Slashdot Log In
Ask Harald Welte, "VIA's open source representative"
Posted by
Roblimo
on Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:00 PM
from the meet-a-free-software-renaissance-man dept.
from the meet-a-free-software-renaissance-man dept.
In this recent Slashdot post kernel hacker Harald Welte was characterized as "VIA's open source representative," but that is just one of many irons he has in the fire, as a glance at his Wikipedia bio will show. You can obviously ask Harald about many interesting things besides VIA's open source strategy — and before you ask about VIA, you ought to read the last few entries on his blog, at least one of which mentions VIA questions he can't answer. But VIA aside, there's plenty to ask Harald about. For example, he won an award from the FSF earlier this year for his work on gpl-violations.org. In any case, Harald is a powerful force for GNU/Linux and Free Software, and we appreciate him taking time out of his undoubtedly hectic schedule to answer your questions. (Usual Slashdot interview rules apply.)
Related Stories
[+]
Answers from Harald Welte, "VIA's Open Source Representative" 65 comments
Earlier this month you asked Harald about VIA's open source strategy and his work with gpl-violations.org. Here are his well-thought-out, informative answers.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Staying Open (Score:2, Interesting)
Will the chipsets remain more or less as standards compliant and open as they are now or will yet more reverse engineering and mystery registers be on the way?
More interesting mobile developments? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the situation with VIA drivers for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi,
A friend just got a Wibrain b1 that came with Ubuntu.
The drivers for all the VIA stuff are binary blobs which prevents him from upgrading the kernel. They also don't seem very reliable as he is seeing crashes.
Is there already Open Source drivers for that kind of hardware or is this part of your mission for VIA?
Thanks
Old boards (Score:4, Interesting)
I have an Epia MII mini-ITX board, based around the Eden processor, which I bought nearly 3 years ago to use as a low power media server.
Despite claims about the graphics and media abilities of the board (Integrated VIA UniChromeâ 2D/3D graphics and an MPEG-2 accelerator with motion compensation), playback of DVDs and large video files in Linux using the community-developed Unichrome driver is choppy at best, and largely unwatchable.
Does VIA have plans to provide robust, open source drivers for the Free Software world that match up to the Windows versions for past products?
Re:Old boards (Score:5, Informative)
If you use the openchrome drivers instead of VIAs own drivers, then the MPEG2 acceleration, subject to hardware caveats[1] is supported by stock xine, mplayer, and myth. No need for special forked builds like viaexp.
The MII board features a CLE266 chipset which is fully supported for MPEG2 hardware acceleartion
[1]http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=HardwareCaveats
Parent
v2 or v3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Very tongue in cheek... (Score:4, Interesting)
... But it has to be asked.
OpenBSD's developers (including OpenBSD 'benevolent dictator' Theo DeRaadt) have praised VIA Padlock functions in the past [deviceforge.com].
As a user of both OpenBSD and Gnu/Linux, I'd like to know if you share Linus Torvalds infamous appreciation of OpenBSD developpers [gmane.org]? Or do you have good relations with all open source projects?
Re: (Score:2)
VIA and Netbooks (Score:5, Interesting)
My question to Mr. Welte is, how is VIA working with vendors like HP to promote Linux on this new and exciting range of netbooks that coming out?
Have you ever accused an innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever accused anyone of violating the GPL and then found out that they didn't?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever accused anyone of violating the GPL and then found out that they didn't?
I doubt this is likely to happen. As GPL enforcers' primary goal is compliance (not damage), when the violation is suspected, the copyright owner (or his agent) contacts the company first, asking them to comply with GPL.
If they are, in fact, in compliance, then the company should tell you before any public accusation is made. Lawsuits (and public condemnations) start only when the companies ignore the initial communications (which, I think, is done in the form of C&D letter from lawyers these days, if o
3D Support? More support than Unichrome series? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my understanding that VIA has recently provided a dump of new "cleaner" code to x.org that supports the Unichrome lineup more properly. (By the way, thanks...)
However, this doesn't help fully in the big-picture sense of things.
Right now, an Atom based netbook will have 3D capable of doing Compiz (I know, I've played with it on at least two differing eeePC models right now...) and some lower-end FOSS 3D games out of the box. With what has been given out so far, you still can't do this with VIA's offerings, which include the netbook designs and the EPIA boards. That, alone, isn't a good thing or selling point, really, for those designs right now. What is VIA planning to do in regards to fixing the 3D situation on the stuff that you have already released stuff for?
The aforementioned only talks to Unichrome/Unichrome Pro/Unichrome II. What's the story with the other Chrome lineup? Are we going to see FOSS support for those chips or are they even relevant going forward?
More beer? (Score:5, Funny)
Hi Harald,
Any plans to bring another keg of beer to OLS next year?
Regards,
Daniel
S3 & Via (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you illuminate the relationship between S3 and Via for us? I've tried in the past getting basic technical specs (e.g. textures per pass, triangle rates, pps, fill rates) on the video hardware that comes with Via boards. This kind of information is readily available from other manufacturers, and occasionally a whitepaper will show up from Via or S3 for a random chipset, but asking Via for this kind of information results in stacks of legal forms to be signed in duplicate, allegedly because of NDA's between Via and S3. Yet, S3 bills itself as "a VIA Technologies, Inc. joint venture company". Doing open source work, I've avoided the NDA entanglements, and ultimately went to ATI for video hardware because I could find specs reliably without 'buying one of each' (this was actually suggested to me). Mostly it's all very confusing for people who just want to develop stuff, and I wonder how this relationship affects the open source drivers and the stuff that's not currently available (3D, hardware media decoding) but is essential for some embedded work.
