On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:26 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> No, we've never said that ever! But then there are a lot of desktops
> that run just fine without OpenGL. 3D really wasn't in a great state
> even in x86 until Fedora 15 with a lot of drivers only doing it
> partially or not at all, even now there's only really 3 well supported
> sets of HW that are well supported with 3D in Fedora... ie Intel,
> AMD/ATI and nVidia and even those aren't perfect yet. I don't see how
> full OpenGL support should be an argument because there's still really
> on a subset of x86 hardware that currently supports it.
Not to be overly picky, but "only three" is a bit misleading. When you
look at how the driver support actually breaks down in terms of
generational similarity, you get something more like:
- Intel gen2 (8xx)
- Intel gen3 (915, 945, G33, Atom)
- Intel gen4 (Core and Core 2)
- Intel gen5+ (Core i3 and up)
- Radeon R100-R200
- Radeon R300-R500
- Radeon R600-R700
- Radeon R800+
- NVIDIA pre-NV30
- NVIDIA NV30-NV40
- NVIDIA NV50
- NVIDIA NVC0+
Even if you're going by the more strict criteria of "good enough to run
gnome-shell" you only cut out four of those (should only be three, tbh).
And if we're going by _that_ metric, the list of other x86 hardware in
the world where we could have drivers but don't yet is, as far as I
know:
- VIA Chrome9
- Matrox P- and M-series
Which, in terms of market share, are sort of the two-dollar-bills of the
world.
So it's a little like saying "we only support x86 chips from Intel, AMD,
and VIA". Okay, yeah, maybe that's fair, but those are actually all
there is to care about.
What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admittedly they're
generally considered legacy but there are a lot that don't do 3D at
all there.
Peter