Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's Hiring Open-Source Graphics Developers Still

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

  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by monraaf View Post
    Last time I heard this 'crappy' FOSS Linux Intel driver provides hardware accelerated video decoding, something not provided by the AMD 'sponsored' FOSS driver. Not everyone cares about gaming and such, you know.

    Also I don't hear Intel employees telling you that you have to write your own FLOSS driver for the hardware you already paid for. Perhaps because Intel has a proper team of devs working on the FOSS drivers, contrary to AMD with only one active dev.
    That's because ATI, well AMD now, has fake support. They are hiring TWO developers...whooop deee doooo... There's no support, NONE. They are not investing into Linux support when it comes to video drivers. Why do you think there's constant bugs and refusal to cover various features?

    The proprietary drivers don't even work that well and they have the Windows drivers to work with. It's pathetic.

    Nvidia is evil and I think they suck, too, but just because they're a crappy company, doesn't mean ATI/AMD should be excluded from criticism. Both are preoccupied with supporting Windows and AMD has minimal Open Source support from what I can tell.

    AMD is trying to keep up with Intel with processors and motherboard components/chipsets. That's the bread and butter? I think support of Linux graphics is way down the line. You can try to support it by buying graphics hardware but they don't seem to care about investing much more than what they do now. Therefore, your support will include bugs and slow progression of fixes/features/video performance. Is it an equal trade-off?

    Leave a comment:


  • monraaf
    replied
    Last time I heard this 'crappy' FOSS Linux Intel driver provides hardware accelerated video decoding, something not provided by the AMD 'sponsored' FOSS driver. Not everyone cares about gaming and such, you know.

    Also I don't hear Intel employees telling you that you have to write your own FLOSS driver for the hardware you already paid for. Perhaps because Intel has a proper team of devs working on the FOSS drivers, contrary to AMD with only one active dev.

    Leave a comment:


  • V10lator
    replied
    I can't understand that AMD bitching, too.

    If you choose to use windows you have only blobs.
    If you use linux + NVidia you have the blob or a reversed-engineered driver.
    If you use linux + Intel you have a crappy FOSS driver.
    If you use linux + AMD you have the blob or a AMD sponsored FOSS driver.

    So what the hell is the problem with you guys?

    Leave a comment:


  • monraaf
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I'll take the heat.

    You are a moron. Linux has 2000 times less 3D superspeed graphics demand. You read Phoronix. You read the state in which the cards are. You read that card X that cost $Y gives Z performance. You are notified. So stop bitching if you do not do your homework.
    You call opening up docs for FLOSS development marketing. It is not. It is however made into marketing by FLOSS enthousiasts and rightfully so. Word-of-mouth marketing is not what AMD is accountable for, but shows how much it is awesome.
    He's not a moron.

    Just as you have the right to sing praise about how wonderful it is that AMD has partly documented and partly provided some code to interface with some parts of its GPU products. He has the right to complain and bitch about AMD's lack of dedication to the open drivers, its lack of features and lack of performance.

    If people were only allowed to give positive Word of Mouth about AMD and its products then you'll only get a twisted view about the company that has nothing to do with reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    The time you hired 2 developers whilst your windows "division" (or should I solely name it just ATI?) had 2000.
    I'll take the heat.

    You are a moron. Linux has 2000 times less 3D superspeed graphics demand. You read Phoronix. You read the state in which the cards are. You read that card X that cost $Y gives Z performance. You are notified. So stop bitching if you do not do your homework.

    Apparently, linux users looking for 3D cards see no usable AMD hardware still.
    People that go FLOSS know there are compromises. Don't claim you don't know that, because that would make you a double moron.

    I realy can't accept a non compositing KDE grade desktop workflow. I need that card. Therefore I bought the card. There is no screwing around since the AMD driver supports UVD and superspeed graphics. On their driver website, if you had cared, they declare the required pieces of software.

    The FLOSS driver is sponsored, but is Linux software. It is powered by devs paid by AMD but it is not AMD's driver, even though they do probably have some copyright somewhere.

    You call opening up docs for FLOSS development marketing. It is not. It is however made into marketing by FLOSS enthousiasts and rightfully so. Word-of-mouth marketing is not what AMD is accountable for, but shows how much it is awesome. Hate 'us' FLOSS lovers for it if we convinced you or something, instead.

