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

[smitty3268]

Sorry about that, but that is not natural All logic in me tells me that i must call components by their names, so it is amdgpu because these are really named like that

No, you're just trolling.

There's no need to discuss the individual components at all, you're just doing that to try and confuse people and start arguments.

There's 1 driver, and it has a name. Talk about "components" is just a distraction.

[dungeon]

No, you're just trolling.

So for you trolling is when someone call things how they are named actually... first time i heard that this is trolling

There's no need to discuss the individual components at all, you're just doing that to try and confuse people and start arguments.

There's 1 driver, and it has a name. Talk about "components" is just a distraction.

OK, if "there's no need to discuss the individual components at all" then once people stop mentioning radeonsi dri driver i will stop mentioning amdgpu dri driver

People should know how thing are named and call things how these are named - that is my very simple and clear point. Opensource GCN stack radeon or amdgpu use radeonsi dri driver, while amdgpu-pro stack uses amdgpu dri driver... that is how things are named - no confusion.

[bridgman]

We can even say that AMDGPU-PRO is also OSS stack just currently some parts are closed OSS stack... even Bridgman play on that card whole time

Actually no - you are rearranging my words to give them a different meaning. I have never said that AMDGPU-PRO is an OSS stack, just that some parts of it are open today, other parts are being opened, and some parts (eg OpenGL) will never be opened.

[dungeon]

Actually no - you are rearranging my words to give them a different meaning. I have never said that AMDGPU-PRO is an OSS stack, just that some parts of it are open today, other parts are being opened, and some parts (eg OpenGL) will never be opened.

I am not rearranging your words, that is the same thing to me JB... as if you didn't say exactly when something will be opened, you didn't said anything exactly so we can only guess whatever that is why i mention "playing on a card" and not that you "speak", "tell" or "write" exactly something.

And never say never, that is not your style... say "maybe parts of it will be open somewhere in unpredictable future", that is practically same as Never but sounds better than Never

[bridgman]

It may be the same thing to you but it shouldn't be... saying "AMDGPU-PRO is also OSS stack" is completely different from what we have said.

If you say "AMDGPU-PRO is partially OSS" stack that would be fine.

[dungeon]

If you say "AMDGPU-PRO is partially OSS" stack that would be fine.

Well i can't say that , because if i really say that i must also say same way that "OSS stack is also partially closed"... so to me both are partially opposite. And i know further you won't agree that firmwares/microcodes are software but hardware... and we will go into circles again

Royal Flush in the Mirror

[bridgman]

If you start by calling it an OSS stack (your words not mine) then you're going to get stuck immediately.

Try saying "partially OSS stack is also partially closed" and I think you'll be OK

[dungeon]

If you start by calling it an OSS stack (your words not mine) then you're going to get stuck immediately.

Try saying "partially OSS stack is also partially closed" and I think you'll be OK

He, he, you can't be stuck there at all as these are all the same really, maybe only if someone ask we could say "yes, yes, that is OSS also... it is just that we need approval to release it as such".

It is really a mirror effect, where object X has a source and object Y does not have it... but both are really the same

[duby229]

He, he, you can't be stuck there at all as these are all the same really, maybe only if someone ask we could say "yes, yes, that is OSS also... it is just that we need approval to release it as such".

It is really a mirror effect, where object X has a source and object Y does not have it... but both are really the same

I'm so confused now. All this beating around the bush means that you think ideologically there is no real difference between AMDGPU-Pro and the OSS stack? I mean physically they share some parts of the same code, but other parts they don't share and yet they are no different because ideologically they are the same?

EDIT: I'm legitimately trying to understand your opinion, please in your best descriptive english enlighten me.

[bridgman]

I think he is saying "there is no such thing as closed source, only open source that hasn't been opened yet".

It's an interesting way of looking at things, and not necessarily wrong, but it sure does have the potential to confuse a lot of people.