FSF and GPL must do something
I am asking people at FSF and even I made a petition at Change .org for PUBLIC DRIVERS for Linux OS based OSs.
Originally Posted by Pallidus
I think that GPL must ask to any device with Linux preinstalled to be able to have dual boot or change your OS, and for that you need PUBLIC DRIVERS, even if they are blobs, obviously better if they are open source.
The use of the Linux kernel that Android and Chrome OS devices and the ARM SoCs SECRET DRIVERS, is against FREEDOM, and if not the FSF, or the GPL i think govs must do something.
At the end no more than 5% of users change or install their OSs, the most techie ones, Why this policy? Why cannot Samsung offer a dual boot ARM Chrome OS + Ubuntu Sabayon or Manjaro preinstalled? Why cannot do it myself without hacking, in a normal way as x86-64 processors.
Why Chrome OS cannot install GNU packages? when even MS WOS or OSX have their LO or GIMP versions and a lot of GNU multiplattform programs
Last edited by mitcoes; 11-26-2012 at 06:33 AM.
As much as I'd love to see everything be open, it might not happen any time soon. But there is a commercial incentive for companies to do so.
In any case, to be pragmatic: I think chromebooks should run on top of android, and Ubuntu can (or soon will be able to) run as an Android app. This would make things SOOOO much nicer and integrated. The chromebook would boot a light android, and by default, load a maximized google-chrome "app". But you could switch to a maximixed Ubuntu app, or whatever.
People purchasing these devices are really looking for low power concumption. You really needed to put in battery life comparisons if they have them or wattage.
Can someone explain what this fbdev driver is exactly? Do user space drivers like DDX and OpenGL ES use this device file to access the GPU?
Originally Posted by squirrl
And why is this less than optimal?
All of us trying to run Ubuntu on this machine are having trouble getting hardware acceleration to work with Unity. We're running the same kernel as Chrome OS, and have copied over the necessary Mali drivers, but it's still not working. Could this be the issue?
fbdev is bad news.
I had an ati card where it defaulted to fbdev and the perfomance was painful...
that's what I said: unless there's a working gpu driver running ubuntu on chromebook will be a shit experience
Google has introduced it (Chromebook Pixel). Its utterly pointless with that pricetag and a processor that is just fast for something that is not required. They should have released something with next generation ARM A15 but a quad core, better GPU, and way better battery life.
Originally Posted by d2kx
Graphics stack related answer,
Just wanted to provide some info about the various graphic stacks, and where the FB fits in the picture.
Originally Posted by runeks
The simplest way to work in graphics mode is through the Linux Framebuffer (fbdev). In the x86 world, we often use VESA as our fallback framebuffer driver (vesafb). These basic Framebuffers are so simple, and utilize almost no hardware features. Being simple to write, and exposing practically nothing worth protecting, they're often the lowest commonly available method of display.
Without an X11 specific 2d driver, or a modern KMS/DRI Driver, X11 will fallback to the Framebuffer for display.
The end result...., horrifically slow environment, even for just popping up a window.
Essentially we need to find a properly configured image, I just ordered my Chromebook and it's scheduled for delivery tomorrow. I'll be looking around for one with the most stuff configured, and maybe I'll have to add in any missing parts (cross fingers if I can match versions for anything binary only, or better yet cross fingers somebody already worked on the hard parts)
Compare with i.MX6?
How about compare with i.MX6 Dual or Quad version.
Mali GPU in Exynos is not open and i.MX6 is more open-friendly.