News Intel goes open-source for graphics

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/10/Intel_goes_open-source_for_graphics/

 

Hmmm, wow, first Apple and now this. If MS gets on board we may have a trend here, and for once a good one!

 

All this things happening makes me start to like the world we live in...

Ok, that being said, Intel allways had good Open Source support.Intel Hardware (NIC's, Wireless,...) never had a glitch on my Linux systems. But, the more, the merrier

 

Hmm.. I'd always been under the impression (of possibly the propaganda) that opening up drivers would/could reveal some sort of hardware advantage to the competition..

Could anyone illuminate maybe why the other two don't go the same route, or if they will soon?

And the thought of quality and genius properietary driver tricks crossed my mind.. Quality in terms of stability would be good enough either way like glider suggested.. Does Intel possibly not care about revealing hardware or software secrets because the Broadwater IGP won't be a performance part and thus doesn't need any such optimizations?

I guess I can see why some like open-source (some apps clearly are an advantage, some parts of an OS may benefit too -- we'll see when Linux gets popular enough that hackers really try to rip it open like they do Windows), but I guess certain things don't make sense to my economics major and I.. If you can do something better than anyone else, unless you're pinko socialist, you do it better and make as much of this 'better' product or service as you can, and thereby get as rich as possible.. not tell the competition and the world how you do it, destroying the advantage, turning the product in to a commodity.. are drivers exempt from this?

 

everyone has been saying that if the GMA x3000 and 3000 gets good drivers they could have great performance. so with the drivers being open source, this could mean that we will indeed get good drivers.. so, just maybe, we might actually see a graphics chipset delievering good performance, when it isnt nvidia or ati(amd)

 

Ringold, Drivers are only part of the system. Take a NIC, Hardware design (which will be probably patented) is equally important as the drivers. Great drivers on bad hardware don't work, and vica versa.

And its not like the internal structure of a piece of hardware is unknown, manufacturers brag about 'what they pack', and hardware specific instructions, like optimised functions, are given out to application developers to 'give them the edge'

And, I hope Linux gets more followers. But not to proove it's more secure, because it allready has. There are plenty of Linux based webservers, ftpservers, fileservers,... in the line of fire. Linux is more secure then Windows by design, being designed as a multi user OS from the base, and it's not like 99% of the workstations, where the normal user has administrator rights all the time.

 

Linux hasnt proved anything yet.
It still takes up a v.small amount of the market share compared to Windows, and because of that, hackers will target the most popular products to get maximum exposure for their work. And at the moment, the most popular is Windows.
Hypothetically, if the market share was a 3rd a piece for OS's, (Windows, Linux, OSX), then im completely confident that both OSX & Linux will have the same amount of security problems as windows is having.

 

I'm the network administrator of our school's computer club, we run a Debian based server which gives the users a shell at their disposal, and various other services like ftp/webhosting... There are plenty of hacks onto that server, about 20 every month, mostly aimed at user accounts (through ssh bruteforcing). If an account is compromised that's allways because of the fact that a user uses a insecure password, not due to insecure systems.

If a user uses insecure php scripts, suphp makes sure that only his account is compromised, and not all accounts (including root)... On our old windows server that wasn't the fact... Things like that show me that Linux is more secure.

 

oops. I must have sausage-fingered this one... ignore.

 

I don't want to start a Linux v Windows flame-war as it's off-topic, but I think you're wrong on both counts. In terms of market share, products like Sendmail, Apache and Bind on *nix have a very significant portion of the market. And if you talk in terms of active web sites and domains, as opposed to just having the web server service turned on, the market share increases.

And in terms of security, Linux tends to be installed with a high level of security initially at the expense of ease-of-use, whereas Windows by default gives users full admin rights, which have to be turned off in order to secure a system. And a lot of services are enabled which aren't necessarily needed, which increases a systems attack profile. Then there's the concept of running services in a chroot environment, which is an option I don't think Windows even has - basically a service running in a chroot environment has no access to the rest of the OS or filesystem, so if it is hacked there is no further compromise. Contrast this with windows services which often run in kernel mode, which is inherently trusted by the rest of the OS.