    Unless you call 10% performance/features made by 3 men usable or accept 10 year period when fglrx will match nvidia blob. That would be marketing.
    Says you. And it is usable. I get very nice desktop workflow out of Kwin with 3D effects. I love it and can't get back to non-3D. As for games, yeah... Dissapointment is your problem. If you don't want FLOSS you go with proprietary crap. That's the trade-off. Also if you don't like that then you can start your own code commits if you realy, REALY care. But I bet you don't care that much, beacuse otherwise you would have made time for it.

    End of story.
    Exactly.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    OK, so if I understand correctly your concerns are :

    1. that we are somehow misleading our customers into believing that there will be useable (by *their* criteria) open source drivers when in fact there are no useful drivers and nothing exists but some documentation and some promises

    (btw who are you claiming made the promises ?)

    2. that we are claiming our proprietary drivers are competitive in the workstation market when in fact they are not useable for workstation scenarios

    Is that about right ?
    Mr. Bridgeman, you always fail to understand correctly. The time I purchased your card and it performed mediocre. The time you hired 2 developers whilst your windows "division" (or should I solely name it just ATI?) had 2000. And even now when I was left with no other choice, but leave amd.

    Apparently, linux users looking for 3D cards see no usable AMD hardware still.

    Unless you call 10% performance/features made by 3 men usable or accept 10 year period when fglrx will match nvidia blob. That would be marketing.

    End of story.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Dude, r300g is better than Catalyst.

    And r600g is better than Catalyst at some things (2d, stability), although there is still lots of work to be done.

    Alex Deucher, Dave Airlie and the like are not "student quality developers". And hiring more will be a great thing.

    Though, personally, I'd much prefer it if AMD hired 10 guys, got OpenGL4 working, and spent a couple of years on optimising. But they don't want to invest this much.
    I reread http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=826
    Throws some light on current situation.

    Yeah, I prefer AMD to make their cards supported on desktop linux, but know what - nvidia already does that, hence bye bye windows-favoured amd.

    But of course, if you are a student hardware developer, amd opensource "driver" is good as educational model. Maybe in 30 years they fix 3D on opensource and my children will research into that.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Dude, r300g is better than Catalyst.

    And r600g is better than Catalyst at some things (2d, stability), although there is still lots of work to be done.

    Alex Deucher, Dave Airlie and the like are not "student quality developers". And hiring more will be a great thing.

    Though, personally, I'd much prefer it if AMD hired 10 guys, got OpenGL4 working, and spent a couple of years on optimising. But they don't want to invest this much.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
    This is because you don't care about free software. You will probably enjoy Windows 7 too, microsoft did a good work.
    Free student-quality software, or free commercial-quality software with qualities on par to proprietary commercial software?

    If you look for quality free software, amd is apparently wrong place.

    The guy purchases the card and it works on linux! Whats wrong with him? You recommend him to purchase 100$+ AMD card to use with opensource drivers so his card works like 20$ one and has features reduced to just DVI output?
    Well, I was such idiot, apparently.

    Well, unlike you, the guy got nvidia card and hence does not need windows anymore. See? Or have nvidia and amd been issuing opensource drivers for windows? By the way, look up which vendor has been supporting OpenGL more, and which DirectX.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Oh shit, my HP B209a came with opensource drivers capable of full functionality, borderless printing and scanner support included. Plus tray application for info, service and task control.
    This is very commendable from HP, but with most other hardware, you don't get excellent OSS drivers from the manufacturers.

    Unfortunately.

    But according to AMD, apparently you, I was supposed to program my own drivers and for windows "everything works"?
    That's bullshit, I didn't write any code, and the OSS drivers work just fine here.

    AMD's strategy seems to be to provide basic OSS drivers for all their hardware, which is mostly done by their employees, but to not fund work on basic infrastructure that is holding Linux graphics back (Gallium3d, Mesa, KMS). Most of the weaknesses attributed to ATi drivers, such as no GL3, come from this.

    Yes, I'd like for AMD to work on optimisations and GLSL too. I'd like Nvidia to work on it too, BTW.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X