the drivers, support for this new chipset is provided through the 2.0 Intel driver and the Mesa 6.5.3 releases. These drivers represent significant work by both Intel and the broader open source community."
Thread beginning with comment 239469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Intel conspiracy?
by leech on Fri 11th May 2007 19:57 UTC
Member since:

Okay, I realize that conspiracy may be a harsh word for this.

I recall reading quite a while ago that one of the reasons nVidia hasn't opened their drivers was due to Intel stating that they would sue them for some IP with the AGP code for their chipsets.

Now could this be because Intel all along was planning on trying to be the favored child of the Linux community?

I'm not saying that they're evil for this, just that I think they were smart to start on the bandwagon first and hey, if they can also prevent others from being a favorite of the upcoming Linux users, then so be it.

ATI's drivers on the other hand just suck. We know that they only release specs on their cards that are quite old and that's only because they completely drop support for them.

I wish more of them did something similar to what Matrox used to do with their Gxxx cards. The driver was open source, except for some of their code for doing dual-head, which they more or less pioneered.

I do agree that installing Ubuntu on a laptop with an Intel graphics chip is so very nice. It worked straight out of the box, but of course my Matrox G400 always has as well.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Intel conspiracy?
by Maners on Fri 11th May 2007 20:11 in reply to "Intel conspiracy?"
Maners Member since:

I don't think that what Nvidia says is actually the real reason. If they had a good will to support FLOSS they could simply provide GPU specs to e.g nouveau developers. All the specs would have to provide would be what values to put into GPU registers to trigger certain functionality which perform calculation in the hardware and returns the result. They don't need to reveal IP in order to support FLOSS drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Intel conspiracy?
by leech on Fri 11th May 2007 22:22 in reply to "RE: Intel conspiracy?"
leech Member since:

I think at one point the nvidia-glx drivers did work and were open source. Then about the time the Geforce 2 or 3 came out, the project stopped.

It definitely will be nice once the nouveau project matures. Though at least the nVidia drivers, while closed source, are quite good performance and feature wise, unlike the ATI ones.

I just wish Intel or Matrox or someone besides nVidia and ATI would get out some high end 3D hardware with opened drivers for Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Intel conspiracy?
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 12th May 2007 06:39 in reply to "Intel conspiracy?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:

I recall reading quite a while ago that one of the reasons nVidia hasn't opened their drivers was due to Intel stating that they would sue them for some IP with the AGP code for their chipsets.

They did say something like this. That garnered some understanding, but they could have worked around it had they wanted to. They could have buddied up with AMD and had the gfx card communicate over hypertransport or something. Of course, then AMD/ATI happened so that went right out. Perhaps AMD will do something like that now. Hasn't happened yet though. I worry a bit about nVidia, with AMD/ATI on one side and Intel on the other working on their own solutions (larrabee looks interesting).

I was enticed by the idea of the open gfx, so I got a mobo with the Intel GMA X3000: the ga-965g-ds3 even though I also got an nVidia card. Figured for 5 bucks more it couldn't hurt to send a message that I liked the openness. It differs from the ga-965p-ds3 by the presence of the graphics card only. Was a slight mistake though, my version of the board (with the Intel graphics) doesn't overclock at all ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2