Subject: Re: Radeon framebuffer (the story continues)
To: Michael Lorenz <email@example.com>
From: Vincent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/2006 10:40:55
>> Remember: the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few... or
>> the one. ;)
> Not necessarily in an all-volunteer project ;)
> Most hardware I'm writing code for is more than 5 years old - I just use
> / make work what I have here. If that benefits anyone else - fine with
> me but I can't afford getting more modern hardware just because more
> people might use something similar.
Of course, you're right. Besides, I've always being surprised and
pleased by the way NetBSD handles old hardware, and does it well. We are
way beyond Windows®™, whose successive versions require each time a more
> I think it's in linux/drivers/video/ati or something like that. What I
> meant was - did you try to boot some recent linux CD which uses an fb
> console ( or draws a splashscreen or something ) ? Maybe they just guess
> better than radeonfb, if they do we should probably follow.
No, maybe I should try this. But then, once again, I'm disgusted by the
perspective to follow blindly.
>> Well, Intel® seems to have a natural position: the best you know a
>> circuit, the more likely you are to use it.
> Yeah, an operating system agnostic view is what I'd expect from a
> hardware firm - what would they care /who/ uses their chips as long as
> they get them sold?
You're right. What matters for them is to sell silicon, not software.
Maybe there is an additional reason why the keep their docs secret: they
don't want anybody to tinker with the registers, burn out the displays
and then yell at them they sell crappy chips or they are responsible for
caused damage (which would probably happen in the US)! :)
Anyhow, I think I'll wait till next Xmas to buy me a new laptop with the
yet to come 45 nm Intel® processor.