I think he just hates me
Q since when are you a AMD Hater. In the past you was the biggest AMD Fanboy in the forum and now you make a 180° turn.
I think he just hates me
Last edited by bridgman; 05-24-2012 at 01:18 PM.
clearly knows the shortcomings of development speed (which make the solution completely unattractive) (2),
and denies ANY attempt to improve the situation or withdraws himself from that (3). Huh?
How much different ideas have I thrown into Bridgeman camp? 1, 2, 3, 4? No, they are perfectly satisfied with the overall progress. At this rate R800 support will match catalyst in 2017, remember this.
Mind you, I purchased two radeon cards for sake of opensource, the second dive was better, like going from completely unusable and crashing into slow as a fck. In two years. For same gen.
Should I report that as bug? But the devs are already 101% busy, doing 1000x job which is perfect in Bridgeman's opinion. He thinks the formula is perfect, there is no need to correct anything, but I beg to differ.
Remember, no external help is appreciated.
Btw, first radeon (R100) is broken completely (KMS). I may upload errata soon, if someone cares (even for the sake of "radeon feature").
Also, compare: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...DU3NzA&compare
If Radeon driver Kickstarter project eventually gets rolling, that would be first ray of light.
Where does my attitude towards gfx hardware and linux differs in general from that of Bridgeman? I don't consider Linux and GNU to be "construction yard of broken parts", I consider them to be an operating system.
If the hardware is proprietary and works - fine, ok, usable.
If it is opensource and broken and company is really in to fix it, taking everything from the community, maximizing the effort - even better. How to see it? Compare the development rate and attitude.
If it is opensource and works - best case.
The case with AMD? Opensource, broken and don't bother.
The thing is, you DO NEED to pay to even test AMD driver because you need hardware. Multiply this by complete disinterest from their side and you have the idea.
Why should I pay in this case? There are a lot of broken opensource projects, whose developers do not care about it(they even state it so). For me, such project belong to trash bin.
Should I bother if help's not wanted? What J.C. said about throwing jewels in front of the pigs?
Nvidia + Linux works for me as in "fine, ok, usable", so I have no option but to tolerate it. Burnt my fingers twice already, no thanks.
The usual problem with OSS projects.How much different ideas have I thrown into Bridgeman camp? 1, 2, 3, 4? No, they are perfectly satisfied with the overall progress. At this rate R800 support will match catalyst in 2017, remember this.
Many guys have THE idea to bring the project forward, but usually those guys don't have the knowledge to implement it themself and the are angry, because their idea (beeing good or bad) isn't considered.
Right now, efforts to:
report driver usage statistic back to hardware HQ
improve the driver by means of optimization
create ANY research on buyers behaviour in linux segment
collect funds for the above
create anything centralized
have been blocked via chicken/egg problem shift or ignored.
You offer to create all this on our own, aside from AMD, perhaps we should. I don't know. But this would mean they are definitely incapable of writing their own drivers (who cares if it will work).
And we will also depend on them for hardware/documentation side, meaning they would control everything. Yet they don't step in. That's another thing, I don't understand - denial to innovate on linux side.
1. An online registration form at amd.com where users could indicate whether they used open source or Catalyst drivers, with the hope being that responses would divert funds from Catalyst to open source. My response to this, which you ignored, was that we couldn't divert funds from the Catalyst Linux driver without hurting its usefulness for it's target market (3D workstation) and so the chances of it increasing funding for in-house open source development seemed very low (the risk of it *reducing* funding seemed higher).
2. One or more kickstarter-type projects aimed at specific improvements in the open source stack, whether driver-specific or generic. My response to this was essentially "seems like a good idea" but you seemed to be suggesting that AMD had to set those projects up and I never understood your reasoning for that.
Currently the proprietary drivers (all of them AFAIK) replace a lot of the open source graphics stack with proprietary interfaces. Until similar improvements are made in the generic open source framework, which *will* take a fair amount of time and effort, there will be gaps between open source and proprietary stacks. I am agitating internally for our proprietary driver folks to help where they can by pushing enhancements into the common framework where possible, and should know the outcome in early 2013.
Last edited by bridgman; 05-24-2012 at 03:51 PM.
If you're saying "hey I posted in a forum that AMD should do all these things and one of their guys thought what they were doing today was a better use of the people they had" that's probably fair.