Here's The Special AMD Present For Ubuntu Users

[RahulSundaram]

RH don't want that Fedora is on the Supported List. So its not AMDs fault.

That's a incorrect claim and a lame excuse. Red Hat never said anything about AMD's proprietary drivers one way or the other. It simply doesn't care and I don't see why AMD needs Red Hat's consideration or support for providing drivers for Fedora. Fedora is not a commercial product in any shape or form.

[mbouchar]

mmm... switchable graphics from catalyst...

I want that or a stable version of ubuntu xorg-edgers package...
As it is now, each time i'm upgrading my ubuntu natty, I don't know if the system will reboot or if the radeon driver will crash on me

[PsynoKhi0]

That's a incorrect claim and a lame excuse. Red Hat never said anything about AMD's proprietary drivers one way or the other. It simply doesn't care and I don't see why AMD needs Red Hat's consideration or support for providing drivers for Fedora. Fedora is not a commercial product in any shape or form.

Then how about: the opensource drivers are a better fit to Fedora's focus of software freedom and bleeding-edge?

[PsynoKhi0]

Why can't they do as nVidia does? Have official driver releases and BETA for ALL users, not selected group of ONE distribution.
Reading stuff like this makes me happy I'm not an AMD user...

Why can't nvidia do what AMD does and release documentation, instead of some blob whenever they feel like it?
See, goes both ways...

Anyway, it's the same f***ing circus every damn month when fglrx comes out... Does one have to club the whiners senseless with a lamp post before they finally get the "2 different companies, 2 different policies" part?

[RahulSundaram]

Then how about: the opensource drivers are a better fit to Fedora's focus of software freedom and bleeding-edge?

Fedora's focus doesn't affect AMD nor does it make any real difference. Let's compare kernel versions between recent releases of say Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. Is there anything significantly different between them in the major software components that makes it hard for AMD to supply drivers in a distro neutral fashion like Nvidia does? I don't think so. I don't expect AMD to necessarily test in all of them. Instead I would like to see them redirect more of their time to the open source drivers but doesn't mean that we should blame the other distributions for what is going on repeatedly here.

[PsynoKhi0]

Reading stuff like this makes me happy I'm not an AMD user...

Oh sorry, almost forgot...
Reading this, followed by this, then this, this, this together with this, this, and finally seeing this (some folks apparently never learn eh?) makes me EXTREMELY happy I'm not an nvidia user...
Though I couldn't find the FUD slides from the Kyro II days, and it felt redundant to dig info about how the Nouveau team works...
Have a nice day.

[PsynoKhi0]

doesn't mean that we should blame the other distributions for what is going on repeatedly here.

Point taken, though with regards to resource housekeeping, you may agree that applying the Pareto principle to fglrx is a pretty sound strategy, right?

[locovaca]

I want that or a stable version of ubuntu xorg-edgers package...
As it is now, each time i'm upgrading my ubuntu natty, I don't know if the system will reboot or if the radeon driver will crash on me

1. Don't run a pre-beta distro if you don't like breakage.
2. Don't run xorg-edgers PPA if you don't like breakage.

[pvtcupcakes]

They're going to support only the well known major distros with a lot of customers. That basically means Ubuntu and Redhat for the most part. RHEL *is* supported -- doesn't need the "beta" releases, and the RH product most in need of the "beta" releases is Fedora, which doesn't ***WANT*** the blob driver. That basically means that its going to be all about ubuntu.

Catalyst goes into RPM Fusion on Fedora, just like the Nvidia blob. Nvidia has no problem with this.

The whole closed source process by AMD is completely backwards. Fglrx should be scrapped; it's a huge joke.

[Kano]

@Vi0L0

How did you compile this mplayer with vaapi support? Usually the official mplayer vaapi from january 2011 is:

mplayer|head

MPlayer SVN-r32819-4.3.2 (C) 2000-2011 MPlayer Team

but yours is much newer? Did you check vainfo?