From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 18:26:31 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 D00351065675 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:26:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibb_orac@mbox.contact.bg) Received: from sd97.btc-net.bg (SD97.btc-net.bg [212.39.90.97]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E7188FC28 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:26:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ibb_orac@mbox.contact.bg) Received: (qmail 11798 invoked by uid 605); 12 Dec 2008 17:59:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chameleon) (83.228.34.40) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2008 17:59:52 -0000 Message-ID: From: "Ivailo Bonev" To: "Tyson Boellstorff" References: <20081207193517.GA20905@laverenz.de><20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home><20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <200812112345.20572.perlcat@alltel.net> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:59:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 18:26:31 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tyson Boellstorff" To: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors > 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. What's your problem with Lada?! :-D They make cars (especially Niva) to drive everywhere! Just my 2 euro cents... lol