Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X Server 1.8 Release Candidate Is Here

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

  • X Server 1.8 Release Candidate Is Here

    Phoronix: X Server 1.8 Release Candidate Is Here

    Keith Packard has just made available the first release candidate of X Server 1.8 and confirms that its release schedule is still on track. Snapshots and the Git code for X Server 1.8 go back to last year, but with a planned release by the end of March, Keith has now started working on release candidates...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzk4MA

  • #2
    I just use Ubuntu, so I never have any problems with AMD drivers not supporting newer stuff. However, it would be nice if AMD provided some preliminary support for new kernels and X server releases. If only to make sure half of the trolling on these forums about their drivers would be something from the past .

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Heiko View Post
      I just use Ubuntu, so I never have any problems with AMD drivers not supporting newer stuff.
      I just use Windows 7. It works like a charm. Those trolls here claiming Catalyst doesn't support this and that are getting on my nerves.

      Comment


      • #4
        but it will be many months before AMD is likely to support this updated X Server in their Catalyst Linux driver (they still lack support for X Server 1.7).
        What is it you don't understand about the SUPPORTED distributions in the Catalyst Install Instructions?

        Code:
        Operating Systems Distributions Supported
        
        The latest version of the ATI Proprietary Linux driver is designed to support the
                following Linux distributions:
                 Red Hat Enterprise Linux suite
                 Novell/SuSE product suite
                 Ubuntu
        Why do you always bash AMD/ATi?

        I think you should have a big banner on the frontpage:

        Code:
        Fanboy of Intel, nVidia and Ubuntu
        Code:
        Supporter of closed source nVidia drivers over open source AMD drivers

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Louise View Post
          Why do you always bash AMD/ATi?
          I thought I was paranoid..

          Comment


          • #6
            Does anybody know if there is going to be a PPA package of this for Ubuntu? I tried to make one, but it would need so many other dependencies that I was afraid of screwing up my system.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Louise View Post
              Why do you always bash AMD/ATi?
              Because they are always late by a couple of months with supporting new software in comparison to Nvidia. Why can Nvidia provide drivers working with the latest kernel and X server while ATI can't do that?

              Comment


              • #8
                Because Nvidia had a headstart of several years before Ati really started working on OpenGL (first) and their Linux drivers (later).

                Then again, AMD now provides open-source drivers that support the latest kernel and X-Server before it is even released. So yeah.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Louise View Post
                  What is it you don't understand about the SUPPORTED distributions in the Catalyst Install Instructions?

                  Code:
                  Operating Systems Distributions Supported
                  
                  The latest version of the ATI Proprietary Linux driver is designed to support the
                          following Linux distributions:
                           Red Hat Enterprise Linux suite
                           Novell/SuSE product suite
                           Ubuntu
                  Why do you always bash AMD/ATi?
                  There's no need to defend the indefensible. Really, leave that to bridgman, he gets payed for that. Linux Catalyst is a joke and deserves to be mocked. Yes there's work in progress on an oss driver, but these are two separate things. Really, it's okay to appreciate the work going on on the oss driver and bash the Linux Catalyst joke at the same time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Louise View Post
                    What is it you don't understand about the SUPPORTED distributions in the Catalyst Install Instructions?

                    Why do you always bash AMD/ATi?
                    Because their crappy binary driver forces me to think that they deserve it.

                    I think you should have a big banner on the frontpage:

                    Code:
                    Fanboy of Intel, nVidia and Ubuntu
                    Code:
                    Supporter of working and closed source nVidia drivers over bloated and unstable binary AMD drivers (and open source AMD drivers which are not ready for R500+)
                    Fixed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ahh, another thread of people saying that AMD's proprietary driver is bad, without giving a single reason as to why. It sort of reminds me of circular wikipedia references.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mirv View Post
                        Ahh, another thread of people saying that AMD's proprietary driver is bad, without giving a single reason as to why. It sort of reminds me of circular wikipedia references.
                        You really don't see why people are complaining about fglrx in this thread?
                        I'll give you a hint, read the article.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dalingrin View Post
                          You really don't see why people are complaining about fglrx in this thread?
                          I'll give you a hint, read the article.
                          Ok, I read the article (again). The only thing of any substance said about fglrx is that there's currently no xserver 1.7 support. Anything said about AMD's plans for xserver 1.8 are pure speculation (or did I miss something?).
                          I have not known AMD to support anything that's in RC status, or anything before it's released actually, but then that's in line for what is continuously stated as the target for fglrx (workstation markets). This may also be a reason drivers from AMD aren't labelled as beta.
                          So, people wanting support for something still in RC stages, well hey I can understand that one - but that has nothing to do with quality of the drivers themselves.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fazer View Post
                            Why can Nvidia provide drivers working with the latest kernel and X server while ATI can't do that?
                            Becuase nvidia replaces much more of the graphics stack than fglrx. So the latter has to take care of many more interfaces, taking more time.

                            That's sort of what and AMD/ATI guy explained.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hell, I use fglrx every day and I like it. Use a distro which is supported and everything works quite fine.

                              I really can't see the problems with the driver. Once the 2d optimizations is done, it is almost perfect for my needs.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X