Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI and Linux compatibility

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

  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    No, I am waiting you explain yourself
    So lets be clear, you are asserting that there is no software that both does work with nVidias blob and doesn't work with fglrx?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    People have reported instances where software that runs under nVidias blob wont run under fglrx. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    And I mean native OpenGL software.
    No, I am waiting you explain yourself

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    nah! continue googling please, and tell me something with names.

    I am not saying that all 100% of opengl application works with fglrx, but at the moment i didn't hear of anything.
    So you're asking me to do your work for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by mugginz View Post
    I think you'll find that you are indeed wrong on this count.
    nah! continue googling please, and tell me something with names.

    I am not saying that all 100% of opengl application works with fglrx, but at the moment i didn't hear of anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    pssss, don't interrupt he is googling
    Or possibly just waiting for some on topic discussion perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    pingufunkybeat the last time i tried torchlight with wine i was astonished by the results of my state-of-the-art ati 4350

    wine + fglrx 29 fps
    wine + opensource 20 fps

    Currently ati opensource cannot compete in 3d, but in 2d is superb. But the rhythm of developing has increased a lot (see mesa mailing list). Maybe in less than a year open source could be very competitive at 3d too!

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    This is and objective and a response with arguments, thx. Can prove this to me?

    No no... wait i know, i know... wine + GTA4, ummmm no, no, wait, wait... wine + WOW

    Seriously, i dont believe that any serious opengl application doesn't work with fglrx? but maybe i am wrong, or not?
    I think you'll find that you are indeed wrong on this count.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Yes but why is he buying a graphics card? Is it to do virtual terminals or is it to run games?
    Yes, but what are "ATi fanbois" who "always bring up open source" buying a graphics card for?
    I don't care why they're buying a card. I do care though when people are discussing use cases that indicate closed source drivers are required and then others try to de-rail the discussion with open vs closed driver discussions.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    This is what I was replying to. If this is off topic, then you made it offtopic, in an attempt to dismiss anyone with preference for open source as some lunatic.
    The open vs closed source driver discussion isn't relevant given the OPs requirements. I'm not the origin of that off-topic topic in this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Whether there are secrets or not has no relevance compared to when the hardware you buy can not even run the software you have.
    Says who?
    Really? You're going to try to argue that it's better to use a driver because it's open source, even if it wont support the software you need to run?

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    This is clearly for every user to decide individually.
    Exactly. If you need to run software that the FOSS ATI drivers wont support then you need to look elsewhere.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I can't play the Doom3 and Quake4 games I purchased several years ago using free drivers. I still bought an ATi this time.
    That's your choice so surely you can see the folly in recommending someone buy hardware that wont run the software they want to run.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Everybody has different requirements, and this is exactly my point.
    And mine as well. Where you have requirements that dont require a closed driver then you can select the open ones if they make sense for your use case.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And for many people, the openness of the software is a very important consideration, far more important than running Windows games through an emulation layer mapping Direct3D calls to bad OpenGL calls.
    And for many people being able to run the software they want to run is more important then whether the drivers are open or closed.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    This is why a discussion about open drivers is certainly important in principle, even if it doesn't apply in every single case.
    But surely you can see that we need to keep the argument based in the reality of the situation and where someone needs what the closed drivers provide and the open ones don't provide it makes sense to select the drivers that work for that use case.


    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And many are not in that same boat.
    Sure. I've never claimed that they were.
    But where you said
    Sure. I can't run OpenGL 3+ stuff using open drivers ATM.

    But I don't need to. So I can run software based on open specs and open drivers.

    And many people out there are in the same boat.
    That is a fairly opposite situation of the post that began this thread.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Are you saying that all anyone ever needs a computer to do is the same things that you use a computer for.
    No, that's what you're saying. You are saying that if a computer can't run OpenGL3 through wine, then it's worthless, and anyone who isn't doing this is a fundie.
    No. The very reason that this discusion was started was that someone had a particular use case that indicated closed drivers would be desireable and then others suggested he modify his requirements in order to satify someone elses requirement that people should use open drivers.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Are you saying that all anyone ever needs a computer to do is the same things that you use a computer for.
    Come on, this level of discussion is childish.
    You are describing your use case but this is a thread about a different use case. You can't say the OP should use open drivers based on your use case instead of his. I've also said a few times now that if you have simpler requirements then that opens up the open drivers as an option for you but not for him.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Open drivers are clearly sufficient for a huge number of tasks at the moment, and the number of people using Linux who want open drivers is also a very significant number.
    Yes but for others they're not sufficient. So what! But for the OPs requirements closed drivers are indicated, not open ones.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Because of this alone, a discussion about the merits of open drivers cannot possibly be unimportant.
    In the context of the OP's post it actually is quite irrelevant.

    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And the advantage of the closed drivers is that they support more software and where that software is the software that you need to run then that makes the choices clearer.
    Sure! For some specific use cases.
    Like the ones described by the OP

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    pssss, don't interrupt he is googling

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X