Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's R300 Gallium3D Driver Is Looking Good For 2011

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATI's support for R200/R250 and R300 still sucks horribly.

    What good is this OSS if the user has to tweak everything and have to go through pages and pages via Google to get an ancient card working (which would work fine in Windows)?

    OSS, yeah, sure...

    Nice of ATI to thumb its nose in the direction of Linux but claim otherwise with a bunch of sheep nodding along the way!

    Comment


    • My RS480 works incredibly well with the r300g driver. WINE works and so has every open source Linux game I have tried (with some bugs here and there). 2D and movie playback are much better than they ever were with fglrx. No tweaks, other than enabling the appropriate ppa repo for Ubuntu. The driver is slow, which is my only real complaint now.

      Comment


      • ATI abandons support for older cards so in time, all your cards will no longer be supported. I am tired of trying to use these older machines that run fine in XP or even 7 with the ATI driver but then support via the open source driver doesn't work anymore. You're told to create a config file for xorg which isn't supposed to be required anymore and still basic 3D doesn't work.

        Opensource via ATI is a farce and a joke!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Panix View Post
          Opensource via ATI is a farce and a joke!
          The point of open source is that the community helps. When the community just expects ATI to do all the work, it's not open source at all. You might as well use the proprietary drivers on a proprietary OS, because there you've got a huge team of people doing everything for you.

          If you want the bugs for older cards fixed, you should help. Demanding that ATI do all the work means that you don't actually care about open source at all.

          I get the frustration. I wish the open source drivers had full OpenGL 3.3 and top-notch performance on my hardware, which it supports on Windows. I'm not writing any code for the drivers though, so I don't get to bitch. It wouldn't be fair.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by elanthis View Post
            The point of open source is that the community helps. When the community just expects ATI to do all the work, it's not open source at all. You might as well use the proprietary drivers on a proprietary OS, because there you've got a huge team of people doing everything for you.

            If you want the bugs for older cards fixed, you should help. Demanding that ATI do all the work means that you don't actually care about open source at all.

            I get the frustration. I wish the open source drivers had full OpenGL 3.3 and top-notch performance on my hardware, which it supports on Windows. I'm not writing any code for the drivers though, so I don't get to bitch. It wouldn't be fair.
            Wouldn't be fair?

            So, with all these ancient dinosaur machines around with M7/M6 ATI 7500, 9000, 9200, 9600 and other cards that are ONLY supported by the ATI/RADEON FOSS driver, the COMMUNITY has done nothing to have these work properly and with 3D for simple 3D-based tasks? This also means ATI/AMD has done nothing either. Nothing is provided that makes it a smooth install yet it works in Windows!

            I believe there must be some connection to the kernel and xorg/xserver updates. I read about tweaks done to xorg.conf so the file is edited or created. Also, maybe settings for kms, not sure. Some distros have come up with utilities that tweak such settings or create/edit xorg.conf file. So, it's small groups that are dealing with it but it's not deal with as a whole or community-wide. So, where is the support or community? I think you just give excuses. I guess there is an indifference because the hardware is so old and not used by enough people. Just don't claim that the OSS driver support is so great, then. Thanks.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by elanthis View Post
              The point of open source is that the community helps. When the community just expects ATI to do all the work, it's not open source at all. You might as well use the proprietary drivers on a proprietary OS, because there you've got a huge team of people doing everything for you.
              I can understand you, up to a point.
              There is still a big difference.
              With documentation here and source code open, I pretty much have guarantee that the hardware I have now will still work in years to come. Even if the driver would be abandoned by AMD and not be further developed, chances would be very high that it would at least be adapted to new kernel versions and similar changes.

              Example: I'm a victim of the Intel GMA500 mess. There doesn't seem to be a chance I will ever be to run my laptop on a newer kernel or any future Ubuntu. I will probably never be able to use it like it is supposed to because the occasionaly wake-up crashes will never be fixed. I am sure these problems would already be fixed if the sources would be open source, regardless how abandoned the code is by the original programmers.

              Still, I understand you.
              I am really really sad that the community does very little except testing. Open specification was supposed to help the community, it was lobbied for by the open source people for so long, and now it seems that the open specification did not help much. Would the open source radeon drivers have been programmed based on closed documentation, how much behind its current status would it be? Not too much I feel.
              I am especially sad because this gives other manufacturers good reasons to keep their specifications closed, because opening them clearly doesn't necessarily result in any advantage.

              Note: This is not a complaint to anybody.
              I read a little in the specifications, and there's no way I would ever start working on the driver unless I get one or two years of education in hardware/software co-design and a full time job. It's just too complex to work on one or two hours after work.
              I don't complain at Ubuntu or Redhat that they don't invest in the AMD driver, because their job is to make the software easy to install and the hardware to work. They have the closed source drivers, and until AMD starts to abandon current hardware in their closed source driver I don't see a need of Ubuntu to invest tons of money in drivers of one of the graphics card manufacturers.
              Really, I can't see any company but AMD who has enough motivation to spend a lot of money (just some money wouldn't be enough) for these drivers.