The related question would be does Via realize that we're out here and want to buy their hardware but are being forced to rule out Via due to secretiveness?
Hardware acceleration going forward (Score:4, Insightful)
From your blog:
One of the commonly asked questions is _why_ not the complete source, including codec acceleration, TV out and 3D was published. I cannot disclose the particular reasons for VIA, sorry. (...)
I think we know the usual story here, and since the whole point of DRM is security through obscurity I understand that VIA can't release that. What I would like to ask you though is whether VIA has or is taking any steps to separate the parts that ought to be available from the rest so that more functionality can be exposed to open source drivers? For example, I own a HDV camera and hardware acceleration of that footage should be a natural feature distinct from say AACS-protected media. It's much the same with AMD, UVD/UVD+ will probably never be open sourced but UVD2 may be modular enough to release. Had AMD been earlier into that with their open source strategy it probably would have happened. Intel is also working on support for H.264/VC-1 decode with their new G45 chipset, though there seems to be work to be done on the Linux API side as well. How do you see the chances, from VIAs side, that you will release specifications to enable hardware decoding for coming products?
Re:Hardware acceleration going forward (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad, sad kind of DRM that requires bleeding TV OUTPUT to be DRM'd. Like, MacroVision or some completely pointless shit such as that.
And H.264 decoding assists? Fuck me sideways they're stupid if they think this will stop people from decoding H.264 video on Free Software: it's not, and those people will just go patronize AMD or Intel instead.
Parent
IP and moving forward with open-sourcing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that's an interesting question. in today's technological environment, it's almost impossible to develop a technology product from the ground up. you almost inevitably have to borrow from or license the work of other people to some degree.
in such a situation, if you wanted to develop an open source PVR or something, it's good to have viable open source solutions to build your product on. but many hardware vendors don't seem to offer much support for open source development.
personally, i'm sort of interested
I'm sure this is the most common question (Score:5, Insightful)
So I'll just go ahead and ask it, get it over with.
Is VIA planning to release detailed register-level specs for their graphics chipsets?
Drivers Drivers Drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
VIA has a history of releasing chipsets packed full of great video acceleration, but no drivers to make use of that acceleration, sometimes there are even no windows drivers either.
Looking at the linux drivers for instance[1], there are big gaps, and it is disapointing to see no drivers to support the base MPEG4 acceleration let alone new features such as h.264 acceleration.
I have an EPIA SP8000E and the MPEG2 acceleration (XvMC) implemented by the openchrome drivers is awesome, such a shame more than that cannot be supported.
VIA has once again re-launched their linux drivers[2], and once again the support is very limited, only a small number of distributions, a small number of chipsets, and a small number of hardware features supported. Furthermore applications that can make use of these drivers features are almost non-existent
Wouldn't it be better to work with the the established driver teams such as openchrome, who have broad distribution support, broad chipset support, and are broadly supported by applications, to add the missing hardware support?
[1]http://wiki.openchrome.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=HardwareCaveats
[2]http://linux.via.com.tw
GPL Violations (Score:5, Interesting)
You have stated that your ability to pursue claims against those who violate the GPL is hampered by lack of resources. What amount and type of resources, in your estimate, would be required to pursue all such claims? I'm thinking in terms of everything from vetting the claims to see if they're warranted all the way through the hiring of legal representation to file and pursue lawsuits against the violators.
GCC Optimizations for Nano (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel and AMD both do a fair amount of contributing to GCC and go to some lengths to be sure it optimizes for their processors well. In the past, VIA/Centaur haven't been too participative in GCC or forthcoming with relevant information; among the results is, as the gcc documentation [gnu.org] says,
Will detailed specifications dealing with the Isaiah/Nano pipeline etc be released? How will VIA/Centaur be working with GCC developers in the future?
delay from hardware release to open source drivers (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we see a delay from when new hardware hits the market and when open source drivers get released and incorporated? Slow driver releases mean that the hardware is approaching obsolescence before the drivers get widespread acceptance, and that seems to hurt VIA especially in the low-power cpu/mobo area where any delay means the replacement hardware is already on the way.
Will we get documentation too? (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenBSD, along with the FSF, is one of more vocal proponents for free drivers. Unlike the FSF, OpenBSD strongly emphasises the need for driver documentation, sometimes even preferring it to free drivers. They have criticised Intel's free video drivers in the past for obfuscation, magic numbers in the source, and making it almost impossible for anyone but Intel to hack them (I haven't seen any comment from them since Intel provided source in early 2008).
What is the situation with VIA's drivers? Do we get documentation? Why or why not? What are the challenges for providing documentation?
Re: (Score:2)
He's only a representative of Open Source. So, he's open enough to sort of show people what Open Source is all about without actually being able to get in to the real nitty gritty details. In other words, his skin is transparent, but you're not actually allowed to open him up.