Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Releases Radeon HD 6000 Series Open-Source Support

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
    @MaestroMaus
    We all appreciate the efforts of open source developers. It is cynical smart-asses that we don't. The persons you mentioned expressed valid concerns about the way those efforts are delivered to the end user.

    The process of updating drivers is no-doubt flawed. It has to be dynamic, flexible, autonomous, non-centralized, non-distro dependant, ...
    Are you kidding me? There where close to zero good arguments there. I will show you what I mean:

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card...
    Do I need to point out you don't need to wait on Linux for that? The same windows drivers are available on Linux. Furthermore, it's unrealistic to think opensource drivers can progress this fast. One of the reasons therefor would be much less manpower.

    I struggle to understand why so many other packages need to be updated (kernel, mesa, etc) for a new ati driver to be released. Why are they so tightly coupled?
    This one is slightly better. I have admit here: I don't know if they need to be this tightly coupled. What I do know is that it doesn't matter for the speed of development. It's a manpower issue. If anything, making more modularized versions takes probably more work.

    Comment


    • #17
      The "same" driver? Well i never saw an unsupported hardware watermark or testing watermark with Win beta drivers, did you?

      Comment


      • #18
        That is correct. The Windows drivers simply refuse to light up unsupported hardware. Linux drivers light the card up but display the watermark.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          The "same" driver? Well i never saw an unsupported hardware watermark or testing watermark with Win beta drivers, did you?
          You know what I mean Kano.

          Comment


          • #20
            @MaestroMaus
            I apologize for my harsh words.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zoomblab View Post
              @MaestroMaus
              I apologize for my harsh words.
              Thank you, they are accepted.

              Don't get me wrong. I understand there frustration as an end user. But there frustration isn't something the developers do not know or do not care about. Also it's not like you and me are not having the same issues they have.

              Now I know I am asking much since this is the internet, but could we please all try to ask questions first instead of using the finger before knowing anything? The conversations would become somewhat more normal and nicer to read.

              Comment


              • #22
                Here come the excuses. Since, there's a half dozen 'good' excuses why the FOSS support is slow, what's the excuse why closed drivers aren't available? Or should I say, why not released? I think it's because ATI/AMD doesn't have basic Linux support and are Windows-centric. Just like Nvidia.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The cards launched in October and we already have initial open-source support. Awesome! The gap is getting smaller and smaller.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Panix View Post
                    I think it's because ATI/AMD doesn't have basic Linux support and are Windows-centric. Just like Nvidia.
                    And yet Nvidia usually has support in the drivers for future products well in advance of the products release. Fermi for example was supported in their drivers quite a few months before their release.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The cards launched in October and we already have initial open-source support. Awesome! The gap is getting smaller and smaller.
                      My thoughts exactly. It even seems that Fusion APU will be supported on day 1, so that really seem to be improving a lot.

                      And yet Nvidia usually has support in the drivers for future products well in advance of the products release. Fermi for example was supported in their drivers quite a few months before their release.
                      Well, the cards were one year late, so the devs had plenty of time to write the drivers. :-)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                        The cards launched in October and we already have initial open-source support. Awesome! The gap is getting smaller and smaller.
                        Yeah. Two and a half months is really not that bad, and the gap is closing rapidly. That's really great progress, even if the usual whiners will bitch about anything.

                        It used to be 3 years after the hardware release, now it's 3 months.

                        With Nvidia, we are still waiting for a release 10 years later, and they still have no intentions of releasing anything.

                        Originally posted by deanjo
                        And yet Nvidia usually has support in the drivers for future products well in advance of the products release. Fermi for example was supported in their drivers quite a few months before their release.
                        In their open source drivers?

                        Yeah, right.

                        Compare Nvidia stuff to Catalyst, not to the open, documented drivers based on X.org and Mesa, with community involvement.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Panix View Post
                          Here come the excuses. Since, there's a half dozen 'good' excuses why the FOSS support is slow, what's the excuse why closed drivers aren't available? Or should I say, why not released? I think it's because ATI/AMD doesn't have basic Linux support and are Windows-centric. Just like Nvidia.
                          Yes, I would say almost all PC hardware vendors are Windows-centric. Windows is >90% of the PC market and it gets a commensurate amount of resources. fglrx/nvidia can piggyback on that windows code which is why they get support fairly quickly, but Linux is still a small percentage of the PC market.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                            Yeah. Two and a half months is really not that bad, and the gap is closing rapidly. That's really great progress, even if the usual whiners will bitch about anything.
                            No one is whining here. It's a discussion about improving the pace of development. Everyone involved in the open source driver development process (developers, legal, bug submitters, etc) deserve a hardy pat on the back for their efforts. However things *can* keep getting better. We're seeing things get better on a daily basis. So it's fair and also desirable to keep encouraging things get better. It's even productive to have these discussions because who knows maybe the next driver contributor will come from Phoronix because they have been inspired to help once they realized the problems.

                            I don't know the ins and outs of all the pieces of code that support the drivers. However it's obvious the logistics of releasing drivers is not optimal. The code to support the 6000 cards is done. Yay! But the user won't see this work for another 9 months. Boo. That's a huge amount of latency. This is a problem for at least a couple reasons:

                            1. The user is left in the dark without full driver support (obviously).

                            2. But more concerning, the developer who wrote the original code is left in the dark because bug reports won't show up until the distros ship the driver. By then the developer could have moved on to other projects or lost interest.


                            Improving the speed of getting the latest open source drivers in the hands of users is a obviously a win-win.

                            I wish I understoodd why open source driver support has to affect so many different parts of code (kernel, mesa, drm, etc) when the proprietary one doesn't need to. Presumably it's because the closed one reimplements all that stuff?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by leif81 View Post
                              But the user won't see this work for another 9 months.
                              Surely Ubuntu/Fedora plan to backport this for their spring releases, right? Or are they really going to make us wait?

                              I wish I understoodd why open source driver support has to affect so many different parts of code (kernel, mesa, drm, etc) when the proprietary one doesn't need to. Presumably it's because the closed one reimplements all that stuff?
                              It does. The difference is that the OSS drivers include the code in the upstream projects, while the proprietary drivers just copy binary libs onto your system that plug into the kernel/X/etc. The OSS drivers could do the same thing, but it would require more manpower since you couldn't rely on the upstream projects doing any maintenance.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Will the Cayman support be added to r600g, or will it require a new driver? rCaymang? Doesn't have quite the same ring to it...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X