ARM as a primary architecture

[Adam Jackson]

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.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120321/5fb23ca7/attachment.sig>