ARM as a primary architecture

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at
Wed Mar 21 14:28:10 UTC 2012

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax at> 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
> 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.


More information about the devel mailing list