Broadcom Releases Source For Graphics Stack; Raspberry Pi Sets Bounty For Port
I am so god damn tired of this stupid argument. The CPU is not a "slave core". It is an ARM6 RISC core (with MMU) and it is what runs Linux and all the applications, not the GPU . The GPU does control
the L2 cache and the memory controller/arbitrator which allows it to have the highest priority access to memory and meet the video memory bandwidth requirements. I haven't had time to read the hardware documentation now that it has been released (making it no longer closed contrary to your assertion otherwise ) so I don't know if a proprietary code blob will still be necessary to boot the CPU any
longer or not. A quick scan did not reveal any specific mention of this in the documentation but with the release of the GPU instruction set in the documentation it should be fairly straight forward, although
not easy to disassemble the proprietary boot loader code. I would prefer a fully open boot loader but as long as the current boot loader allows just about any OS to be booted, and as far as I know it does
I can live with that.
And finally, the only other two GPU cores available for ARM SoCs, PowerVR and Mali (the one used on the Beaglebone Black) are still, for now completely proprietary. This clearly means that contrary to
another comment in this thread, the Beaglebone Black is not completely open.
Raspberry Pi Hits the 2 Million Mark
While TI documents most of the am3359 SOC it does not provide any documentation for the Imagination Technologies PowerVR GPU core which is proprietary.
To the OP, as far as I know there are no non-proprietary GPUs (more or less beefy) on any ARM SOC so good luck on finding one without binary blobs.
Raspberry Pi Gets 512MB Filling
I can personally recommend these:
Logitech Makes 1 Billionth Mouse
I have a Logitech C7 that still works, although it did need one ball transplant.
Microsoft Documentation Declared Unfit For US Consumption
It is wrong because they were told by the court to produce documentation that others could use to "inter-operate" with Microsoft software. It was not "after the fact" they have been given several YEARS to produce this documentation after they were told to do so by the court. This is the second time that the documentation Microsoft was ordered to produce was declared unusable for its stated purpose. The first time (three? years ago) was by a Microsoft selected expert at which time Microsoft said that he was biased. Several years later its still unfit. If any of this sounds familiar, just one word says it all, Micrsoft.