Why is there a closed and open source driver ?

[bridgman]

My understanding is that ponies are primarily of interest to consumer users, although I do not have hard data on that.

[elanthis]

Yep, it would. It would also cost more each year than our total Linux graphics revenues. I would have a tough time presenting a "we lose massive amounts of money but make people happy" plan to our executives.

I was talking about having a single driver codebase which is open source, not having two equivalent drivers developed in parallel. Again -- purely from a consumer's standpoint -- there's no desire for Catalyst to be closed-source in the first place. That point being made in response to the idea that there _must_ be a closed-source driver to satisfy some mystical consumer need.

[bridgman]

Again -- purely from a consumer's standpoint -- there's no desire for Catalyst to be closed-source in the first place. That point being made in response to the idea that there _must_ be a closed-source driver to satisfy some mystical consumer need.

It's not so simple. In order to be able to sell PCs in many parts of the world that can play DVDs and Blu-Ray disks (mostly Blu-Ray these days) the graphics subsystem needs to have a robust DRM implementation. That, in turn, requires that big chunks of the driver be delivered in binary form because there don't seem to be sufficiently robust open source DRM mechanisms available today. This applies to both Windows and MacOS markets.

Consumers *do* want to be able to buy cheap PCs (which implies high volumes and common parts), and enough of those consumers expect to be able to play protected video content that the requirement is enforced across pretty much all of the PC market.

Maybe one day the PC vendors will all decide that they don't care about having all of the certifications that robust DRM allows, but that day doesn't seem any closer today than it was 8 years ago.

[Saist]

It's not so simple. In order to be able to sell PCs in many parts of the world that can play DVDs and Blu-Ray disks (mostly Blu-Ray these days) the graphics subsystem needs to have a robust DRM implementation. That, in turn, requires that big chunks of the driver be delivered in binary form because there don't seem to be sufficiently robust open source DRM mechanisms available today. This applies to both Windows and MacOS markets.

Consumers *do* want to be able to buy cheap PCs (which implies high volumes and common parts), and enough of those consumers expect to be able to play protected video content that the requirement is enforced across pretty much all of the PC market.

Maybe one day the PC vendors will all decide that they don't care about having all of the certifications that robust DRM allows, but that day doesn't seem any closer today than it was 8 years ago.

There also is the mine-field of software and hardware patents.

Case in point, DXTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_Texture_Compression

Just because a driver is distributed free-of-cost does not mean that a company has not paid a financial cost to somebody else to use software technology in that driver or in the hardware itself.

In such cases it is possible for a driver to leverage licensed technology that is owned by another company in order to provide certain types of program compatibility, or achieve certain levels of processing performance.

[elanthis]

It's not so simple. In order to be able to sell PCs in many parts of the world that can play DVDs and Blu-Ray disks (mostly Blu-Ray these days) the graphics subsystem needs to have a robust DRM implementation.

Again, a fallacy. Consumers don't give a shit about DRM. Quite the opposite. They would much prefer Blu-ray and DVDs didn't have them at all.

I never said it was going to happen or to be a standpoint that the big assho^Wbusinesses would agree with or be open to. Just saying it's a complete lie to claim that consumers want proprietary software. Given the choice, they either (a) don't know the difference and hence don't care or (b) want Open Source.

[AdrenalineJunky]

I don't think bridgeman ever said users want propriatary software, I'm pretty sure what he said was, in the current market propriatary software is the only way they can deliver what customers want...

[ketetefid]

What does a customer really want? At first, high performance, hassle free drivers. They want the most out of their hardware, so do I. Every time I tried the OS drivers, I got totally disappointed. Everyone says it's going to advance, to be better. OK, I admit it takes time but how much time are we going to wait for the OS drivers to be fully fledged? About 12 years ago I started Linux and the OS drivers (If they exist) were not my option and still they aren't. Phoronix itself is full of stories about comparing the drivers and in 98% of the occasions the "bloated" closed source driver beats the OS one.
If the closed source could be improved, why would AMD put effort into developing something else that even cannot keep up with their main drivers? I think this is the main question. The only reasonable answer is developing the OS drivers benefits them. Am I right? If yes, how? Since I myself cannot completely sum up this argument. I would be please if you could enlighten me more.

[AdrenalineJunky]

What does a customer really want? At first, high performance, hassle free drivers. They want the most out of their hardware, so do I. Every time I tried the OS drivers, I got totally disappointed. Everyone says it's going to advance, to be better. OK, I admit it takes time but how much time are we going to wait for the OS drivers to be fully fledged? About 12 years ago I started Linux and the OS drivers (If they exist) were not my option and still they aren't. Phoronix itself is full of stories about comparing the drivers and in 98% of the occasions the "bloated" closed source driver beats the OS one.
If the closed source could be improved, why would AMD put effort into developing something else that even cannot keep up with their main drivers? I think this is the main question. The only reasonable answer is developing the OS drivers benefits them. Am I right? If yes, how? Since I myself cannot completely sum up this argument. I would be please if you could enlighten me more.

From my understanding a lot of people from the open source comminity requested it, so amd did it to please those customers.

[deanjo]

Given the choice, they either (a) don't know the difference and hence don't care

That is not correct. They can know the difference and still not care, so the correct option for a would be simply:

"does not care"

[Silverthorn]

The consumer doesn't have a choice. If a consumer is forced into a situation they're not happy with they'll start looking into alternative solutions. DRM makes many consumers unhappy thus many of them turn to piracy. Some of them still pay for the legal version but turn to the pirate copy for convenience. Some consumers will buy the legal version and remove the DRM themselves. Of course they still will be branded as pirates.

The only way for DRM to be removed would be if manufacturers, agreed amongst themselves, to refused to implement it.

It's not possible to play blu-ray on Linux because of DRM.
It's possible using windows but the implementation is lacking and it's not satisfying. There are very few programs out there who plays blu-ray and every single one of them are too expensive for the average consumer. None of the programs I've seen was stable and used a simple interface.

Conclusion, only the drivers implement DRM but there's no program available to use it. It's a waste of many in my opinion and it makes most consumers unhappy.

@bridgman, tell your executives that your consumers are unhappy about the DRM situation. Tell them that even Windows users have problems with it. It's not worth the time put into it and you're wasting money just by trying to comply with all the restrictions.