Intel graphics driver not so open source after all

Maybe this was already mentioned here, but:
Intel graphics driver not so open source after all
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermai...08.1/1879.html
There is a propriaty module intel_hal.so that is released under the MIT license.

It contains 'Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets'.
Does not seem to affect functionality?

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Maybe this was already mentioned here, but:
Intel graphics driver not so open source after all
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermai...08.1/1879.html
There is a propriaty module intel_hal.so that is released under the MIT license.

It contains 'Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets'.
Does not seem to affect functionality?

Would this have anything to do with the bad performance of the current
igp chipsets?

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33660

Maybe Intel knew about the bad performance, and wanted to make lemonade
out of lemons, and decided to give to Open Source. In the process
improve the performance by letting the Open Source mojo work for them?

If your a Debian Gnu/Linux fan this might not be dfsg free, and I can
see this as a license issue, but it's a step in the right direction.
After all who really plays games on igp chipsets under Gnu/Linux?

Rthoreau

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Maybe this was already mentioned here, but:
Intel graphics driver not so open source after all
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermai...08.1/1879.html
There is a propriaty module intel_hal.so that is released under the MIT license.

It contains 'Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets'.
Does not seem to affect functionality?

It's doubtful that it's absolutely necessary to display images on
screen. It sounds like something for dvd playback.

Yousuf Khan

--
There is no failure, only delayed success

On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:37:10 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Maybe this was already mentioned here, but:
Intel graphics driver not so open source after all
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermai...08.1/1879.html
There is a propriaty module intel_hal.so that is released under the MIT license.

It contains 'Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets'.
Does not seem to affect functionality?

It's doubtful that it's absolutely necessary to display images on
screen. It sounds like something for dvd playback.

Yousuf Khan

Interesting point.
There was an article on nytimes.com a few days ago about widescreen laptops
and that people actually want a normal ratio (4:3) size for text processing,
as then you can have more lines of text on a screen.
I do agree with that.
OTOH I also play DivX movies and mpeg2 movies and even H264....
2 black bars above and below are no problem for me, I put subtitles there...
I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.
Now:
start flames

end flames
LOL

In article ,
says...
On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:37:10 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Maybe this was already mentioned here, but:
Intel graphics driver not so open source after all
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermai...08.1/1879.html
There is a propriaty module intel_hal.so that is released under the MIT license.

It contains 'Macrovision register stuff and other trade secrets'.
Does not seem to affect functionality?

It's doubtful that it's absolutely necessary to display images on
screen. It sounds like something for dvd playback.

Yousuf Khan

Interesting point.
There was an article on nytimes.com a few days ago about widescreen laptops
and that people actually want a normal ratio (4:3) size for text processing,
as then you can have more lines of text on a screen.
I do agree with that.

I don't, well sorta. I didn't buy a widescreen laptop because a
14" widescreen made it too small. 14" 4:3 is small enough. I did
buy a 20" widescreen external monitor though and like it better
than the 20" 4:3 I have at work (also on a very similar laptop).
Differing resolution on the monitors creates problems, but
differing vertical resolution is particularly annoying at times.

I don't tend to have only one screen open fullscreen, so the aspect
4:3 aspect ratio giving more lines isn't much of an issue. If it
is, rotate the display. ;-)

OTOH I also play DivX movies and mpeg2 movies and even H264....
2 black bars above and below are no problem for me, I put subtitles there...

I don't mind the black bars on my TV either, though it makes the
picture rather small.

I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.

Disagree. My next TV will likely be 16:9, of some sort. High
resolution movies mean more to me than high resolution broadcast TV
crap.

Now:
start flames

Too late.

end flames

--
Keith

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:39:50 -0400) it happened Keith
wrote in :
I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.

Disagree. My next TV will likely be 16:9, of some sort.

Yea, but here you hardly have a choice now, it is all widescreen LCD or plasma...


High
resolution movies mean more to me than high resolution broadcast TV
crap.

I have been thinking about a projector, but do not have one.
I have used these for larger audiences though, but the bulbs are very expensive.
Having 'startrek' on a wide screen the size of your room would be cool, I admit.

LED based projectors still have a too low light output.

In article ,
says...
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:39:50 -0400) it happened Keith
wrote in :
I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.

Disagree. My next TV will likely be 16:9, of some sort.

Yea, but here you hardly have a choice now, it is all widescreen LCD or plasma...

CRTs are dieing fast. It seems TV makers think they can keep their
higher margins on flat panels after they kill off CRTs. ...don't
see it.

High
resolution movies mean more to me than high resolution broadcast TV
crap.

I have been thinking about a projector, but do not have one.
I have used these for larger audiences though, but the bulbs are very expensive.
Having 'startrek' on a wide screen the size of your room would be cool, I admit.

I've played around with "professional" projectors. One in a
conference room at work was able to do 1600x1200. Blazing Saddles
looked awesome. ;-)

Bulbs are not only expensive, but have a fairly short life, in the
low hundreds of hours, FWIG. That wouldn't do in my house. A
dollar an hour is a bit steep, IMO.

LED based projectors still have a too low light output.

....and likely will for some time to come. High intensity LEDs
don't last forever either. Check out a stop light some time.

--
Keith

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:39:50 -0400) it happened Keith
wrote in :
I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.

Disagree. My next TV will likely be 16:9, of some sort.

Yea, but here you hardly have a choice now, it is all widescreen LCD or plasma...

Or DLP, which is, IMO, the best technology, although of course cannot
be made flat.

High
resolution movies mean more to me than high resolution broadcast TV
crap.

I have been thinking about a projector, but do not have one.
I have used these for larger audiences though, but the bulbs are very expensive.
Having 'startrek' on a wide screen the size of your room would be cool, I admit.

LED based projectors still have a too low light output.

DLP is the answer to that question. Bulbs are expensive but last
thousands of hours.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:39:50 -0400, Keith wrote:

Disagree. My next TV will likely be 16:9, of some sort. High
resolution movies mean more to me than high resolution broadcast TV
crap.

I don't own one and have no plans to get one, at least in the near
future. Whenever I see one in some public places (electronics stores,
doc's offices etc.) the look only strenghtens my decision to postpone
getting HDTV indefinitely. Being widescreen, they stretch regular
aspect ratio broadcast full screen, so all the TV personalities look
short and fat. All cars though look cool, even crappy ones - long,
wide, and low-riding. ;-) Why can't these expensive gadgets
recognize the aspect ratio automatically, and just leave black spaces
on the side(s) when it's 4:3?

NNN

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:59:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:37:10 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Interesting point.
There was an article on nytimes.com a few days ago about widescreen laptops
and that people actually want a normal ratio (4:3) size for text processing,
as then you can have more lines of text on a screen.

Wouldn't they be better off still with a widescreen that can be
rotated?

I do agree with that.
OTOH I also play DivX movies and mpeg2 movies and even H264....
2 black bars above and below are no problem for me, I put subtitles there...
I have, from the very beginning, opposed widescreen (even for TV), it is nice
for a theatre, but not for in the home.
Now:
start flames

No flame, though I will say I'm rather fond of my widescreen LCD.
I've got a widescreen (16:10) 19" at home and a standard screen (4:3)
19" LCD at work. Not a huge amount of difference between them I
suppose, though I do tend to prefer the widescreen.

Only real downside I've encountered with a widescreen LCD is with old
games that tend to have their display stretched. This is actually
partly the video card's fault, as my ATI card/drivers do the most
ass-backwards thing I've seen in a while, scaling and stretching a
non-native 4:3 resolution to fill the screen but NOT scaling a
non-native 16:10 resolution.

end flames

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca