Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 122

Thread: AMD's Hiring Open-Source Graphics Developers Still

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    The propreitery and the floss one serve two different usergroups.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The propreitery and the floss one serve two different usergroups.
    But why not share code inside AMD so that the performance is similar? If AMD do have an interest in having a quality floss driver why start from scratch and not enable the use of code from Catalyst?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Because developing a real opensource driver requires to integrate with the existing ecosystem. Neighter Catalyst nor the Nvidia blob are good citizen in the open source ecosystem.

    So a theoretical opensource Catalyst will end as only maintained by AMD because no real opensource developer will even bother to look at software which doesn't integrate with the standard linux graphics driver model.

    Aside from this the legal review of the catalyst source code will likely cost them more than a few opensource developers for the next years.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimi View Post
    But why not share code inside AMD so that the performance is similar? If AMD do have an interest in having a quality floss driver why start from scratch and not enable the use of code from Catalyst?
    I think bridgman said that the catalyst code is shared between mac win and linux in an architecture similar to gallium.

    They can't take that and plug it into gallium neither open source it (for whatever reason). Apart from that AMD never said afaik that it will write the drivers for the community. They provide documentation and have hired one (or more i am not sure) dev so far to work on the floss side of things, which is something really nice from their part IMO. And they will hire more as it seems.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimi View Post
    Can anyone please explain this to me?
    Why would AMD want to pay people to develop two separate drivers?

    If they don't want their driver open-source why invest in it at all and not tell people to use Catalyst?

    If the do want to have an awesome open source driver why not just release the code of Catalyst and have one driver to maintain?

    Isn't it just not profitable for them to develop 2 pieces of software to accomplish the same task?
    The Catalyst codebase provides drivers for all platforms, not just Linux, and it also contains HDCP information, which is proprietary and unreleasable.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimi View Post
    Can anyone please explain this to me?
    Why would AMD want to pay people to develop two separate drivers?

    If they don't want their driver open-source why invest in it at all and not tell people to use Catalyst?

    If the do want to have an awesome open source driver why not just release the code of Catalyst and have one driver to maintain?

    Isn't it just not profitable for them to develop 2 pieces of software to accomplish the same task?
    its simple google+redhat want an opensource driver and they give a shit about the catalyst.

    other amd customers the CAD workstation customers want the catalyst driver amd also want the catalyst because they need it against nvidia.

    thats why they pay for both the radeon and the catalyst.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    I think bridgman said that the catalyst code is shared between mac win and linux in an architecture similar to gallium.
    "similar to gallium" gallium is years younger and is more advance in virtualization stuff so on an long therm gallium will be a successor over the amd solution because its a multi company solution for intel+nvidia(the open one) and amd hardware.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimi View Post
    Can anyone please explain this to me?
    Why would AMD want to pay people to develop two separate drivers?

    If they don't want their driver open-source why invest in it at all and not tell people to use Catalyst?

    If the do want to have an awesome open source driver why not just release the code of Catalyst and have one driver to maintain?

    Isn't it just not profitable for them to develop 2 pieces of software to accomplish the same task?
    If the Linux proprietary driver was being developed independently from the drivers for other OSes you would be 100% correct and we would be wasting effort.

    The real benefit of a proprietary/binary driver, however, is that delivering in binary form allows you to share code across multiple OSes without having to worry about exposing DRM-related features required by other OSes - which, in turn, allows us to offer more features and performance to Linux users than we could by investing the same amount in a Linux-specific code base. Any time you see a proprietary driver there's a pretty good chance that the same rationale applies.

    The one thing that the proprietary driver can't be is open source - because of all the code it shares with other non-open OSes - and that's where the open source code base comes in. It also allows us to prioritize a different set of use cases so we can get another group of happy users while both drivers continue to improve.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    They provide documentation and have hired one (or more i am not sure) dev so far to work on the floss side of things, which is something really nice from their part IMO. And they will hire more as it seems.
    Yep. We hired two developers in 2007/2008 but Richard transferred to another group recently. We have hired a replacement for Richard but he hasn't started yet. We have also hired a third developer to focus more on embedded priorities but he hasn't started yet either.

    We are now looking for one more developer for a total of four (plus some of my time for better or worse )...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Yep. We hired two developers in 2007/2008 but Richard transferred to another group recently. We have hired a replacement for Richard but he hasn't started yet. We have also hired a third developer to focus more on embedded priorities but he hasn't started yet either.

    We are now looking for one more developer for a total of four (plus some of my time for better or worse )...
    what are you waiting for mr bridgman

    get your whip out and get them started asap

    on a serious note i want to ask if there are any agreements with Ms or Apple that prohibit open sourcing drivers used for mac os x and win (apart from licensed and DRM stuff).

    ie lets say a new company appears and wants to use g3d across all OSs will it be able to do it or there will be trouble with something like that.

Posting Permissions

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