Reasons For Losing Motivation In Wayland

[duby229]

Of course they got your money, you have actually bought a piece of hardware.

On the numbers, I doubt that the revenue they make from people that want to use radeon only would be enough to hire only one developer to work on the FOSS drivers, but IIRC AMD has five. But anyways, since my laptop is unusable without Catalyst I don't think that its development was a waste of time.

Even if it is only 1% market share, which I don't believe at all, thats still millions of people..... You can't invent crap that throws that away. AMD gets their money from linux users. It may be a minority but it's still millions of dollars. They can afford to pay an elite team of dozens of specialists if they wanted to.

[Vim_User]

I'd consider it the other way around. I don't use the proprietary driver at all, but AMD still got my money.

Of course they got your money, you have actually bought a piece of hardware.

On the numbers, I doubt that the revenue they make from people that want to use radeon only would be enough to hire only one developer to work on the FOSS drivers, but IIRC AMD has five. But anyways, since my laptop is unusable without Catalyst I don't think that its development was a waste of time.

[duby229]

Funny, since AMD actually pays developers to work on the FOSS drivers all the AMD customers that are buying AMD cards to use them on Windows or with Catalyst on Linux are actually subsidizing FOSS driver development.

I'd consider it the other way around. I don't use the proprietary driver at all, but AMD still got my money. As a proportion of the market though I'd consider AMDs development costs on the OSS driver more than fair. It was porting Catalyst to linux that was the complete waste of time, money and effort.

EDIT: Also to inteIIivision, archibaId There really is no need for such blatant trolling. Come on.

[Vim_User]

Right now a Radeon-Driver user is subsidizing you by buying amd hardware comparet to ARM hardware for example.

Funny, since AMD actually pays developers to work on the FOSS drivers all the AMD customers that are buying AMD cards to use them on Windows or with Catalyst on Linux are actually subsidizing FOSS driver development.

[Vim_User]

Catalyst (Closed-Source) fanboys are irrational and this can be proved by simple facts:

Catalyst is a codeline- "Monster" means : ~50 million lines of code.
This means very expensiv to develop the driver and very expensiv to support the code.

This means amd should payback radeon opensource driver users money only because:

Radeon driver is very smal: 1 million line of code
This means very cheap to develop the driver and very cheap to support the code.

But the market is irrational and the opensource driver users don't get the money back.

In a strinkt rational way of thinking its not worth it to code an extra round of 49million lines of code to be 20-30% faster or to support directX instead of openGL only.

IF the market would be fair and rational the catalyst fanboys would lost a lot of money because the opensource driver customers would get 30-40% cheaper hardware and a doubled support time.

The Catalyst fanboys are only lucky because of the market distortion because of the duopool in the graphic card market.

Example if Lonngson releases a openGL+OpenCL and Open-Source only PCIe card and all opensource users would buy this stuff the catalyst fanboys would be fucket because right now the opensource customers subsidize the catalyst people with every hardware they buy.

So because I have to use Catalyst because radeon is unusable (overheating the hardware means reduced lifetime, after all) I am a fanboy? Yeah, right.
I would be more than happy to use radeon on my laptop, since AMD decided that my hardware is supported good enough by the radeon driver to stop support from Catalyst (and the legacy driver sucks with non-existent support for anything in the software stack that is newer than a year). But I can't and I complained about that more than once, directly to bridgman. So I still have no UVD (bridgman says that they work on it, my chip is not supported by the latest UVD release), power-management does not work correctly (bridgman says it is in legal review, so probably we will never see it), which forces me to use Catalyst. Yeah, fanboy. As soon as these issues are solved I will switch to radeon, you can bet on that. In the meantime I will use Catalyst, regardless what FOSS zealots think about it. Unless someone sponsors a new laptop with Intel hardware, where problems like that don't exist.
By the way, are there really Longsoon video cards, I thought they have to buy them from AMD?

[necro-lover]

Catalyst fanboys are irrational

Catalyst (Closed-Source) fanboys are irrational and this can be proved by simple facts:

Catalyst is a codeline- "Monster" means : ~50 million lines of code.
This means very expensiv to develop the driver and very expensiv to support the code.

