Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Feb 2006 22:15 UTC, submitted by Kombatant
3D News, GL, DirectX "ATI's R5xx line was first released back in October 2005. The initial launch covered the X1800 and X1300 series, with the X1600 series following suit in November. Last month we saw the release of the new X1900 series too. Now, let me count the months from October to February; it is 5 months, right? Well, believe it or not, that's the number of months the new X1000 series is out in the market without Linux support. If you are unfortunate enough to own such a card, all you have is Matthew Tippett's statement in Phoronix."
Thread beginning with comment 98472
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Binary compatibility
by umccullough on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 02:27 UTC in reply to "Binary compatibility"
umccullough
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?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Binary compatibility
by flav2000 on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 02:36 in reply to "RE: Binary compatibility"
flav2000 Member since:
2006-02-08

[i]But in any case: wouldn't something like this force all OSes to use the same driver model? [/I}

Yeah. I agree. I don't think cross platform driver would work at all. The architecture between X and the Windows driver model is so different.

Besides, having DirectX on Linux or BSD? /*shudder*/

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Binary compatibility
by rm6990 on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 07:31 in reply to "RE: Binary compatibility"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

I think you need to re-read his comment. He means that Nvidia's drivers from a year ago won't work on a modern kernel. That is pathetic. The Nvidia driver from '03 works on WinXP with the latest patches from '06. Yet the Linux developers insist on constantly breaking binary compatability. Not only does it piss off companies like Nvidia and ATI, it pisses off users like myself as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by Lobotomik on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 09:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

It doesn't seem to piss off Intel; their drivers are fully open, and are included with X, so you get the latest version every time you update your distribution.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by Ookaze on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 11:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

He means that Nvidia's drivers from a year ago won't work on a modern kernel. That is pathetic

I agree. It's pathetic that you would need a NVidia driver from one year ago, especially since they were buggy like hell.
It's pathetic that you would need a so old component, while the kernel is going forward.

The Nvidia driver from '03 works on WinXP with the latest patches from '06

Will it work with 64 bit WinXP ? Or with Vista ? Or with Win98 ?
Try comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges. The Linux kernel supports SMP, x86, x86-64, ppc, ... so a driver for Linux is already far more than what you have on Windows. You need at least different drivers on Windows for 64 bit for example. Also, drivers in Windows often are one archive of files containing drivers for all Windows versions. See ? The picture in Windows is far worse than what you describe, especially when compared to Linux
Especially given the fact that only binary drivers have problems with Linux going forward.
Even worse, is what you imply : that Linux development should depend on NVidia !!! Or that NVidia not supporting its older drivers (if it means anything) is Linux's fault. And even worse, that you would need old NVidia drivers because NVidia no longer supports your card with their newer drivers is Linux fault. All of this is BS, most are not even facts.

Yet the Linux developers insist on constantly breaking binary compatability. Not only does it piss off companies like Nvidia and ATI, it pisses off users like myself as well

BS. Linux developers insist on going forward, and you astroturfer would like to stop them. Sorry to trell you that newer Linux kernel bring so much good improvements, that I never feel like you do, and it never pissed me off. Having a choice between going with the newer kernel or NVidia compatibility, I'd go Linux without a thought (already happened).

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by vegburner on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 11:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
vegburner Member since:
2006-01-10

"Yet the Linux developers insist on constantly breaking binary compatability. Not only does it piss off companies like Nvidia and ATI, it pisses off users like myself as well."

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

'nuff said.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by rx182 on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 13:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08

I think you need to re-read his comment. He means that Nvidia's drivers from a year ago won't work on a modern kernel. That is pathetic. The Nvidia driver from '03 works on WinXP with the latest patches from '06. Yet the Linux developers insist on constantly breaking binary compatability. Not only does it piss off companies like Nvidia and ATI, it pisses off users like myself as well.

That's exactly what I meant. Thank you ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by umccullough on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 17:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The Nvidia driver from '03 works on WinXP with the latest patches from '06.

Well, gee... Considering Windows XP debuted in 2001, that's hardly a surprise...

I'm sure if you stuck to the same linux kernel for 5 years, you would still be able to use drivers that were created during those 5 years...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Binary compatibility
by rx182 on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 12:43 in reply to "RE: Binary compatibility"
rx182 Member since:
2005-07-08

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?


Well first, I think people like you are lame. I just made a point, I wasn't trolling. Unless trolling means something wrong about Linux, GCC...

Second, you look like a bit ignorant on the subject. I never said we need cross platform compatibility. I'm talking about kernel and gcc revisions requiring people to rebuild their stuff against them too often.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by Ookaze on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 14:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

I'm talking about kernel and gcc revisions requiring people to rebuild their stuff against them too often

That's BS.
New GCC never require you to rebuild anything against it (except sometimes, not always, for C++ between major revisions), and new kernel only need that you recompile external drivers for it.
You're not even required to recompile external drivers if you don't fear for stability of your system, but it won't work every time.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Binary compatibility
by umccullough on Thu 23rd Feb 2006 17:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Binary compatibility"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Second, you look like a bit ignorant on the subject. I never said we need cross platform compatibility. I'm talking about kernel and gcc revisions requiring people to rebuild their stuff against them too often.

You're right, I am a bit ignorant on the subject. For that, I apologize (and I'm sorry I called you a troll)

I suppose I am part of the "open your specs please" crowd. I somewhat despise Linux, but I love alternative OSes (like Haiku, SkyOS, etc.)...

I personally don't see how a binary linux driver helps any of these other OSes at all, so therefore I didn't see how a complaint about binary-compatibility on Linux was going to help any of my causes whatsoever.

In any case, I guess it is definitely unfortunate that changes to GCC and Linux have caused older drivers to be useless - but this same thing can happen with any OS just as easily - so having hardware manufacturers produce all the software for their hardware seems ridiculous to me.

I do not expect ATI/nVidia to open their specs, but I would love to see them do it as many of the others here have stated. I actually would jump at the opportunity to buy an open-spec 3d card similar to what the Open Graphics Project is proposing... I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, my integrated Intel graphics will probably suffice as I won't be playing any newer hard-core 3d games anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 1