Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Nouveau Gallium3D, LLVMpipe In Ubuntu 11.10?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,369

    Default Nouveau Gallium3D, LLVMpipe In Ubuntu 11.10?

    Phoronix: Nouveau Gallium3D, LLVMpipe In Ubuntu 11.10?

    Here's the next chapter of the X.Org / Mesa plans for Ubuntu 11.10, in continuation of the earlier X.Org / Mesa talks at UDS Budapest...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTQ0MA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Largely because upstream Nouveau developers are willing to look at Gallium3D bug reports
    Wait, this is partially un-true. We are only willing to look at mis-rendering Gallium3D bugs. We won't even look at crash reports if one can't reproduce it without the gallium3D driver.

    Before people start calling us lazy, please ack that the team is *really* small (less than 10 active people) and only one dev is working full time on nouveau (others are just students/hobbyist).

    Also, trying to fix crashes when they don't occur on our computer is almost impossible. This is why it is simpler to work and try to understand the hardware better so as we can improve the driver and hopefuly fix crashes and other issues.

    I hope I have made our case.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57

    Default canonical policy...

    Red Hat is using LLVMpipe with Fedora 15, and if the Red Hat engineers fix up any outstanding issues in time, Canonical may enable LLVMpipe for Ubuntu 11.10. Otherwise it's still with the (largely useless) Mesa swrast.
    Everything you needed to know about Ubuntu in one quote.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Why doesn't Canonical CONTRIBUTE to the stuff they want in, rather than waiting for other companies to do it for them?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    France
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MPF View Post
    We are only willing to look at mis-rendering Gallium3D bugs. We won't even look at crash reports if one can't reproduce it without the gallium3D driver.
    Actually, crashes caused (not exposed) by the gallium driver are also of our interest.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeynut View Post
    Why doesn't Canonical CONTRIBUTE to the stuff they want in, rather than waiting for other companies to do it for them?
    i assume (at least one of the reasons) this has to do with canonical not being as big as red hat and/or a profitable company

    also they seem to throw more resources in the front end (ie UI and experience) than in infrastructure

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    also they seem to throw more resources in the front end (ie UI and experience) than in infrastructure
    proportionally, compared with their contribution to core infrastructure, perhaps. In absolute terms - not a chance.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Granted, updating to the Linux 2.6.40 kernel in the Ubuntu 11.10 driver will likely hose the proprietary driver support anyways.
    Why mince words? If you fart wrong the proprietary driver stack collapses.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nzjrs View Post
    proportionally, compared with their contribution to core infrastructure, perhaps. In absolute terms - not a chance.
    something people seem to forget is that canonical and ubuntu played a significant role in the popularization of linux

    and this imo this is/was a great contribution to linux in general.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    i assume (at least one of the reasons) this has to do with canonical not being as big as red hat and/or a profitable company
    If Canonical didn't have the resources, then Unity and stuff wouldn't be possible.
    Heck, Canonical even does two entirely different code bases for Unity: Nux-based and Qt-based. And since Nokia announced that Qt 5 will require hardware accelerated OpenGL, we can expect that Canonical will redo Unity2D from scratch in some other toolkit again (maybe EFL like with some old UNR version).

    Wouldn't it be more logical to rather fix LLVMpipe to make two Unity versions unnecessary?

    Yes, it would be if Canonical's main goal wasn't full copyright control.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •