DiRT Rally On Linux To Support Mesa 13's RadeonSI Gallium3D

[dungeon]

In this thread first i dunno how i can confuse people by calling things by their actual names, it is radeonsi and amdgpu dri drivers really and anybody can check that... Someone should explain me that really because i don't get it, i think it is correct to name bridgman as bridgman and not bridgman as duby229, etc...

Also i don't see difference between stacks, they are both let say 99.99% the same (remaining 00.01% is just adoptation diff of one or another)... so one run radeonsi other run amdgpu dri drivers, but no i can't seems say even that because that seems confuse some people and why that i dunno as i use correct names there ... i think it is correct to call things how they are named as it is also incorrect to call bridgman as duby229 If bridgman wanna be dubby229 or opposite they should ask Michael to change their nicks i guess

That is further the same (and not mine) ilogical logic base on which theory i also have right to name everything as opensource and everything as closedsource on my wish, even when they are currently the opposite and the same

[duby229]

In this thread first i dunno how i can confuse people by calling things by their actual names, it is radeonsi and amdgpu dri drivers really and anybody can check that... Someone should explain me that really because i don't get it, i think it is correct to name bridgman as bridgman and not bridgman as duby229, etc...

Also i don't see difference between stacks, they are both let say 99.99% the same (remaining 00.01% is just adoptation diff of one or another)... so one run radeonsi other run amdgpu dri drivers, but no i can't seems say even that because that seems confuse some people and why that i dunno as i use correct names there ... i think it is correct to call things how they are named as it is also incorrect to call bridgman as duby229 If bridgman wanna be dubby229 or opposite they should ask Michael to change their nicks i guess

That is further the same (and not mine) ilogical logic base on which theory i also have right to name everything as opensource and everything as closedsource on my wish, even when they are currently the opposite and the same

I legitimately trying. But you still aren't making any sense.

For example it has already been explained to you by multiple people in this very thread how AMDGPU-Pro is the name for the proprietary drivers. Calling it anything less than that or naming it's components -is- actually wrong. While it is true that it -has- components that fact doesn't actually matter because they are in a proprietary bundle called AMDGPU-Pro.

[dungeon]

I legitimately trying. But you still aren't making any sense.

Hello bridgman, how is your's sense today

For example it has already been explained to you by multiple people in this very thread how AMDGPU-Pro is the name for the proprietary drivers.

Of course propertiary driver is named as AMDGPU-PRO, but we are talking about components of both that and another stacks.

Calling it anything less than that or naming it's components -is- actually wrong.

Well no, it is not wrong at all to name components how they are named . In opensource stack you have right to call dri driver as radensi because it is named like that, on the other side pro stack has amdgpu name there, so that dri driver also has total equal right like radeosi on the other side people to call it exactly how it is named - so amdgpu

How you have right to call something as radeonsi as it is named as radeonsi, but someone else does not have same right to call somethings as amdgpu as it is named like that?

I don't think i am the one who raise confusion, as i just name everything how it is named, bridgman is bridgman and duby229 is duby 229, but bridgman is not duby229 or the opposite. That is my logic and i am not sure of yours...

Also you can expect users will call things also how things are named... you won't need to tell them to call it as they wish or someone to go around users and to change their minds how something is incorrect to say even against the fact that is really named like that... that is crazy

While it is true that it -has- components that fact doesn't actually matter because they are in a proprietary bundle called AMDGPU-Pro.

Of course it matters, as once i or somebody install pro bundle he see that kernel module is amdgpu and dri module is amdgpu. So simple normal logic to me is what you see something is named is to calls it how it is named

So everything is fine, if you say "i use radeonsi" and someone else say "no, i use amdgpu" - these are different dri modules, so no confusion

[duby229]

Hello bridgman, how is your's sense today



Of course propertiary driver is named as AMDGPU-PRO, but we are talking about components of both that and another stacks.



Well no, it is not wrong at all to name components how they are named . In opensource stack you have right to call dri driver as radensi because it is named like that, on the other side pro stack has amdgpu name there, so that dri driver also has total equal right like radeosi on the other side people to call it exactly how it is named - so amdgpu

How you have right to call something as radeonsi as it is named as radeonsi, but someone else does not have same right to call somethings as amdgpu as it is named like that?

I don't think i am the one who raise confusion, as i just name everything how it is named, bridgman is bridgman and duby229 is duby 229, but bridgman is not duby229 or the opposite. That is my logic and i am not sure of yours...

Also you can expect users will call things also how things are named... you won't need to tell them to call it as they wish or someone to go around users and to change their minds how something is incorrect to say even against the fact that is really named like that... that is crazy



Of course it matters, as once i or somebody install pro bundle he see that kernel module is amdgpu and dri module is amdgpu. So simple normal logic to me is what you see something is named is to calls it how it is named

So everything is fine, if you say "i use radeonsi" and someone else say "no, i use amdgpu" - these are different dri modules, so no confusion

You'r wrong because it is confusing. Amdgpu is an open source kernel driver. Any and every component of AMDGPU-Pro including the modified amdgpu kernel driver and their proprietary GL driver are component's of that bundle package. So the GL driver should only be referred to as AMDGPU-Pro GL driver or AMDGPU-Pro Vulkan driver. And -that- is the reason they all have the same name is because it doesn't matter to them because they all have the same name.

[dungeon]

AMDGPU-PRO has amdgpu name everywhere in stack, total no confusion there So where is that confusion everybody talks about? It is right in the opensource stack with "traditional NO NAME, but we are just refering to it as random such... you name it " actually.

Meanwhile radeonsi could be used by radeon or amdgpu, now go and explain to some newbie how to not be confused ... Confusion just started now as you see, not to talk further about other mixages possible where only raising confusion is predictable... even you might write something for it or just build it and rename whole package stack by name of your opensource bundle name of choice in your 301's linux distro of choice - so be free and just do it, that way bundle will wear name of your choice

If you are confused there with possibilites of opensource to confuse people around and wanna other to confuse further, that's won't gonna happen with a help from my side - i just call things how they are named .

[duby229]

AMDGPU-PRO has amdgpu name everywhere in stack, total no confusion there So where is that confusion everybody talks about? It is right in the opensource stack with "traditional NO NAME, but we are just refering to it as random such... you name it " actually.

Meanwhile radeonsi could be used by radeon or amdgpu, now go and explain to some newbie how to not be confused ... Confusion just started now as you see, not to talk further about other mixages possible where only raising confusion is predictable... even you might write something for it or just build it and rename whole package stack by name of your opensource bundle name of choice in your 301's linux distro of choice - so be free and just do it, that way bundle will wear name of your choice

If you are confused there with possibilites of opensource to confuse people around and wanna other to confuse further, that's won't gonna happen with a help from my side - i just call things how they are named .

I think we'll all agree the interactions of the open source stacks components are complex enough to be confusing. However modern package management takes care of the details for users, so unless you are a package maintainer for a distro it isn't really that important. Of course it is very true that it's worth learning because if you want to run a bleeding edge open source graphics stack you need to have a functional understanding of package management.

[dungeon]

He, he, now we even have one more ignorant confusion spreader here. No one else but debianxfce and his frozen rolling release distro I think that something frozen can't roll, but for him it rolls actually even when it stops ,

That if it is not confusion it might be nothing but the joke But no it is not joke, one just need to compile kernel everyday from his everyday couple times posted links and every random issue will be fixed out there .