              This leaves me grateful for AMD that pay as much as they do and be thankful for the work their open source developers do and be frustrated as hell that the biggest strength of open specifications and open source failed in the development of modern graphics drivers.

              Comment


              • Wonderful. By the time my HD5750 is almost fully supported, it will be obsolete and I'll be waiting for the FOSS drivers to support my new card again. Cool.
                Not to sound like an ungrateful bastard though, thanks FOSS dev team.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dard View Post
                  I don't complain at Ubuntu or Redhat that they don't invest in the AMD driver, because their job is to make the software easy to install and the hardware to work. They have the closed source drivers, and until AMD starts to abandon current hardware in their closed source driver I don't see a need of Ubuntu to invest tons of money in drivers of one of the graphics card manufacturers.
                  You shouldn't complain about Redhat, because they do invest in driver development as well as Xorg (and a ton of other things). You can get an idea of the breadth of this investment from this page. Ubuntu? Yes, that's a completely different story (but I think they wrote some Gnome notification thing...or something : ).

                  Comment


                  • One main complaint is it seems you have to create an xorg.conf file which was supposedly redundant or not required anymore. But, for OSS radeon cards, at least older ones, you need to.

                    Here's a Gentoo user having trouble with his older card and he created the xorg.conf file:

                    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-857308.html

                    At least, he's having better luck with his card. I'm using Debian but it's not the first time I've had trouble with my card (Radeon 9000). Even after googling, for recent info and articles/posts, I still don't know what the solution is. I'm not sure what should be in xorg.conf if anything and there's no indication of what is required for the support to be enabled. So, no one cares about having this optimized so unless you're a computer hacker, you might as run Windows with this older hardware.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                      Ubuntu? Yes, that's a completely different story (but I think they wrote some Gnome notification thing...or something : ).
                      I see plenty of things where Ubuntu really should invest money in if they can.
                      I just meant that I don't see the free AMD graphics drivers as a priority for companies like Ubuntu or Redhat.
                      Now, network drivers, virtualization, working environments and so on, yes, this is what I would Ubuntu expect to invest more in.

                      Which is why I don't complain about distributors. I just complain about a regrettably bad situation, which is, alas, an understandable situation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dard View Post
                        I see plenty of things where Ubuntu really should invest money in if they can.
                        I just meant that I don't see the free AMD graphics drivers as a priority for companies like Ubuntu or Redhat.
                        Now, network drivers, virtualization, working environments and so on, yes, this is what I would Ubuntu expect to invest more in.

                        Which is why I don't complain about distributors. I just complain about a regrettably bad situation, which is, alas, an understandable situation.
                        Right, I myself only wanted to point out that mentioning Ubuntu and Redhat in the same sentence when talking about upstream development (including graphics drivers) is, at the very least, totally unfair towards Redhat.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dard View Post
                          I see plenty of things where Ubuntu really should invest money in if they can.
                          I just meant that I don't see the free AMD graphics drivers as a priority for companies like Ubuntu or Redhat.
                          Now, network drivers, virtualization, working environments and so on, yes, this is what I would Ubuntu expect to invest more in.

                          Which is why I don't complain about distributors. I just complain about a regrettably bad situation, which is, alas, an understandable situation.
                          I wonder what Ubuntu employees spend thier time working on. Oh that's right, they did come up with a font and a Unity interface nobody (as far as I read) seems to like.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mr James View Post
                            I wonder what Ubuntu employees spend thier time working on. Oh that's right, they did come up with a font and a Unity interface nobody (as far as I read) seems to like.
                            And the software center/store or whatever it's called nowadays. Oh, and you can read pretty far

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by devius View Post
                              And the software center/store or whatever it's called nowadays. Oh, and you can read pretty far
                              New guys (to Linux) seem to like it at ubuntuforums.org

                              That's about it. In every other forum including but not limited too the Debian forums, Gentoo forums, Arch forums, Phoronix and so on do not like the unity thing, at least on a desktop.

                              At least it is easy to change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Panix View Post
                                ATI's support for R200/R250 and R300 still sucks horribly.

                                What good is this OSS if the user has to tweak everything and have to go through pages and pages via Google to get an ancient card working (which would work fine in Windows)?

                                OSS, yeah, sure...

                                Nice of ATI to thumb its nose in the direction of Linux but claim otherwise with a bunch of sheep nodding along the way!
                                Wait, you have an r300 card now?

                                Or are you just in a trolling mood again?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X