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 246554
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: no surprises
by lazywally on Sat 9th Jun 2007 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: no surprises"
lazywally
Member since:
2005-07-06


* We don't want source code, we want specifications on how to interface to the device.


:-) We, on the other hand, want the companies to release drivers, even binary, of the same quality, with the same level of attention for our free platforms as they do with windows so our hardware work as well on Linux or BSD as they do on windows.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: no surprises
by bugnotme on Sat 9th Jun 2007 16:03 in reply to "RE[4]: no surprises"
bugnotme Member since:
2007-02-22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blobs#Reasons_against_using_bin...

If you want binary blobs you will forever be beholden to the manufacturer. You become helpless. Driver no longer compatible with newer kernel API? Doesn't support awesome new effects feature X? Has a bug? Has a security hole? Hardware is no longer supported by the manufacturer? Are these things going to be fixed? That is up to the manufacturer. If they decide it's not worth their while you are out of luck. These are not theoretical concerns. Every one of those examples occurs today.

Users say they 'just want it to work'. Well making things 'just work' is not magic. If a driver breaks in the ways above it is not 'just working'. You should think about how developers can deliver high quality drivers to you. It's absurd to say that this can be better achieved if only the manufacturer can write them. (Or at least if other developers are purposefully crippled in doing so.)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: no surprises
by lazywally on Sat 9th Jun 2007 19:17 in reply to "RE[5]: no surprises"
lazywally Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want binary blobs you will forever be beholden to the manufacturer.

True. Thats why I insist that the manufacturers

either -

provide high quality, well tested, well maintained, well supported, needfully updated binary drivers

or -

release open source drivers.

You become helpless.

I feel a bit helpless even while using F/OSS at times :-). When simple but annoying bugs don't fixed quickly, when fixing the bug myself is beyond my technical prowess, when things don't work and I cant find answers online, to name a few instances.

To stick to the topic, I use the omega drivers for ATI on windows. Though they are binary drivers, not once have I felt helpless because there haven't been any instances to cause me frustration. Maybe I'm lucky but if Linux binary drivers were of the same class, I would not feel helpless.

That is why my opinion is that either give us "good" drivers or open drivers.

It's absurd to say that this can be better achieved if only the manufacturer can write them.

It is indeed absurd to say that. I think its proper to say that getting manufacturer written driver is one way to get good drivers and releasing their source is another way. Both ways can deliver bad drivers too mind you.


I guess the question boils down to -

Do you want "Free" drivers regardless of quality or do you want good drivers regardless of license philosophy.

To demand open, free drivers for all hardware from all companies is in my opinion a bit arrogantly dogmatic.

Reply Parent Score: 3