AMD Catalyst 12.6 For Linux Disappoints

[rechapit]

so debian fucked up their xorg-server and that is amd's fault?.

Actually AMD fucked up when they linked the driver to libpciaccess (using 32 bit pointers on a 64 bit distro is not such a good idea)
Dont know why its only an issue on Debian

EDIT: There is an ugly hack to work arround the issue at http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522#c5

[disi]

Actually AMD fucked up when they linked the driver to libpciaccess (using 32 bit pointers on a 64 bit distro is not such a good idea)
Dont know why its only an issue on Debian

EDIT: There is an ugly hack to work arround the issue at http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522#c5

But if you use Debian 'unstable', why do you expect everything to work?
I don't complain that the open source radeon driver has issues with Linux 3.4.4 on Gentoo but rather file a bug report for it.

(the issue is, that ColorTiling2D stopped working with the newer kernels and causes problems with xrandr expanding to external displays)

[Kano]

The same error is of course in debian wheezy, which will be frozen soon. i just verified that that hack works, but that shows how stupid fglrx devs are - the reason was posted when the beta was out and they did NOTHING. why call it beta first when the final is the same?

[RussianNeuroMancer]

why call it beta first when the final is the same?

Not the same. Look at this thread: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...-on-HP-Envy-15

[Kano]

Well a differnt control file does not mark a different driver, it was just recompiled with the wrong options.

[devguy]

Well I would like to add that full screen flash was garbled for me on 12.6 beta, but works fine on 12.6 final. It could have been a problem on my end, but changing the driver fixed it, so

[smitty3268]

why call it beta first when the final is the same?

It's funny, because most people have the opposite complaint. Why call something a beta if you change everything? That's what an alpha is for, they say.

You can't please everyone.

[TobiSGD]

It's funny, because most people have the opposite complaint. Why call something a beta if you change everything? That's what an alpha is for, they say.

You can't please everyone.

May be one shouldn't quote that out of context, so that it makes sense:

the reason was posted when the beta was out and they did NOTHING. why call it beta first when the final is the same?

Why call it beta if you don't fix the bugs? That's what a beta is for, they say.

[smitty3268]

May be one shouldn't quote that out of context, so that it makes sense:
Why call it beta if you don't fix the bugs? That's what a beta is for, they say.

I feel like i should be growing a goatee.

Seriously, though, I have never, ever, heard this complaint before that final releases should include more feature changes from betas. At least not that i can remember off the top of my head.

It's one thing to say that the final product sucks. Complaining about the release process not throwing in extra untested and possibly bug-producing changes at the last minute is a different argument.

[barkas]

I feel like i should be growing a goatee.

Seriously, though, I have never, ever, heard this complaint before that final releases should include more feature changes from betas. At least not that i can remember off the top of my head.

It's one thing to say that the final product sucks. Complaining about the release process not throwing in extra untested and possibly bug-producing changes at the last minute is a different argument.

The reason for a beta is to fix bugs that you did not find in closed testing. So if you don't, why have a beta at all.