Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2007 20:02 UTC, submitted by Michael
AMD "Last week we had published The Truth About ATI/AMD & Linux, and to no real surprise, the feedback ranged from beliefs that it was propaganda to others being grateful that AMD finally shared some additional information with their Linux customers about the fglrx development cycle. While the article was far from being propaganda, what had outraged a number of open-source developers were AMD's comments on the R200 support or there the lack of. In this article, we have a few additional comments to share along with what some open-source developers had to say about AMD's information."
Thread beginning with comment 246505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: no surprises
by codergeek42 on Sat 9th Jun 2007 05:11 UTC in reply to "no surprises"
Member since:

"[...] but because releasing source code gives away all the hardware details which is suicide in the market."

If this is truly and veritably the case with these drivers, then the drivers and hardware are flawed by design. The source code need only detail the *interface* to the card, not necessarily the _internals_ of it.

The commands that my OS of choice gives to the hardware, and how that hardware actually runs those commands are two totally separate things. (For example, my Linux kernel build is continually using x86_64 instructions to manipulate my Core2's hardware....but the Core2 chip itself actually compiles those instructions in microcode to a RISC-like set of operations which it then runs on the hardware.)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: no surprises
by leech on Sat 9th Jun 2007 13:31 in reply to "RE: no surprises"
leech Member since:

Exactly what I was thinking. Just like OpenGL is an API, it tells the video card what to do, and from there the video card processes it. Isn't that what the P word is for in GPU?

And damned if the video card manufacturers would have to actually compete on merits of better internal architecture on their cards rather than "my drivers are more stable than yours."

The world of software would simply be better if they could release the specifications. Imagine an open source driver for windows as well (personally I think ATI and nVidia's drivers kind of suck under it as well, damn Matrox for leaving the video card industry.)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: no surprises
by makc on Sat 9th Jun 2007 18:05 in reply to "RE: no surprises"
makc Member since:

> but the Core2 chip itself actually compiles those instructions in microcode to a RISC-like set of operations which it then runs on the hardware.

Which is a 'dirty' trick to maintain backwards compatibility, just it's quite fast as it's in hw.

Still, the same may happen with new DX10 compliant cards. The API between DX and drivers is precise and compelling. 'Public', somehow.
And it's not unreasonable that vendors might decide to implement it in hw, plus something else eventually.

Eventually the specs will open, driven by the emerging middleware for GPGPU market. Still this will happen, IMHO, after the yet-to-start-for-real market will have settled a bit - or to give an end to the battles.

Reply Parent Score: 3