Improving FreeBSD's hardware compatibility
Intron
mag at intron.ac
Sat Jul 22 01:02:13 UTC 2006
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Intron wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Intron wrote:
> > > > Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > > > > Getting action from vendors has been unsuccessful in the past - the
> > > > > Free OS community (Linux + *BSD) is too small for vendors to be
> > > > > concerned about.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot agree with you. Linux has achieved much more support from
> > > > hardware vendors than FreeBSD.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, when I looked for a new laptop last year,
> > > it turned out that the number of laptops that ran FreeBSD
> > > was greater than those that ran Linux. (I finally chose
> > > a Samsung X20-XVM 1600-V, which works perfectly fine for
> > > me except for the built-in winmodem [which I don't need
> > > anyway]. A Linux live CD didn't even boot on it.)
> >
> > Have a look at http://linmodems.org/ before your assertion.
>
> How useful is a Linux driver for the modem if Linux does
> not even _boot_ on your machine? And as I wrote, I don't
> even need the modem, because I've got Ethernet and WLAN.
>
> > How many modems listed on that website are support by FreeBSD?
>
> I have no idea (there are a few ports [e.g. ltmdm] which
> support a few). It's pretty much irrelevant.
>
> > > > You may look in Linux source code.
> > > > In linux-2.6.x/drivers/, there are so many hardware drivers.
> > >
> > > Yeah, most of which are crap. :-) The raw number of
> > > drivers says _nothing_ about hardware vendors' support.
> >
> > This is a problem of code quality.
> > But at least Linux community has so many volunteers/vendors to write
> > drivers.
>
> Yes, which is the cause of the code quality problem.
>
> Intron wrote:
> > I would write USB stack in C++
>
> The existing USB stack is already quite heavy-weight and
> inefficient. There's no reason to make it even worse.
>
> > But on freebsd-hackers@, this idea encountered strong objection.
>
> If you look at the archives, you'll notice that you're not
> the first one suggesting to write (parts of) the kernel in
> C++. The reaction was always the same.
>
> > Do you believe that current Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon XP can process
> > analog TV in full frame size and full frame rate (no larger than 767x575,
> > 25 FPS, either of NTSC/PAL/SECAM) freely?
>
> My 7-years old Pentium-II can do that.
Really?
Y: 767x575 = 441025 (bytes)
U: 767x575/4 = 110256 (bytes)
V: 767x575/4 = 110256 (bytes)
One frame: 661537 bytes
One second: 661537*25 = 16538425 (bytes), 132 Mbps
Please note that all popular video compressing algorithms (MPEG 1/2/4,
Ogg Theora, RealVideo and Microsoft Windows Media Video) are not so simple
as copying. My Intel Celeron 1.7GHz cannot compress in full size and full
frame rate of PAL-D video into MPEG-2 format instantly.
>
> > Do you really believe that current Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon XP
> > can process much higher bitstream HDTV?
>
> Yes, that's certainly possible. Maybe not if you write it
> in C++, though. :-) *duck*
>
> Best regards
> Oliver
>
> --
> Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
> Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
> Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
> and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.
>
> "I have stopped reading Stephen King novels.
> Now I just read C code instead."
> -- Richard A. O'Keefe
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hardware at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hardware-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Beijing, China
More information about the freebsd-hardware
mailing list