[Openchrome-users] Missing VIA specs?

[Bill McGonigle]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 17:02, Soeren D. Schulze wrote:

> For that reason, could you tell me what exactly is missing and how VIA
> has reacted to prior requests?

Disclaimer: I'm specifically not (yet anyhow) and openchrome  
developer, but I'll relate a bit of my experience, which isn't  
directly relevant to the OpenChrome developers' NDA's, but to how the  
Via/Open-Source relationship is working for me.

I'm working on a project where we need to have a relatively low cost,  
low power device with OpenGL acceleration in hardware. The Via  
offerings fit that bill.

I've spent most of my time on the project monkeying around with  
testing various hardware units and openchrome and via drivers and  
relevant settings to getting stuff working where the capability of  
the hardware doesn't even specify whether it can work or not.  The  
Openchrome community has been much more helpful than Via in this  
regard and I'm grateful for it.  Hopefully when this project works  
out I'll be able to throw some resources back to the community.

The project is going to ramp up on something like a power-of-two  
progression - we only need a couple of devices for R&D, but then  
we'll be doing a beta test with a few dozen devices, and if things go  
as planned we can be ordering a few thousand Via boards by early next  
year for a first phase of deployment.  I wrote a few e-mails to Via  
asking for some basic specs (e.g. fill rates on hardware) and after 6  
weeks of trying I got a mail back from a rep, but to get actual specs  
(the kind everybody else publishes) required an NDA.  As this is a  
self-funded startup, I'm reluctant to hire an attorney to review such  
contracts, as it's simply right now cheaper to buy a board and try  
it, and if it doesn't work save it for a firewall or something down  
the line than it is to pay for legal council.

But my bigger concern is that Via can turn off the flow of  
information at any point and that's a big risk for this project.  If  
they had an open-arms commitment to open source I'd be much much more  
at ease using Via.

Right now Intel doesn't have anything comparable from a performance  
per $ or Watt perspective, so Via is the remainder choice.  AMD has  
the price but not the graphics performance.  But Moore's law is  
highly relevant, and I do know that an Intel integrated graphics  
solution would be much easier to deal with from my perspective as the  
application programmer. I also know that once I start down the path  
with one vendor I don't want to change if I can avoid it and they are  
a good business partner.

I can't be the only solution developer facing the same kinds of  
choices and coming to these conclusions.  If I were Via I'd just want  
to sell lots of hardware, but they must have some other priorities in  
mind as well.

-Bill

-----
Bill McGonigle, Owner           Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC              Home: 603.448.1668
bill at bfccomputing.com           Cell: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/    Page: 603.442.1833
Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/
VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3833 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-users/attachments/20070911/b5a53417/smime.bin