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.
Woah AMD, now I am seriously thinking about coming back to my old HD 5670 (or 5650, I can't remember) from NVIDIA 8600 GT but seriously how is support for Evergreen now comparing to this HD 6000?
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, ...
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.We don't need to wait for some years for a new version of Windows to run a new graphics card...
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.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?
The "same" driver? Well i never saw an unsupported hardware watermark or testing watermark with Win beta drivers, did you?
That is correct. The Windows drivers simply refuse to light up unsupported hardware. Linux drivers light the card up but display the watermark.
I apologize for my harsh words.