Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th May 2006 17:01 UTC, submitted by Phoronix
3D News, GL, DirectX "We have been overwhelmed with requests to take a serious look at the frame-rate performance differences between the various open-source and proprietary contenders. Our first article on this topic, which will likely be the first of a series of examinations, is looking at the differences between the X.Org open-source ATI Radeon driver and that of ATI's official but proprietary fglrx display driver."
Thread beginning with comment 121845
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Maybe it is "patently false" that open source will deliver better drivers.

However, as a Linux/powerpc user I am glad that open source programmers put time and effort in making an open source R300 driver so I can use the graphics card in my laptop. I'm sure that ATI can make a better driver than the current open source driver on Linux/powerpc, but they won't. They do not support my platform of choice. With closed source drivers you are locked in into the platforms that the hardware company wishes to support with the amount of time and energy they wish to put into it and for the time they consider the life-time of the product.

I don't know whether Andrew Morton or Linus Torvalds or Greg KH understand graphics processors, but it seems you know them better than me. However, I can tell you that there are more people working on open source than just them. And a lot of those people do know about graphics processors.

Opening up the datasheets does mean a lot. It opens the possibility for writing an open source driver without the need for reverse engineering. Since the driver this article refers to is built from those datasheets, I think this should be clear. Yes, it gives lower performance, but it is a fully working driver. The article is also very very short. Other things which might be important is for example whether suspend-to-ram or suspend-to-disk is supported in the open source and in the closed source driver. (I can attest it is supported in the open source driver) The other thing is for example the support of certain resolution, or the stability of the driver, and so on.

I take it from what other people said that the Sound Blaster Audigy drivers on linux were not built from the data sheets and that the alsa developers do not have access to the data sheets.

Your comment about "NON PRACTICING PROGRAMMERS" is definitely not correct for RMS, aka Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman still works on GNU Emacs and not only making decisions about what can go in or not, but also in writing code. I don't know about the others.

If you want people to consider your opinion about the fact that you believe that open source drivers can never get the same quality than closed-source drivers, then at least start with getting your facts straight.

Reply Parent Score: 5