It's also odd that there are two drivers. There should be only one.
Not that the card itself is bad, for a 70 dollar card (HD4650). it runs rings around any NVidia at a similar price point. It runs cool, and the power draw is low. But none of that matters if the drivers don't work, and fglrx just doesn't.
I'm back with NVidia. Maybe I'll pull the ATI out of the closet at some point, when ATI puts out a few stable fglrx releases in a row, but who knows how far ahead NV will be at that point.
I wouldn't expect Mesa to pick GLSL support now that Gallium has been merged, the question was more in the spirit of "when will we have a prototype to test?" (AKA "are we there yet?") Annoying, I know, but this stuff will really make the FOSS drivers viable for all but the most specialiazed workstation users (so thanks for your work!)
A common OpenGL state tracker and GLSL compiler for all FOSS drivers - now that's something to look forward to.
...and sorry for derailing the thread.
I think it is good that they seem to take radeonhd and not radeon, not only because of the audio over hdmi support.
I'm running Arch64 and have an AMD 4850 - at the time I bought it the AMD/ATI drivers sucked less than the Nvidia ones. However, today Nvidia's GT200's are very tempting...
Well, the news were well laid out by phoronix, is true I started ranting about the quality of this drivers. Since I can, because I own an nvidia and an ati card. In both machines I use Linux, and have never had trouble with nvidia, on the contrary with ati, even if the driver has become better, it is still too buggy. But, the things that were omitted were when I said, I do cared about the drivers:
PS: I do use this drivers, so I do care about them, but this is a choice that had to be made.
My reason for it to go to community is so a TU can dedicate attention to it, Andreas does not want to waste time on fixing this drivers as theyare of no particular interest to him.
Here, the symlinking problem was the only thing still bugging me.Quote:
OK, I'm in a bit of a puzzle right now. As I have just installed the 9.2 catalyst in arch64 and tested them all running fine.
After thinking it all over, I don't want Arch users to feel
uncomfortable or affected by our decisions on this, I am all in for lets make things work so the user benefit at the end. So I am up for
reconsideration of this.
You see, I have tried, but in the end there is nothing I could do, but to start all over again and thing, this should be removed from the official repositories.Quote:
Yeah, I tried to find a solution of how to work this out and keep catalyst at least in community, but it seems, ATI/AMD just aren't doing a thing to improve the situation. Yet, this package is so important for some users of Arch Linux that a TU should be the one in charge of them.
Eduardo "kensai" Romero
What Arch is doing is not that spectacular, see Fedora, etc. refusing to let the driver settle in their repositories. The driver was always available by 3rd-party-repositories or other sources, now Arch created the same situation.
Unfortunately the proprietary driver is not good for everybody, but its stand is still better then years ago, he's made for people buying Linux-Notebooks from Dell or users using a FireGL/Pro. Fedora/Arch/Gentoo are often too bleeding edge for this driver.
Besides, there's a limit to the level of arrogance I can tolerate from people, if you see what I mean ...