On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Adam Jackson <a...@redhat.com> 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 > - 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.
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. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
