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 X.org and Mesa communities to continuously improve and enhance the drivers, support for this new chipset is provided through the X.org 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 239553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: OpenGL support
by ormandj on Sat 12th May 2007 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OpenGL support"
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

(Sorry, I meant to vote you down but clicked the wrong button. Would someone do so for me please? ;) )


Last time I checked, you weren't supposed to mod people down just because you disagree with them. You'd be -5 if that were the case. No wonder so many posts get modded negatively even though they are not breaking the rules (off topic/personal insults.) Learn to moderate...

That said, a stable kernel API doesn't hinder development. Just because one person, obviously biased, says so - doesn't make it true. I'd say dtrace was light years ahead of anything linux has to offer. Same with ZFS. Same with zones. The list goes on.

A stable API just means the development model is different. More time planning, less time hacking together code that semi-works. There's a reason why drivers in linux tend to be flaky, especially ones that are newly introduced. Personally, I'll stick with stability. You can have all the bleeding edge functionality that doesn't/barely/halfway works, I'll happily wait for a stable solution that always/fully works instead.

Different models, different methods, both eventually get to the same point. One is a little more rapid at the expense of a lot of stability, one is a lot more stable at the expense of a little bit of rapidity.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: OpenGL support
by smitty on Sat 12th May 2007 01:57 in reply to "RE[4]: OpenGL support"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That said, a stable kernel API doesn't hinder development.

That depends. Solaris is doing a pretty good job at it, but you only have to look at Microsoft's current situation to see what happens when things don't work out quite so well. More to the point, Linux is developed under a different philosophy - they have to rely on community contributions rather than paying people. So while Sun can pay people to work on a stable api the same situation in Linux may lead to a stall in development or a fork when developers get frustrated about having to worry about keeping everything stable all the time. Then again, maybe not. None of us really know.

There's a reason why drivers in linux tend to be flaky, especially ones that are newly introduced.

Except it seems like a stable api would only help long-term stability. Why would it negatively affect new drivers written specifically for it more than the old ones? I think the reasons the drivers are flaky is because no one is paying testers to make sure everything is qa'd.

Different models, different methods, both eventually get to the same point. One is a little more rapid at the expense of a lot of stability, one is a lot more stable at the expense of a little bit of rapidity.

I do pretty much agree with you here.

Edited 2007-05-12 01:59

Reply Parent Score: 3