 

Laughable.
Couldnt have been a very well setup windows server if it had that many problems with hacks.
We have a 400 machine+ network, spread across 5 servers, all running Windows, and they are perfectly fine and bulletproof.
Fact is, if its configured properly on the server side, then it doesnt matter what OS you have, its gonna be secure. Wether that security is a ISA Proxy server, a few NATs or a dedicated firewall, if one or more of those are in place, then windows is just as secure at Linux.
And the fact remains that on even grounds, with all 3 OS's having the same market share, and hackers targetting each one equally, Linux & OSX will have just as many 'problems' as Windows.

 

I hope to see a world where this would be true... That means more people go OSS...

And, let's say Linux has the same 'problems' as you say it. If you file a bugreport, the flaw gets looked at within 24 hours, having a fix within a week if it is serious... Fastest fix I've seen was 4hours actually... But MS doesn't have that kind of 'service'. So maybe there are equal flaws (I said maybe, I want to see that first), but then they will get fixed a lot quicker...

 

Prehaps thats because MS has alot to do? After all 99% of the worlds hackers are gonna be targetting them, hence they'll have more on their plate.

 

Free service <==> paying service ; Free time <==> work time ; voluntary <==> job (do I need to go on?)

 

Please do. I'd like to hear your reasons for not grasping certain things.

MS doesnt have a limitless amount of resources.
The programmers to problem ratio for MS is gonna be far lower than on Linux. It doesnt matter if its done as a job or voluntary, if you've got more to do, then your gonna try and sort the major problems first.

 

If I pay for a service, I want a bug fixed in the service ASAP. I know that MS doesn't have unlimited resources, but if there's a flaw discovered in a system I pay for, I want it plugged yesterday. That is a thing you don't get with MS OS's. I just wanted to note that, Linux is free/voluntary, in contrast with MS OS's being paying. If I pay for something, I expect better service than some free stuff... And that is something MS can't deliver. The amount of resources MS has in't relevant to the discussion, it's the security in their system that matters.

Due to the nature of the licensce (open vs closed source) you get things like this. If MS released their source (which is something I don't want, I respect MS's intelectual property) there are more people who are looking at it, hence more problems will be solved before they are exploited (before), and if there is an exploit, more people will look at the problem & solution, therefor it will get fixed sooner. Linux sources get looked at by millions, who verify that there isn't a bug.

So Linux scores better on at least 2 front, prevention and "service" after a problem/hack occured. 2 very important ones...

You're saying I don't grasp things, but maybe you should open your eyes a bit wider. While I'm the first one who will tell you that MS has great products, I'm also the first one who will say that if you have Windows system that is usable (with some userrights), you also have a insecure system. In a Linux/*nix system things are more different. Like I allready said, Linux is built from the ground as a multi user system, ever since day 1. Windows, altough multiuser is implemented now, still is based upon a single user system. In Linux Security (internal & external) is one of the deepest embedded services, in Windows it is an add-on, an implementation on top of the base.

I agree that Windows (home) boxes are targetted more then Linux systems, because they are in numeric superiority, and a Linux user is a user that is knowing about his system compared to some dumbass XP users, but I still don't agree that webservers/ftpservers are in the same situation. Numeric they are more balanced, and I'd expect Admins to have some understanding of things. Things like chrooted environments (or the better BSD counterpart, jails), limited user rights without giving up usability,... just lack on a Windows server, like it or not. If you compromise a account on a Windows system, 99% chance you have the whole system. This is NOT the case on Linux/Unix.

But I think we went too far off topic now. If you want to discuss this a bit further, make a new thread about it, I'm eager to share my views on this.

 

all os's are not equal!
this os should be invunrable: http://demo.tudos.org/eng_about.html

 

If you cant see how it does have relevance, then i fail to see the point in continuing with you.

Your still missing the point.
Hackers will not create a virus, or exploit a bug for something which such a small market share. They go after the majority, and MS has that, over 90%.
If you get the same number of people trying their hardest to exploit security holes in Linux as you do Windows, then Linux would be just as vunarable.
People only see it as secure because no-one has made any real effort to break it.
You can argue this point all you want, but you dont seem to be grasping that concept at all, and thats why its laughable what you are coming up with as discussion points.

