From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 05:45:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0C8106564A for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perlcat@alltel.net) Received: from ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net (ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net [166.102.165.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6B58FC17 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perlcat@alltel.net) Received: from ispmxaamta04-gx.windstream.net ([98.16.171.141]) by ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net with ESMTP id <20081212054520.ZVAA22277.ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net@ispmxaamta04-gx.windstream.net> for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:45:20 -0600 Received: from [192.168.2.100] (really [98.16.171.141]) by ispmxaamta04-gx.windstream.net with ESMTP id <20081212054520.GRFF10030.ispmxaamta04-gx.windstream.net@[192.168.2.100]> for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:45:20 -0600 From: Tyson Boellstorff To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:45:20 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20081207193517.GA20905@laverenz.de> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812112345.20572.perlcat@alltel.net> X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=D02SvSX6Ox4A:10 a=hMM2GHGroxMA:10 a=43PHkXLD/7PtpfAUBFwBPQ==:17 a=Zs0GIAhGzcA_4QGQpccA:9 a=itFeAtqgiyHekwOM3REz6o4t6n0A:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:45:21 -0000 On Thursday 11 December 2008 19:58:14 Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:00:11PM -0800, prad wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:28:13 -0700 > > > > i don't think that's really what is happening, chad. > > i think there is just some disagreement as to what is considered an > > improvement. > > So . . . are you saying that increased support for 3D accelerated > graphics is not an "improvement", and should therefore not be considered > a worthy goal? > Not so much considered 'unworthy' as it is a balancing of limited resources. If I was a hardware programmer, had unlimited time, beer, and cheese dip, I'd add everything just because I could. It would be cool if there was a way to ensure that all items would be supported. However, even then, high performance video would lag. It is often proprietary, and many vendors simply won't publish their specs and need a reverse engineer to get any support at all. You can't force them to do it, and in the case of an open source OS, they may not want the world+dog to see their code for any number of reasons. nVidia is a rare exception, and even they are not going to put FreeBSD support at the top of their list. Unless you have a job at some video chipset maker, and are of a truly generous spirit, willing to risk your job in order to publish drivers, it really doesn't matter what priority the powers that be give to video acceleration -- we can't ask anyone to risk their job just so works. If the graphics devices themselves are sub-optimal, getting related systems up to a razor-sharp performance level is like putting nitro and a supercharger in your Lada. You'd have to put it in the back seat, because there's no room in the engine compartment for it. That is also why the high performance fax cards I work with only run on windows machines. (that's gotta be about the greatest number of oxymorons in one sentence -- my brain had two core dumps just parsing it...) Long story short, there's room for all types. Enjoy the diversity. Fix what you can. Avoid the problems you can. Use the appropriate tools for their best purposes.