Nice but i'd rather see the FOSS driver become CAD/workstation/whatever suitable. More payed devs hacking on it would be nicer.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Is Exploring A Very Interesting, More-Open Linux Driver Strategy
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostIt's not opening *your* source that lets you detect patent violations, it's opening the *other* guy's source, and we don't control that
Originally posted by bridgman View PostIIRC the Intel binary shader compiler module had already been abandoned by the time we re-started open source gfx driver work in 2007.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 89c51 View PostMore payed devs hacking on it would be nicer.
So, they haven't had a good reason to hire more people to work on these things.
If you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk, then, AMD would be selling more, and thus, be able to convince the "suits" that linux is a worthy target to be able to hire more people.
I know that AMD's current CPUs are way, way behind what intel offers, the same isn't true for their dedicated GPU cards. Those are usually feature and performance parity with Nvidia, yet, people rather use nvidia gear.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostI don't follow... Who is the other guy?
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostWas the reason for that stated as "it was reverse-engineered too much"?Test signature
Comment
-
Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View PostConvince Linus to require and demand a stable ABI/API for drivers.
Comment
-
A little late, maybe?
This would have been vaguely interesting five years ago, but frankly if you look at GL3.txt the Intel guys are a fair chunk of the way to OpenGL 4.2 already. Is this additional Catalyst work really worth the effort for a couple of year's stop-gap for Mesa to catch up?
Sure, AMD has customers who "need Catalyst" (Really? Says who? The same clueless people at AMD who thought that the FOSS driver had already reached OpenGL 4.3?), but those can equally well be considered "legacy driver" customers soon enough.
I see FOSS graphics being behind closed source as a temporary anomaly, mostly caused by the demise of SGI. In future, Mesa will not be implementing Khronos OpenGL specs - Khronos will be writing OpenGL specs based on prototype work in Mesa.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostCompetitors. Having a patent on something doesn't do any good if you can't detect when someone else uses it.
Originally posted by OneTimeShot View PostThis would have been vaguely interesting five years ago, but frankly if you look at GL3.txt the Intel guys are a fair chunk of the way to OpenGL 4.2 already. Is this additional Catalyst work really worth the effort for a couple of year's stop-gap for Mesa to catch up?
Sure, AMD has customers who "need Catalyst" (Really? Says who? The same clueless people at AMD who thought that the FOSS driver had already reached OpenGL 4.3?), but those can equally well be considered "legacy driver" customers soon enough.
I see FOSS graphics being behind closed source as a temporary anomaly, mostly caused by the demise of SGI. In future, Mesa will not be implementing Khronos OpenGL specs - Khronos will be writing OpenGL specs based on prototype work in Mesa.
But yea, the performance difference isn't that big, considering it's done without the secret sauce. And probably a lot of the latter is application-specific anyway. So this idea isn't quite as exciting as it would be if it was from NVIDIA.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OneTimeShot View PostSure, AMD has customers who "need Catalyst" (Really? Says who? The same clueless people at AMD who thought that the FOSS driver had already reached OpenGL 4.3?), but those can equally well be considered "legacy driver" customers soon enough.
I mostly sure this extremely large piece of AMD Linux drivers market.
Comment
Comment