By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), August 12, 2011 3:16 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Groo (charlie@semiaccurate.com) on 8/11/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 8/11/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>Call me whatever, but Charlie is a journalist. They should be portraying things
>>as accurately as possible. That's the only reason they exist anyway. Article saying
>>that Intel's Open Source driver needs compiling to work should have included a statement
>>saying that it works really well when its actually done.
>If there was a driver that actually functioned when >released, I would have done
>that. Unfortunately for you and the revisionist history >you are spouting to fit
>your viewpoint, there wasn't a functional driver. It >didn't work at all on release, nor for weeks afterwards.
There was source available. If you want to use cutting edge hardware on Linux, you need to be prepared to CYO.
Honestly, the number of consumers using Linux is small enough that it's impossible to justify making it a high priority for development right now. When Android starts becoming more prevalent in tablets though, I think that's when you'll see more resources allocated.
>> There's a huge difference
>>between not having alternatives at all(Windows, you are stuck with the driver whether
>>you are knowledgeable or not), versus needing technological knowledge to get it
>>working(matter of time before it gets integrated en masse).
>>
>If Mike Larabel couldn't do it at the time, I doubt there was anoyone on earth
>that could have. This was no doubt aided and abetted by >fact that THE DRIVERS WERE NON-FUNCTIONAL. :)
Honestly, all that means is that Mike Larabel couldn't get it working. I'm pretty confident that other people did have SNB working.
>>Compiling: If you read about Linux tutorials they prop you up by saying be prepared
>>to learn a lot or things won't work. I agree not all Linux distros are like that.
>>But with so many versions available, its already more complicated than Windows.
>>With significantly less marketshare and most of its users needing it for specific
>>uses, its bound to have more knowledgeable users. Unlike Windows, which is used by practically everyone.
>
>OK, now your ignorance is showing through. May I suggest >you go out and practice
>what you preach before you pretend that it is correct.
The truth is that Intel's Linux drivers are not as robust as NV or AMD. However, they are available in source form, which is a pretty damn big advantage and frankly unique amongst GPU vendors.
If you don't like the prepackaged drivers, you can always fix it yourself.
David
---------------------------
>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 8/11/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>Call me whatever, but Charlie is a journalist. They should be portraying things
>>as accurately as possible. That's the only reason they exist anyway. Article saying
>>that Intel's Open Source driver needs compiling to work should have included a statement
>>saying that it works really well when its actually done.
>If there was a driver that actually functioned when >released, I would have done
>that. Unfortunately for you and the revisionist history >you are spouting to fit
>your viewpoint, there wasn't a functional driver. It >didn't work at all on release, nor for weeks afterwards.
There was source available. If you want to use cutting edge hardware on Linux, you need to be prepared to CYO.
Honestly, the number of consumers using Linux is small enough that it's impossible to justify making it a high priority for development right now. When Android starts becoming more prevalent in tablets though, I think that's when you'll see more resources allocated.
>> There's a huge difference
>>between not having alternatives at all(Windows, you are stuck with the driver whether
>>you are knowledgeable or not), versus needing technological knowledge to get it
>>working(matter of time before it gets integrated en masse).
>>
>If Mike Larabel couldn't do it at the time, I doubt there was anoyone on earth
>that could have. This was no doubt aided and abetted by >fact that THE DRIVERS WERE NON-FUNCTIONAL. :)
Honestly, all that means is that Mike Larabel couldn't get it working. I'm pretty confident that other people did have SNB working.
>>Compiling: If you read about Linux tutorials they prop you up by saying be prepared
>>to learn a lot or things won't work. I agree not all Linux distros are like that.
>>But with so many versions available, its already more complicated than Windows.
>>With significantly less marketshare and most of its users needing it for specific
>>uses, its bound to have more knowledgeable users. Unlike Windows, which is used by practically everyone.
>
>OK, now your ignorance is showing through. May I suggest >you go out and practice
>what you preach before you pretend that it is correct.
The truth is that Intel's Linux drivers are not as robust as NV or AMD. However, they are available in source form, which is a pretty damn big advantage and frankly unique amongst GPU vendors.
If you don't like the prepackaged drivers, you can always fix it yourself.
David