Typical Linux user that.
Thats why people have taken so long to use Linux, because of that attitude from Linux users when people ask for help.

 

So, tell me what your point is then, if you want to continue this off topic discussion? You say that Windows gets more hack attempts because it is used by 95% of the home users? What about the servers? What about routers running embedded Linux?

And did I say that Windows doesn't get attacked more then Linux? I just gave arguments that the Linux code is more secure because it's being checked more [passive prevention], and, security preventing an attack is 1 thing, but plugging a hole after it's been discovered [active prevention] is an other part of security. You can have the most secure OS in the world, with only 1 hole in it's security. Well, if that hole doesn't get plugged, you have the least secure OS, because everyone that can google will get in through that hole. MS, regardless of their resources, don't plug holes fast enough. The Linux community does. [period]

This discussion isn't about resources, it's about security (well it was about Intel going OSS with their drivers, but yeah...) So your argument that MS just hasn't got the resources for creating the bugfixes is not the point. You lead this discussion into the way of "Windows vs Linux", yet you fail to counter the arguments I hand you. You only say I'm wrong and I don't get the point...

You look at security from a hackers stance, I look at it from a stance you can control, secure OS's. And just that you know it, there are virii for Linux too... More then you think, but Linux systems are mostly being attacked to gain acces to the system, not to spread virii. That's why BSD created jails, why Linux has chroot'ed environments. If something of a system gets compromised (like with an insecure php script... Where suPHP will even limit the damage to that useraccount, not the intire www-data 'user'), the damage is only done to a small part, and not the whole system is compromised.

What attitude? Linux communities (certainly Ubuntu, but it's there with all) offer superior support IMO. It's not that you have to call a helpdesk, wait 15minutes listening to the worst music and then get an operator who asks you that you have plugged in the keyboard and stuff... No, it are message boards filled with skilled people, who often know parts of the source code, that give direct answers, even to the dumbest questions. But if you mean by attitude that we (Linux users as you call them) don't throw everything at you, but we expect some intelligence, well, then you are right, we have an attitude... But I'm proud of that, not being part of the "illiterate pc users that rather pay to call a helpdesk to find the 'any key' then make an effort".

[sarcasm]From your attitude I notice that you aren't a Linux user, nor ever been one, yet you tell us (I consider myself a Linux Zealot over here, and am proud of it) how things are done in the Linux community... Well, glad to know I don't know how things work, after being part of it for 6+ years, actively contributing as much and where I can... But I do thank you for telling me how it does work. I think I'm going to delete my Linux now and switch back to Windoos[/sarcasm]

But, let me take the liberty to make a guess BoomAM, not wanting to attack you or something, but: You are a person that is closely affiliated to Microsoft, administrating MS driven servers, and/or have (multiple) MS certificates? But never made a serious effort to see the other side, *nix or Linux because you saw no need for it?

 

If your gonna argue about security and whatnot, then lets include a proper secure OS, like one thats got its roots firmly set in Unix, like MacOSX...

You notice wrong.
I use Ubuntu Dapper on my laptop, and im typing this on a Debian workstation i have setup here at work, and my main system multi-boots between XP, Dapper & the development version of Efty.
So dont go trying the point of 'youve never used linux, so you wont know' routine.
Proof can be provided if nessessary.

I administrate a large computer network based upon various windows machines. Ive often tryed persuading the ICT staff to move to Edubuntu as they dont need any software that isnt available on Linux.

Again, dont make asumptions that ive never used Linux, or hate it, when i use it at home, use it on personal workstations at work, and tell my mates to use it if they dont plan on gaming on their machines.

I just dont like the single minded view that most Linux users have that Linux is some god-OS that cant be touched. When its far from that. Its an infantile OS put simply. While you may advocate that you/the linux community arnt like that, i'd argue that you/the community are. Theres only, as you have said, the Ubuntu forums where theres a decent community of people.