- Related Stories
-
Novell bans proprietary Linux modules
August 1, 2006 -
New Linux look fuels old debate
April 17, 2006 -
Intel forms internal open-source group
May 10, 2005 -
Intel to speed lagging Linux support
February 18, 2004
Right now, Linux users typically rely on proprietary driver software if they want to use graphics acceleration chips and hardware to improve graphics performance--to speed up displays of 3D tanks in a battle video game, for example.
But this proprietary approach poses ethical, legal and practical problems. Intel sees the open-source move as a way to attract customers to its graphics products--such as its upcoming 965 Express chipset--and give it an advantage over rivals ATI Technologies and Nvidia.
"Having open-source drivers gives us a big edge in this market," said Dirk Hohndel, chief technologist of Intel's Open Source Technology Center. The software, available at a new Web site, is already being integrated with relevant open-source projects, he said.
Intel's effort reflects the curious intersection of technological, legal, social and business motivations that operate in the open-source realm. By participating in the collaborative programming movement, Intel builds ties with outside developers and open-source fans. On the other hand, it relinquishes some control over the software and forgoes the possibility of keeping some coding secrets.
And one politically important ally, the Free Software Foundation, was delighted with Intel's move.
"It's a very important step in the evolution of the industry," said foundation attorney Eben Moglen, who is overseeing a revamp of the General Public License (GPL) that governs the Linux kernel. "The move that Intel has taken, toward making better interoperability with free operating systems by abandoning secrecy, is the sign of a new competitive approach."
More practically, Intel's move is well-timed to dovetail with Red Hat and Novell projects to build fancy graphical interfaces into Linux. The new interfaces, often referred to as "bling" and "eye candy," require 3D acceleration.
Although enthusiasts who favor the glitzy interfaces may benefit from Intel's move, it's not clear whether there will be a benefit for the chipmaker itself. For now, engineering customers using Linux for high-end graphics work, such as mechanical design, rely on add-in graphics cards, not on Intel's integrated graphics. And gaming--the big market for 3D graphics--uses Microsoft Windows almost exclusively.
Intel has a major part of the overall graphics market; it shipped the graphics chips for 40 percent of PCs in the second quarter of 2006. ATI's share was 28 percent, and Nvidia's, 20 percent, according to research analyst Jon Peddie.
Repercussions
Peddie thinks it unlikely ATI or Nvidia will release open-source drivers as a result of Intel's move. Details of the hardware interfaces for graphics chips are the "family jewels...and expose how the chip itself works," he said. "Nvidia doesn't want ATI to know that, and vice versa."
ATI didn't immediately comment on its plans, but Nvidia said it wouldn't change its approach as a result of Intel's move. "At this time, it does not make sense for us to open-source our graphics drivers," Nvidia spokesman Brian del Rizzo said. "We are confident in our ability to provide our customers with the best graphics solutions possible."
But Michael Larabel, who runs the Phoronix Linux graphics site, believes there could be repercussions.
"Intel's move may cause Nvidia and ATI to rethink open-sourcing some areas of their drivers, improving the level of support, or funneling more resources to their Linux department," Larabel said.
See more CNET content tagged:
open source, graphics chip, ATI Technologies, Intel, NVidia
Do you know what projects RedHat and Novell are working on?
xgl is so frikken nice, it can give the 3D GUI stuff from OSX a run for its money and flat out beats the bloated joke that MS "innovated".
poorly. Lots more systems come with on-board
video these days and lot of that is Intel.
However, it's still nothing like the high-end
market.
That said -- there's a pretty high demand for
Linux-based graphics these days, be it PVRs, or
more often for video work. With the bruha
related to closed-source drivers from other
vendors (which are infringing on copyright), now
is a great time.
But the real big deal is that for a long time,
the excuse for not open-sourcing accelerated 3D
video drivers was that of IP-related issues.
Namely, many have felt that the makers of GPUs
have been pilfering bits an pieces of each
other's technologies and that of 3rd parties for
years. Opening the source code might, therefore,
expose some of that infringement (they are
mostly worried about patent, more so than
copyright).
Intel's move lays down the gauntlet, sort to
speak. They're accepting the risk (perhaps they
feel they are perfectly clean), in exchange for
wider acceptance and adoption, and some free
tech development. If the move further pushes
other vendors to open up their drivers, perhaps
it will broker a truce and stave off mutually
destructive cycles of litigation.
Just sounds like they are trying to get their third rate graphics cards some publicity.
While both ATI have propritary driver, they both have Linux versions of them, so Linux users can take full advantage of them.
Sounds to me like Intel knows they have cruddy graphics chips compaired to Nvidia and ATI, so they appearently don't mind people picking the drivers. Guess they figure they have nothing worth protecting.
That, or they are hoping that open drivers will give some body a reason to buy their cards.... Not likely.
That does not imply it is an act of desperation.
Rather it is a chance for Intel to improve its
graphics sub-system by using the vast resources of
the open-source movement while also increasing its
market share. A sound engineering as well as
marketing approach.
Honestly, the real reason the Linux gaming market is so bad is not because developers don't care, but because the graphics hardware vendors are so disinterested in any operating system but Windows that it becomes a huge crapshoot to design a Linux game that uses anything but the most basic of graphics subsystems.
I'm sure many people probably have the intel chips disabled and are using a graphics card.
Intel's resources are better put to hardware manufacturing, not software engineering. Letting the source loose upon the world to the kernel developers or even to other video card driver developers can also improve other video card useage.
Intel gets my props for this move. When AMD follows suit, I'll be quite a happy camper. Nvidia isn't likely to change its spots anytime soon, I'm afraid...
Sure, I will pay a little extra for onboard video or the Intel graphics, (i.e. asus P5GDC vs. P5GDC-V (includes video)) but just to tech computers. I want make that clear, it appears this article states when a buy a mobo with onboard graphics that counts as part of the so called 40%+ market share?
Not only that, but how many people who are part of the so called 40% upgrade to real video? That is, even an eMachine buyer will upgrade the poor Intel graphics?
Intel graphics will not even work with vista - so what happens to the 40% who upgrade to a real GPU - do you still count intels onboard chip as market share?
I must have misunderstood this article - intel graphics are not much better then cpu graphics - it takes a little heat off the over heated P4's. To even compare Intels onboard video with real GPU's made by Nvidia and ATI is either a joke or a crime - I am no sure which.
- Exactly!!! What graphics!
- by dragonsprayer August 11, 2006 6:33 PM PDT
- They will not even work with vista then does the so called 40% count? How do you compare a $5 chip with real GPU card?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)