This means amd should payback radeon opensource driver users money only because:

Radeon driver is very smal: 1 million line of code
This means very cheap to develop the driver and very cheap to support the code.

But the market is irrational and the opensource driver users don't get the money back.

In a strinkt rational way of thinking its not worth it to code an extra round of 49million lines of code to be 20-30% faster or to support directX instead of openGL only.

IF the market would be fair and rational the catalyst fanboys would lost a lot of money because the opensource driver customers would get 30-40% cheaper hardware and a doubled support time.

The Catalyst fanboys are only lucky because of the market distortion because of the duopool in the graphic card market.

Example if Lonngson releases a openGL+OpenCL and Open-Source only PCIe card and all opensource users would buy this stuff the catalyst fanboys would be fucket because right now the opensource customers subsidize the catalyst people with every hardware they buy.

[jrch2k8]

That's not exactly surprising - there's very little to Wayland, nearly all of the functionality is provided by third party projects and libraries.


Good luck with that. PulseAudio is at what, 4.0 now? Still a pain, still randomly gobbles up excessive amounts of RAM and CPU, still gets wedged in weird states where audio doesn't work properly or at all. Everyone seems to have just moved on to the next big thing. I'm tempted to abandon it altogether at times, even though it has much more functionality than pure Alsa.

if i were i would ask for help in pulseaudio IRC to debug the hell out of that PC cuz i have a ton of PC from old Core2 to Vischera and is extremely weird any sort of fail or high load since pulseaudio 2.0 if i remember right.

so either you have crappy hardware or you hit a nasty bug along the stack [if you are one of those poor miserables that got tricked with an Creative Xfi/titanium card that is the problem mate, buy Asus Xonar from now on or use the integrated card].

another tip, try other distro if you use ubuntu and confirm it persist[could be a live CD], since ubuntu have the bad manner of include out-of-tree drivers that are out-of-tree for a good reason and it can play hell with your system, as it happened to me with several wifi cards/webcams/audio cards in the past[i use gentoo now]

another tip, check you jack server integration if you use RT audio, sometimes gets annoying with certain hardware[Xfi & old pci cards]

my point get help or try to figure out the issue before rage posts crap that only happen to some ppl including you, you are in the 1% of pulse users side not in the 99%.

[duby229]

These very forums are full of people who are in denial of reality even if every single of Michael's benchmarks shows them that the oss driver is not yet en par with the proprietary one.



Are you just lurking on the forums or do you actually read Michael's articles? Show me the articles where the oss driver has better performance, better power management or just better opengl/opencl support. In very few benchmarks the open source might perform better than the proprietary one. In most of the benchmarks however it performs worse.

Our definition of "better" must be different. Mine at least includes "working".

[GreatEmerald]

Wow, again, both sides of the OSS/proprietary argument seem to be out of it... I have two very different systems with AMD hardware: a desktop and a netbook (r700 and Evergreen). And neither of the two options are quite as they were described. Catalyst does improve heat and energy consumption, yes, although the difference is not as pronounced when on the low radeon profile. And its performance is better than that of radeon. But Catalyst has integration issues, like a slow release cycle and sleep/hibernation issues. Both Catalyst and radeon are solid (Catalyst used to crash in the past, but not any more). And radeon, while its performance is not as good as Catalyst's, it comes so close that the difference is hardly notable these days. Which means that I use radeon on the desktop and Catalyst on the netbook (for now, until the power code comes out for radeon, and then I'll switch back to radeon for no more sleep issues).

So they're different, and both have their ups and downs. Both have their use cases. General rule of thumb would be to use radeon if sufficient, and use Catalyst if those extra features are really necessary.

[Temar]

YOUR reality does NOT interest me!

I am denying any criticism, I am denying your blatant claims.

For disrespecting very spirit of opensource - the core spirit of Linux - and harrasing its users - people should be punished, yes.

Thanks! This speaks for itself.