Which one contributes more to open source? AMD or Intel?

[EarthMind]

Which one of both companies contribute the most to Linux open source projects, excluding their own driver support?

Browsing the net I've noticed that Intel is a big time supporter of Linux and open source and I've found nothing special about AMD except for their the development of their own drivers for Linux.

I'm planning to buy a new PC and was initially going for AMD + Nvidia (I've always been an AMD supported in the past as a Windows user) but since AMD doesn't seem to be very active (correct me if I'm wrong) in Linux desktop development, I may consider paying a bit more for Intel + Nvidia hardware.

I noticed that only Intel of the two actively develops the X project which is like the second important part of the Linux desktop so I may go choose for Intel instead depending on the feedback.

Thanks in advance

[deanjo]

Well I guess that depends on what you consider contributions. Amd contributes more back to GCC then intel (which is one of the reasons why GCC does a good job on AMD processors where intel favors it's own compilers) , intel seems to contribute back to X (almost to ruling it with an iron fist), AMD sponsors some distro's with build servers, mirror servers and such. AMD and Nvidia have contributed back to openCL, intel hasn't done alot in that area. I don't think you can draw a clear cut, who gives more as contributions come in many shapes and forms.

Lets not forget that by supporting the 10,000 ton gorilla instead of the smaller guy that needs that financial aid isn't going to help out their ability to contribute back either.

[EarthMind]

I knew the part about the GCC contributions but ignored it as it's yet another part where AMD just contributes to add support for their own hardware while Intel has their own compiler.

Thanks for the reply

[Zhick]

Lets not forget that by supporting the 10,000 ton gorilla instead of the smaller guy that needs that financial aid isn't going to help out their ability to contribute back either.

/signed
Currently I'd definitly go with an AMD-system, as AMD tries it's best to support FOSS, really needs the money and is finaly offering a competive platform again (at least on the desktop...).
It annoys me that the last time I got a new system (3 years or so ago) there was just no way to justify an AMD-system (the C2D raped the x2 5000+). I still wanted to get a x2 5000+ because my previous AMD-system had served me well and I really liked the company, but it wasn't available for 1-2 months. So I ended up with an E6600.
Now I a) lack the money and b) just don't have the need to get a new system. Maybe a notebook, but there AMD still lags behind Intel... well, maybe if there appear some cheap AMD-Yukon based subnotebooks.

I noticed that only Intel of the two actively develops the X project which is like the second important part of the Linux desktop so I may go choose for Intel instead depending on the feedback.

I think AMD employees two (or atleast one) radeon developer(s) and funds together with Novell a bunch of radeonhd-developers.

[deanjo]

I knew the part about the GCC contributions but ignored it as it's yet another part where AMD just contributes to add support for their own hardware while Intel has their own compiler.

Thanks for the reply

Sure, one could also say a vast majority of intels contributions have been focused on their hardware as well, (sometimes being left abandoned and unmaintained resulting in items like the recent kernel kills nic fiasco). They both are after all hardware companies. You also can see example's where software was going to be ported to linux but intel bought the tech and killed the dream. *cough*project offset *cough*.

[Sarvatt]

I pretty much only use amd based systems, but I've gotta say intel is the winner here in my eyes. They do an ENORMOUS amount of kernel development, even the ACPI system is managed by entirely by intel employees. Just about every major project I look up has intel employee contributions in the recent history. I have yet to see an amd contribution to the kernel but I haven't been following it more than 6 months and I don't use linux on my machine with an ATI card so I'm probably missing the development done there. Or maybe they don't sign everything with AMD/ATI when they submit stuff like every intel employee does

[monraaf]

I have yet to see an amd contribution to the kernel but I haven't been following it more than 6 months

Try grepping the kernel source for amd.com. I see contributions going back to 2001.

[Hephasteus]

AMD/ATI are all over OpenCL.

[Sarvatt]

Try grepping the kernel source for amd.com. I see contributions going back to 2001.

Good call, doing the same for intel.com shows just how huge the disparity is all of the amd ones are just to support their devices, but the intel ones touch alot of the core components to the kernel.

[monraaf]

Good call, doing the same for intel.com shows just how huge the disparity is all of the amd ones are just to support their devices, but the intel ones touch alot of the core components to the kernel.

You are right, it won't have any effect on my hardware purchase decisions though