Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 22:15 UTC, submitted by Kombatant
Permalink for comment 98472
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-26
The problem isn't ATI here, but Linux, GCC, and binary compatibility. It requires vendors like ATI to release new binaries (that need some tweaking) too often.
Last I looked we were on OSNEWS -- where Alternative OSes are the discussion topic of choice. Since hardware support is probably the primary issue that alternative OSes face - I would say that you appear to be trolling...
I'm not sure what you're proposing is the solution here. Is there some magical way that a hardware-interfacing driver is going to be magically cross-platform capable? I've heard of some ideas like this before, but they seem to have their limitations - and last I checked, no hardware manufacturers were interested in supporting them anyway.
But in any case: wouldn't something like this force all OSes to use the same driver model?
Wouldn't that hinder the ability for alternative OSes to make better use of resources and hardware and even exist for different architecture choices?