Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will The Free Software Desktop Ever Make It?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    In all fairness it was the community that was asking for the specs and documentation and from there they said they would handle the rest.
    "The community" Ha! The most misused words when it comes to Linux. If some people claiming to speak for some community promised something to ATI/AMD and failed to deliver then ATI/AMD should take it up with these people. I myself have never promised anything to ATI/AMD and am of the opinion that it is the job of the hardware vendor to supply an adequate driver for said hardware. After all that's what I paid for when I bought my graphics card: the hardware and the driver.

    Comment


    • #62
      After all that's what I paid for when I bought my graphics card: the hardware and the driver.
      ++

      @pigufunkybeat

      I think you still don't get the essence of this discussion. The subject is why linux desktop is not mainstream. If you don't deal with this question and are happy with your half-supported box, then you shouldn't be discussing it.

      Originally posted by pigufunkybeat
      Nice troll.
      Hahaaaa Then everyone that makes sense is a troll huh?

      See, while companies like AMD and Intel fund a lot of OSS development (Kernel, Mesa, X, and others), Nvidia has never helped OSS in any significant way.
      That's why nvidia releases opensource drivers for their chipset drivers. See? Why opensource them? Isn't it a sin for nvidia? Definitely not.. Opensourcing a chipset driver is not risky, because the concept is standardized and the implementation is pretty much the same along all chips. But designing a groundbreaking gpu or writing OpenGL drivers that don't suck are a shitload of hard work to do. So why share this technology?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by glxextxexlg View Post
        ++

        @pigufunkybeat

        I think you still don't get the essence of this discussion. The subject is why linux desktop is not mainstream. If you don't deal with this question and are happy with your half-supported box, then you shouldn't be discussing it.



        Hahaaaa Then everyone that makes sense is a troll huh?



        That's why nvidia releases opensource drivers for their chipset drivers. See? Why opensource them? Isn't it a sin for nvidia? Definitely not.. Opensourcing a chipset driver is not risky, because the concept is standardized and the implementation is pretty much the same along all chips. But designing a groundbreaking gpu or writing OpenGL drivers that don't suck are a shitload of hard work to do. So why share this technology?
        As was stated by nvidia themselves, they don't release open source drivers for their video cards because they believe it to be too much work to weed out the IP, document everything, etc, as AMD have done. And for them, it might well be true - the cost/work ratio is probably not acceptable for nvidia, where as AMD can make it work.
        So what you're saying....doesn't make sense, sorry to say. If you're interested, go searching for an old phoronix article about an interview with nvidia.

        Comment


        • #64
          Remember forcedeth?

          Nvidia has a history of forcing binary drivers for the most trivial hardware.

          And your post was mostly FUD, sorry. Especially the part about Nvidia being much more advanced than ATi in terms of hardware. That's just nonsense, they are close to each other there, and ATi was ahead until very recently.

          I don't think that sabotaging Mesa, parts of the kernel and most of X.org (this is what Nvidia's drivers do) is the solution to perceived issues with Linux on the desktop. Nvidia's binary blob is OK, but it is also full of bugs, like other drivers -- drivers are difficult to write.

          Check for example the bug which broke KDE: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=251719

          There were many others, including the bug which broke vim.

          THAT won't save the Linux desktop.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by monraaf View Post
            After all that's what I paid for when I bought my graphics card: the hardware and the driver.
            I do agree with this for the most part.

            When I got my ATi card, I paid for the hardware, the OPEN SOURCE driver for my open source OS, and for the specs so I can use the hardware if I need to.

            ATi and Intel offer that, and they will be the vendors I consider in the future. Companies who demand that I inject 30 MBs of unknown code into my kernel before my card works will not have my support.

            Even if I get less FPSorz on my VorKraFt!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              ATi and Intel offer that, and they will be the vendors I consider in the future. Companies who demand that I inject 30 MBs of unknown code into my kernel before my card works will not have my support.

              Even if I get less FPSorz on my VorKraFt!
              So damn true.

              Comment


              • #67
                where as AMD can make it work.
                Make it work? or make it workaround to reduce development costs? Did amd make opensource drivers work? when? where? haha Do they support OpenGL 3.3/4.1? Do they support OpenGL ES and WebGL stuff? Do they accelerate HD video? Don't they suck like fglrx does? Just give me the name of your planet and I'll find speak with you face to face

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by glxextxexlg View Post
                  Did amd make opensource drivers work? when? where?
                  Yes, they did, and we've been using them for years, k thx.

                  Do they support OpenGL 3.3/4.1?
                  No. You know why?

                  Because major infrastructure was missing in Linux for this stuff. In the kernel, in Mesa, in X, and in other parts of the stack. Some of it (for OpenGL3+) is still missing, and being worked on.

                  Nvidia (and ATI binary drivers) avoid this by simply writing all this in closed source, giving you a replacement operating system.

                  What Intel and AMD are doing now is supporting the Open Source work to improve this. This is good, and it comes quite late, so there is lots of catching up to do.

                  What Nvidia is doing is jackshit.

                  If you buy from AMD or Intel, you directly support Linux. If you buy from Nvidia, you are effectively sabotaging it and replacing it with a half-closed system.

                  You decide what you do, I did already.

                  Do they support OpenGL ES and WebGL stuff?
                  I think so, at least some of it. It's probably not production-ready.

                  Do they accelerate HD video?
                  Not yet, but it's being worked on, by independent developers.

                  Don't they suck like fglrx does?
                  No.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    Can Nvidia drivers run vim yet? Last time I checked, it was b0rked
                    They have for eons.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Do they support OpenGL 3.3/4.1?
                      No. You know why?
                      Yes I do. because amd doesn't help brian paul and assist mesa developers implementing the GL 3x/4x stuff. Why don't they donate code to mesa like intel does? They have far more resources than intel has in this field. Is this helping OSS environment? You're terribly deceived mate.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X