Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where The Open-Source AMD Driver Is At For Modern GPUs

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

  • #31
    Soemthing I've longed wondered...

    In the best cases (in terms of drivers) how much does Mesa hurt performance? I've long heard that Mesa was in need of, at least, some re-factoring, but I've not heard anyone come out with actual numbers as to how much it is hurting the OSS stack.
    Does anyone have any idea?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
      Tell that to millions of happy Windows and MacOS users.

      Free software is not even an argument, it's a boon. First, the software has to work, that's the killer argument.
      Mac OS and Windows work, so your argument does not make any sense. If you want to use closed software which works, you have many options. You have the blobs for Linux which work too, if you want that.

      But that's not the reason why KDE, GCC, GNU, GNOME, Linux, and many other projects were started. They were started to provide free and open alternatives. Just like Mesa and open drivers. None of them were perfect when they started, and took years to catch up to the closed counterparts.

      Some people use KDE because it has more bling than Win7, other people use it because it is open and free.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Absolutely developing for end users wants is always going to payoff in bigger marketshare. The vast majority don't care how it is done, just that it can do it.
        Even if they don't care, they benefit from it. Firefox saved the Web, for example. Apple would not exist anymore without BSD. Windows would not have a TCP/IP stack without BSD.

        The ignorant don't have to know, just like they don't know that much of the software they use would not be available if there wasn't a free compiler out there which doesn't cost $1000. Ignorance is bliss, but I expect more from you

        Comment


        • #34
          The short story is that without open 3d drivers, Linux is a dead operating system which can be killed by a couple of companies overnight. And then I really don't care what some guy in some office wants in terms of bling.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Even if they don't care, they benefit from it. Firefox saved the Web, for example.
            Netscape actually did that when they put an early nail in the coffin to the idea of charging for web browsers.

            Apple would not exist anymore without BSD. Windows would not have a TCP/IP stack without BSD.
            More rubbish on both examples. Had BSD not existed Apple would have simply continue on another basis and Windows would have also used their own TCP/IP stack. Don't think for one second that those were hurdles that would have prevented those companies OS's from going on. It is simply the fact of not needing to re-invent the wheel.

            The ignorant don't have to know, just like they don't know that much of the software they use would not be available if there wasn't a free compiler out there which doesn't cost $1000. Ignorance is bliss, but I expect more from you
            There you go skewing facts again. Most software that most people use IS done on a non-free compiler. Early on it was done with Borland stuff, later on MS stuff, now days alot of it is done on MS and Intel stuff. Hell if any thing software prices have gone UP since the days of only proprietary compilers. How many consumer apps do you think cost $300-$1000 back in the 80's?

            BTW, GCC is not the only compiler that does not cost anything. MS / Borland / Intel have been offering free compilers for years.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              The short story is that without open 3d drivers, Linux is a dead operating system which can be killed by a couple of companies overnight.
              Linux was a dead operating system until a closed source video driver came along and made a linux desktop a reality to use for most end users. Don't believe me? Take a look at the desktop development in linux that grew leaps and bound post 2002. Had that never happened I very much doubt you would see workstations using anything other then windows or macs for graphical user interfaces in any type of serious work environment.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Linux was a dead operating system until a closed source video driver came along and made a linux desktop a reality to use for most end users. Don't believe me? Take a look at the desktop development in linux that grew leaps and bound post 2002. Had that never happened I very much doubt you would see workstations using anything other then windows or macs for graphical user interfaces in any type of serious work environment.
                I think you are mixing up cause and effect, but I expect that since you rarely make sense.

                Dave.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  Linux was a dead operating system until a closed source video driver came along and made a linux desktop a reality to use for most end users. Don't believe me? Take a look at the desktop development in linux that grew leaps and bound post 2002. Had that never happened I very much doubt you would see workstations using anything other then windows or macs for graphical user interfaces in any type of serious work environment.
                  Now that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Congrats.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by airlied View Post
                    I think you are mixing up cause and effect, but I expect that since you rarely make sense.

                    Dave.
                    Not mixing it up at all Dave. There is a very good reason why nvidia has had the lions share of linux graphics for years and why the blobs are used as a point of reference in comparisons. It also is why you guys get pummelled on from other development projects when crap doesn't work on opensource drivers but does on closed source nvidia blobs.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Not mixing it up at all Dave. There is a very good reason why nvidia has had the lions share of linux graphics for years and why the blobs are used as a point of reference in comparisons. It also is why you guys get pummelled on from other development projects when crap doesn't work on opensource drivers but does on closed source nvidia blobs.
                      Intel has the lion's share of Linux graphics, as they have the lion's share of all graphics.

                      If you're just talking about high-performance graphics with an eye towards gaming, then NVIDIA has the lion's share on Linux because they also have it on Windows. Steam hardware stats show that well over 60% of all gamers are using NVIDIA hardware. ATI actually has a larger share of the Linux "gamer" desktop than it does of the Windows gamer desktop, if you compare Steam's stats with Phoronix's Linux Graphics Survery results over every year it's been published.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X