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

[MoonMoon]

Multiplayer?

Looking at Ferals minisite, there is no information about multiplayer.
Will I (Linux) be able to play Dirt Rally with bots and friends (Windows)?

According to GamingOnLinux it will support cross-platform multiplayer.

[difron]

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

But people do try to avoid it. And it is natural for them to do so. Fglrx components never used separately. Amdgpu is used separately from amdgpu-pro. This is huge difference. And again you do not call Indy by his real name just because it is real.

[dungeon]

But people do try to avoid it. And it is natural for them to do so. Fglrx components never used separately. Amdgpu is used separately from amdgpu-pro.

Amdgpu is used by both, so they are both amdgpu. Only naming difference is that mesa driver name of opensource stack carry different name and that AMDGPU-PRO has name for the suite while opensource stack has NO-NAME.

Or if you think that NO-NAME suite has name please tell me, choose some random name of your choice

[mibo]

According to GamingOnLinux it will support cross-platform multiplayer.

Thank you.
This sounds very good.

[difron]

Well then will see if "amdgpu" will be accepted as name for userspace component of pro driver by community. Thank you anyway!

[dungeon]

Well then will see if "amdgpu" will be accepted as name for userspace component of pro driver by community. Thank you anyway!

Only that there is no what to be accepted there by community. These components are already named how they are named year or more ago.

Does AMD asked community back in 2014. how to name drivers? No. They just named them as they wish, so that is what it is.

[duby229]

Reading through this thread was painful. Dungeon, let me just remind you that AMDGPU-Pro's current GL driver is exactly the same one that was in Catalyst.... So while the dri driver is called amdgpu that cannot be the name of the GL driver and what is the name of the proprietary GL driver? Who cares! It's AMDGPU-Pro FFS!!

[dungeon]

Reading through this thread was painful.

Reading through your post was painful too

Dungeon, let me just remind you that AMDGPU-Pro's current GL driver is exactly the same one that was in Catalyst....

OK, i let you me to remind, so me reminded probably, somehow...

So while the dri driver is called amdgpu that cannot be the name of the GL driver and what is the name of the proprietary GL driver? Who cares! It's AMDGPU-Pro FFS!!

Me cares and me know you are one sided and don't cares

Let we rewind you that mesa drivers are exactly the same that was mesa drivers... not exactly the same but the same

And who cares of NO-NAME driver other than those who like NO-NAME drivers! It is still NO-NAME, even if you name it as you wish !!!

[duby229]

Reading through your post was painful too



OK, i let you me to remind, so me reminded probably, somehow...



Me cares and me know you are one sided and don't cares

So what is the name of AMD's proprietary GL driver then? We know what the dri driver is called, but what about the CL driver or the Vulkan driver? And -that's- the point. It doesn't matter because what they are called as a collective is AMDGPU-Pro.

It's different for the OSS stack because in that situation the the OSS stack includes the Kernel, libdrm, mesa, llvm, xorg-server, xf86-video-modesetting, libs3tc and probably more. So it's plainly obvious how a proprietary bundle deserves a single unified name and how an open source stack of components deserves individual names.

EDIT: Anyway, let's try to be correct, the OSS graphics driver stack comes preconfigured in a usable state on most desktop distro's. It's literally an out of box zero configuration setup. There is no need for an average joe to worry about it it anyways. unless he is doing package management. Which I highly recommend that people learn. It's worthwhile.

[dungeon]

So what is the name of AMD's proprietary GL driver then? We know what the dri driver is called, but what about the CL driver or the Vulkan driver? And -that's- the point. It doesn't matter because what they are called as a collective is AMDGPU-Pro.

It's different for the OSS stack...

It is not different for the OSS stack, AMDGPU-PRO driver components also runs on same OSS stack... MIT can be like this like that as you probably know, open or closed as you wish.

EDIT: Anyway, let's try to be correct, the OSS graphics driver stack comes preconfigured in a usable state on most desktop distro's. It's literally an out of box zero configuration setup. There is no need for an average joe to worry about it it anyways. unless he is doing package management. Which I highly recommend that people learn. It's worthwhile.

Why does that matter, it is the same thing... majority of average Joes won't do that, they wants just things perfect working for their apps like on any OS, that is all.

Regardless it is open today or tommorow not, just working or not Average Joe just wants support that is all, here for example if he wanna play this DiRT Rally but neither AMD drivers are supported Driver code is open so you think average Joe will fix that? He won't, that might again only do knowledgable developer.

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