Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Name The Next ATI Driver Contest (2007)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael
    replied
    Direct new comments for this thread into this one: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6731

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Well then they should add at least one distribution with Xserver 1.4.x to the supported list to get rid of the errors soon. When nobody tests xserver 1.4 then this will not happen...

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian_L
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    The idea is to offer a choice of drivers -- a simple, stable open source driver which can be easily tweaked to work on the newest x & kernel releases (and which can serve as a development vehicle for them), plus a more feature-rich, performance-optimized proprietary driver which will be tested and supported on specific distros.
    So we will have the choice between one driver that does not fully work, because it's missing the advanced stuff (likely because of unreleased specifications), and another one that does not fully work, because it does not support the latest distros/new kernels/xorg etc.? Sounds awesome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
    maybe you do. it would be nice to say up front which distributions are going to have official support.
    SuSE and Red Hat are their "officially supported" distributions, all other support and testing comes via the community.

    Leave a comment:


  • yoshi314
    replied
    maybe you do. it would be nice to say up front which distributions are going to have official support.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
    does it mean you're planning to make new fglrx/catalyst driver on top of radeonhd codebase, when it matures? (not sure if the license allows that).
    The idea is to offer a choice of drivers -- a simple, stable open source driver which can be easily tweaked to work on the newest x & kernel releases (and which can serve as a development vehicle for them), plus a more feature-rich, performance-optimized proprietary driver which will be tested and supported on specific distros.

    We probably need another Phoronix article to make the whole story clear.

    Leave a comment:


  • yoshi314
    replied
    does it mean you're planning to make new fglrx/catalyst driver on top of radeonhd codebase, when it matures? (not sure if the license allows that).

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
    I'd rather see ati release a basic but _stable_ 2d-only driver, and slowly expand it, month by month. but keeping it stable (and compatible with new x.org/kernel) in the first place. but that's not the way proprietary development is done - customers are just less forgiving in this case :]
    Bingo... but we're doing *that* with the open source driver efforts. The opne source driver can be kept compatible with new x/kernel development, partly because it will be smaller and simpler, and partly because it will be open source so problems can be investigated quickly and easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • yoshi314
    replied
    i'd rather have ati devs follow more opensource-like model in their development (ground-up like work). fglrx/catalyst is totally ridden with bugs.

    i'd rather see ati release a basic but _stable_ 2d-only driver, and slowly expand it, month by month. but keeping it stable (and compatible with new x.org/kernel) in the first place. but that's not the way proprietary development is done - customers are just less forgiving in this case :]

    i really don't believe we'll ever see a stable and relatively bug-free fglrx/catalyst-or-whatever-the-new-name-is driver the way the development is being done now. it just seems like there is way too much bugs to fix everywhere in the driver. that's why i gave up on the driver - i just can't see it getting stable. ever.

    i'd rather use less functional but more stable opensource solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus
    replied
    I think pretty much ATI is being fucked here, we (as linux users) have put grip on them; and the market too, so some time-handling problems again because of us.
    We are making them to deliver us good stuff in minimum time, but they are acting with too much haste. Take a look at nVidia, got nearly more market than ATI, has a stable "binary, proprietary" driver and time 2 time changing one byte of code, releasing as a major release, sitting calm on a sofa, and not giving a bit of their GPU specification 2 us, and most of us think they're doing better that ATI!

    But it IS the opposite, there is much progress in ATI, but since this progress is with too much haste, their work is all fucked up.
    Most of us are willing to get binary drivers every 4 months instead of 1 month, but have it with major progresses and no bugs. This is better, both for us, and for ATI, since they can do their whatever works, with less haste and more accuracy -> which leads to our happiness, and to their more successive future.

    But I said major progress, not changing release number and say: "Hey everybody: We changed our release number system and we have released a driver with one buggy thing fixed up and having more buggy parts involved"

    This could be the way they should have acted till now, but Since they have released some of their specifications, the only thing which can please us to appreciate them, is only releasing all the specification ASAP...

    I hope someone from ATI would read these stuff i wrote here
    Last edited by klaus; 11-23-2007, 04:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X