Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 20, 2006 04:10 AM
Specs are harder to come by than code here (without signing a questionable NDA). Besides, the documentation i have seen isn't always as useful on its own.
VIAs code is also quite cryptic and not in too good a working state. Besides, open source drivers usually get developed in close sync with the project they are drivers for (in this case X). VIAs code is traditionally ages behind on X, linux, etc. Although VIA money and the direct access to hardware and documentation does mean that some things are implemented and newer chip versions are "supported". The quality is questionable too.
Soon it'll be three years since i first touched the X unichrome driver. Although i should have all code drops VIA ever released, I still need to try to build their code for the first time. This is the reality for most users of VIA unichromes. And those brave men that do try their code drops usually end up wasting their time.
But compared to some other vendors, VIAs source releases are commendable, but this is far from enough to warrant the marketing they try to wring out of it. And it's really their missteps they usually get bashed for.
Surreptitiously (but probably accidentally) sticking a proprietary license (next to the ddmpeg binary every) in what's labelled as "open source", for the third time, is very bad.
Restricting the GPL is quite insidious too, and totally not befitting of a company that even remotely claims to support open source.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:No
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 20, 2006 04:10 AMVIAs code is also quite cryptic and not in too good a working state. Besides, open source drivers usually get developed in close sync with the project they are drivers for (in this case X). VIAs code is traditionally ages behind on X, linux, etc. Although VIA money and the direct access to hardware and documentation does mean that some things are implemented and newer chip versions are "supported". The quality is questionable too.
Soon it'll be three years since i first touched the X unichrome driver. Although i should have all code drops VIA ever released, I still need to try to build their code for the first time. This is the reality for most users of VIA unichromes. And those brave men that do try their code drops usually end up wasting their time.
But compared to some other vendors, VIAs source releases are commendable, but this is far from enough to warrant the marketing they try to wring out of it. And it's really their missteps they usually get bashed for.
Surreptitiously (but probably accidentally) sticking a proprietary license (next to the ddmpeg binary every) in what's labelled as "open source", for the third time, is very bad.
Restricting the GPL is quite insidious too, and totally not befitting of a company that even remotely claims to support open source.
Luc Verhaegen.
#