Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: AMD Releases Radeon HD 6000 Series Open-Source Support

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,793

    Default AMD Releases Radeon HD 6000 Series Open-Source Support

    Phoronix: AMD Releases Radeon HD 6000 Series Open-Source Support

    On the same day that we learn VIA's Linux support is basically dead and after a troubling week for Intel with regards to open-source graphics support for their new Sandy Bridge CPUs, Advanced Micro Devices has come forward and released open-source graphics driver support for their AMD Radeon HD 6000 series of graphics cards...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODk4OQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    437

    Default

    The whole linux graphics driver stack is flawed.

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card, instead we install the vendor provided driver.

    Without the ability to dynamically expand drivers, Xorg will forever be the second class citizen in graphics world.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    The whole linux graphics driver stack is flawed.

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card, instead we install the vendor provided driver.

    Without the ability to dynamically expand drivers, Xorg will forever be the second class citizen in graphics world.
    The issue is market size and demand more than the graphics stack. There is not currently enough market demand for same day open source support. The closed source drivers are started a year or more ahead of time before silicon is even ready. The kernel/mesa/X release cycle is also not really an issue because distros and hw vendors try to make sure the necessary bits get into the upcoming distro releases regardless of whether or not they line up exactly. It's complicated a bit by the fact that there are a plethora of distros that release 2-3 times a year compared to one windows that releases every several years.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    The whole linux graphics driver stack is flawed.
    I agree. As good a state as the ati open source drivers are in...having to wait 12 months from the time the hardware was released until out of the box support lands in a Fedora/Ubuntu is just far too long.

    I struggle to understand why so many other packages need to be updated (kernel, mesa, etc) for a new ati driver to be released. Why are they so tightly coupled? Is this the fault of the ati driver implementation? Why not write the driver for current kernel releases and then update it as the new kernels and mesa are released?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    The whole linux graphics driver stack is flawed.

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card, instead we install the vendor provided driver.

    Without the ability to dynamically expand drivers, Xorg will forever be the second class citizen in graphics world.
    Quote Originally Posted by leif81 View Post
    I agree. As good a state as the ati open source drivers are in...having to wait 12 months from the time the hardware was released until out of the box support lands in a Fedora/Ubuntu is just far too long.

    I struggle to understand why so many other packages need to be updated (kernel, mesa, etc) for a new ati driver to be released. Why are they so tightly coupled? Is this the fault of the ati driver implementation? Why not write the driver for current kernel releases and then update it as the new kernels and mesa are released?
    It baffles me that you know exactly what you are talking about. That's right, all the developers are wrong. Damn how could they have been so stupid. Clearly, we should have more random people talking about how things should be run here. Also, I love how you guys are willing to donate code and money for this community project. It's good to know that whenever other people are devoting time and money, someone is there to help and support them.[/sarcasm]

    If you want to use Linux on your desktop, deal with the low market share and thus with the slower development speed. You didn't buy anything and the community does not owe you anything. Be happy with what you get for a change. I haven't had the option of open source drivers for seven years and there are plenty of folks here who can multiply that a few times.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    147

    Default

    @MaestroMaus
    We all appreciate the efforts of open source developers. It is cynical smart-asses that we don't. The persons you mentioned expressed valid concerns about the way those efforts are delivered to the end user.

    The process of updating drivers is no-doubt flawed. It has to be dynamic, flexible, autonomous, non-centralized, non-distro dependant, ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zoomblab View Post
    @MaestroMaus
    We all appreciate the efforts of open source developers. It is cynical smart-asses that we don't. The persons you mentioned expressed valid concerns about the way those efforts are delivered to the end user.

    The process of updating drivers is no-doubt flawed. It has to be dynamic, flexible, autonomous, non-centralized, non-distro dependant, ...
    Are you kidding me? There where close to zero good arguments there. I will show you what I mean:

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card...
    Do I need to point out you don't need to wait on Linux for that? The same windows drivers are available on Linux. Furthermore, it's unrealistic to think opensource drivers can progress this fast. One of the reasons therefor would be much less manpower.

    I struggle to understand why so many other packages need to be updated (kernel, mesa, etc) for a new ati driver to be released. Why are they so tightly coupled?
    This one is slightly better. I have admit here: I don't know if they need to be this tightly coupled. What I do know is that it doesn't matter for the speed of development. It's a manpower issue. If anything, making more modularized versions takes probably more work.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    147

    Default

    @MaestroMaus
    I apologize for my harsh words.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    The whole linux graphics driver stack is flawed.

    We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card, instead we install the vendor provided driver.

    Without the ability to dynamically expand drivers, Xorg will forever be the second class citizen in graphics world.
    Forgive my ignorance, isn't xorg semi-modular? Can't xf86-video-ati be upgraded independently? So isn't this not so much an xorg problem as much as a traditional linux distribution upgrade path problem?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Owatonna, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Damn, just a few weeks after I bought a 6970. Go figure.

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
  •