View Poll Results: Would you switch to AMD, if AMD implements full opensource OpenGL3.2+ stack?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I will.

    65 82.28%
  • No, I stay Nvidia and enjoy binary blobs.

    9 11.39%
  • I dont know.

    5 6.33%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Nvidia deside to abadon opensource, I deside to abadon Nvidia.

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Accelerating horse is much better than a pony
    But! But! Ponies are cute! :/

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Gallium3d is developed by Tungsten Graphics, now VMWare.
    The core is although afaik patches are welcome.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    997

    Default

    It's not fair to insinuate that Nvidia users or Linux users who (eventually) opt for Nvidia cards don't support open source!

    Newsflash: video cards and their manufacturers are PRODUCED with Mikeysoft Windows in mind. BOTH AMD AND NVIDIA have their cards made and produced in great numbers for the Windows marketplace. Drivers for video cards are available for both Windows and Linux but it's the Windows drivers that get priority whether we/you like it or not. That is an unfortunate reality. So, with Nvidia cards, they might use Windows drivers and reverse engineer the binary blob for Linux use but in doing that, the strange reality is less issues than ATI. At least, so far. If you want a truly open source option, you need either A) convince AMD or Nvidia to really invest in open source more than they do which is unlikely to happen any time soon or B) an equally unlikely scenario of having 'Linux ppl' able to produce video hardware. I doubt that will be happening any time soon either.

    If Nvidia is evil for only providing a binary blob, AMD/ATI is guilty for not having enough resources for Linux support.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    It's not fair to insinuate that Nvidia users or Linux users who (eventually) opt for Nvidia cards don't support open source!

    Newsflash: video cards and their manufacturers are PRODUCED with Mikeysoft Windows in mind. BOTH AMD AND NVIDIA have their cards made and produced in great numbers for the Windows marketplace. Drivers for video cards are available for both Windows and Linux but it's the Windows drivers that get priority whether we/you like it or not. That is an unfortunate reality. So, with Nvidia cards, they might use Windows drivers and reverse engineer the binary blob for Linux use but in doing that, the strange reality is less issues than ATI. At least, so far. If you want a truly open source option, you need either A) convince AMD or Nvidia to really invest in open source more than they do which is unlikely to happen any time soon or B) an equally unlikely scenario of having 'Linux ppl' able to produce video hardware. I doubt that will be happening any time soon either.

    If Nvidia is evil for only providing a binary blob, AMD/ATI is guilty for not having enough resources for Linux support.
    Thats good points, but AMD and Intel roll out a real solution(A), with AMD also providing hardware, whilst Nvidia gives windows ports.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panix View Post
    If you want a truly open source option, you need either A) convince AMD or Nvidia to really invest in open source more than they do which is unlikely to happen any time soon
    I don't understand the logic here.

    AMD is investing a LOT of effort into helping open source drivers. LOADS.

    nVidia is not investing anything.

    Suggesting that these are somewhat equal is just wrong.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by md1032 View Post
    crazycheese, you don't seem to get it. The code is *shared*, so you could just as easily say that the Windows driver is based on the Linux driver.

    This is what you get when you develop completely separate drivers instead of sharing code: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=ODIwMQ
    I get it pretty well! I get who invests in linux stack, I get who invests in opensource, I get who provides hardware working on this drivers. The code is windows and linux gets IO remap. The so called "portable", "shared" code is always performing in OpenGL better in windows than in linux. Get to any Doom3 test windows vs linux and see for yourself. This test were first place where I started to undertand how nvidia really works. Linux is always lagging behind, and in the only tests where it gets forward are thanks to raw kernel performance, but not the driver.

    Intel is different in the matter for their hardware is inferior in 3D at the moment physically. Good that I have used AMD instead of ie-530 as Intel seems too to favour windows driver team.

    I stay with AMD and support them, sorry no chance.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I don't understand the logic here.

    AMD is investing a LOT of effort into helping open source drivers. LOADS.

    nVidia is not investing anything.

    Suggesting that these are somewhat equal is just wrong.
    quoteworthy true.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    bump, so people can vote.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •