"Radeon Settings" GUI Control Panel May Be Open-Sourced For AMD Linux Users

[bridgman]

The discussion here wasn't about "making a better control panel" it was about just open-sourcing the windows code. Additional work would be required to make it actually function on Linux.

The question under discussion here is only whether we should have automatically taken dev time away from other projects to open source the Windows code "just because" without having plan or people to do the rest of the work vs doing what the article says and trying to put together a plan to deliver something integrated and at least basically working with the Linux driver.

[duby229]

The discussion here wasn't about "making a better control panel" it was about just open-sourcing the windows code. Additional work would be required to make it actually function on Linux.

The question under discussion here is only whether we should have automatically taken dev time away from other projects to open source the Windows code "just because" without having plan or people to do the rest of the work vs doing what the article says and trying to put together a plan to deliver something integrated and at least basically working with the Linux driver.

I'm pretty sure you are avoiding the point.

I don't really understand the question. The same people do the extra work related to preparation for open sourcing no matter which OS the work is being done for. If there is no market need and no perceived market benefit why not spend the effort on something that the customers *do* want ?

The context clearly informs the reader that you believe your customers don't want an open source control panel. I mean you can read you own words. But the real truth is there has been at least dozens of threads on this forum alone demanding one. It's true nobody wants CCC, the peice of junk needs to get tossed into a proverbial "lake of fire". But that doesn't mean that there isn't an immediate extreme need for one. Hell, there has been an extreme need for one for many years now. That -is- something that many people absolutely do want.

[bridgman]

I'm pretty sure you are avoiding the point.

Actually no, I'm trying to focus on the point rather than jumping around and taking previous comments out of context.

The context clearly informs the reader that you believe your customers don't want an open source control panel. I mean you can read you own words. But the real truth is there has been at least dozens of threads on this forum alone demanding one. It's true nobody wants CCC, the peice of junk needs to get tossed into a proverbial "lake of fire". But that doesn't mean that there isn't an immediate extreme need for one. Hell, there has been an extreme need for one for many years now. That -is- something that many people absolutely do want.

Please find one post of mine that disagrees with having a Linux control panel, other than reminding folks of the "part of the DE vs common-across-DE" arguments that come up every time control panels are discussed.

My only disagreement was with andy_skoa's comments that "the Windows developers should have open-sourced it automatically because that would have been zero effort", which IMO is simply not true.

[duby229]

Actually no, I'm trying to focus on the point rather than jumping around and taking previous comments out of context.



Please find one post of mine that disagrees with having a Linux control panel, other than reminding folks of the "part of the DE vs common-across-DE" arguments that come up every time control panels are discussed. My only disagreement was with andy_skoa's comments that "the Windows developers should have open-sourced it automatically because that would have been zero effort", which IMO is simply not true.

But that's not what he said or implied. -ANY- open source control panel will do. It could have and should have been the one that you already developed. What's more redundant? AMD overhauled it's open source policies several times since 2007, the fact that we are having this conversation in 2016 is exactly the problem.

It's not just any control panel we are asking for, it's an open source control panel.

[bridgman]

But that's not what he said or implied. -ANY- open source control panel will do. It could have and should have been the one that you already developed. What's more redundant?

Just so we are on the same page, when you say "should have been the one that you already developed" are you talking about Radeon Settings (the new Windows CP) or the fglrx LCCC ? I assumed you meant Radeon Settings but just checking.

It's not just any control panel we are asking for, it's an open source control panel.

You're asking for more than that aren't you - an open source control panel that works with the Linux driver (which implies building a lot of plumbing into the Linux stack as well as having a control panel to interact with it) ? The discussion you jumped into was about open sourcing the Windows control panel, and specifically about the claim that open sourcing it would have been zero additional effort if planned from the start.

Please don't try to twist that into something totally different.

-------------------------------------

EDIT - it just occurred to me that maybe you meant "we want the control panel we use on Windows to be open source" - did you ? Seems unlikely but that seems to fit better with your other statements.

[Kano]

In this case Nvidia was way faster, nvidia-settings is opensource for ages. But I never saw any customized version in the wild. Maybe useful for some devs to configure Nvidia specific options inside a game. I doubt that anybody has interest to optimize a control panel for AMDGPU-PRO but opensource is certainly the best way to go.

[duby229]

Just so we are on the same page, when you say "should have been the one that you already developed" are you talking about Radeon Settings (the new Windows CP) or the fglrx LCCC ? I assumed you meant Radeon Settings but just checking.



You're asking for more than that aren't you - an open source control panel that works with the Linux driver (which implies building a lot of plumbing into the Linux stack as well as having a control panel to interact with it) ? The discussion you jumped into was about open sourcing the Windows control panel, and specifically about the claim that open sourcing it would have been zero additional effort if planned from the start.

Please don't try to twist that into something totally different.

-------------------------------------

EDIT - it just occurred to me that maybe you meant "we want the control panel we use on Windows to be open source" - did you ? Seems unlikely but that seems to fit better with your other statements.

No, i meant exactly what I said. The only person in this thread trying to make it about open sourcing a proprietary control panel is you. Not a single one of us said anything even remotely like that. I understand you may want this conversation to be about that, at least then you can say no, but it never was. It's been at least 9 years. 9. In all these years you seem to suggest that you never once heard anyone demand an open source control panel or that you never had an opportunity to work on one? Please.

What has been obviously stated is that if Radeon Settings had been OSS from the very beginning it would have been exactly equivalent to "problem solved". That didn't happen, so now in order to reach "problem solved" you need to start all over, again.

[bridgman]

No, i meant exactly what I said. The only person in this thread trying to make it about open sourcing a proprietary control panel is you. Not a single one of us said anything even remotely like that. I understand you may want this conversation to be about that, at least then you can say no, but it never was. It's been at least 9 years. 9.

I went back and read andy_skoa's posts again (see below) but I still don't see how to interpret them as being about anything other than open sourcing the proprietary Windows control panel, and despite what you seem to believe I was responding to those comments and nothing more. Do you think I am misinterpreting what andy_skoa wrote somehow ?

Why would they release the control panel as closed source in the first place?

Apparently there is now extra effort necessary to make something open that the Windows developers created.
If it had been open in the first place, that extra effort would not have been necessary.

Of course open sourcing something after it has been written is a extra effort.
Comments, commit logs, etc. need to be reviewed, code might have to be rewritten to remove hacks, etc.

The missed opportunity, which would have avoided the extra effort, would have been to develop it like that in the first place.

With a bit of forward thinking management could have arrived at the conclusion that the tool might not only be of interest to the customers using Windows but also to customers using Linux or macOS. At which point they could have determined that the company's resources would not be sufficient to port the code and require community help, for which they would need access to the source code.

[duby229]

I went back and read andy_skoa's posts again (see below) but I still don't see how to interpret them as being about anything other than open sourcing the proprietary Windows control panel, and despite what you seem to believe I was responding to those comments and nothing more. Do you think I am misinterpreting what andy_skoa wrote somehow ?

Yes, I do, he even said as much himself.

[bridgman]

Yes, I do, he even said as much himself.

Can you point me to where he said that ? I went through the posts yet again and I still don't see anything other than "they should have open sourced the Windows control panel because it would have been zero extra effort and it could have been useful for Linux".

Once we established that andy_skoa was only looking at part of the effort involved with open sourcing (which invalidated the "zero extra effort" part of the argument) you started posting and took the discussion in a different direction. Can you please go back and re-read the thread one more time ?

We may just have to "agree to disagree" on this one.