Radeon Driver Enables Full 2D Acceleration For HD 7000

[Rexilion]

Have you tried to use the proprietary Catalyst (Crapitalist?) drivers with Linux? It's a constant pain in the rear. X gets updated, but Catalyst no longer works with X. So you try to install some new application and it needs some updated X functionality. One of two things happens. Either a new version of X gets installed, and lo and behold X is broken. Or you simply cannot upgrade. But let's set aside the many technical problems with proprietary drivers for a moment.

Proprietary software is ethically wrong. It's holding back the progress of mankind. Think about how much faster technology progresses when software is done out in the open.

Also, it is naive to think that proprietary software is about gettings things for free. Programmers get paid to write free software. People buy hardware that is supported by free software. And companies sell support for free software. Free in this context is about freedom, not about price.

-ed.

I believe that some software is genuinely proprietary since it contains a lot of hard work and effort by individuals who want to be rewarded for this effort. They have taken risk and put a lot of time in it.

There is no point in doing that if the competitor goes: Ow that's nice! *copy && paste*. Why invent if you cannot reap benefits? In the end, we all need to eat...

[edsdead]

I believe that some software is genuinely proprietary since it contains a lot of hard work and effort by individuals who want to be rewarded for this effort. They have taken risk and put a lot of time in it.

There is no point in doing that if the competitor goes: Ow that's nice! *copy && paste*. Why invent if you cannot reap benefits? In the end, we all need to eat...

A lot of hard work, effort, and time goes into free software as well. Part of the reason that free software progresses faster than proprietary software is that it is a constant race. The people who succeed at writing free software are the ones that lead the race and push the boundaries, not the ones who copy and paste. You are encouraged to keep developing to stay ahead of your competitors. You do not have the option in free software of resting on your laurels and collecting fat royalties by depriving people of freedom and holding back civilization, behaviors that in my mind should not be rewarded.

You can not only get paid to write free software, but there are other benefits as well. For example, you get recognition, which makes it more likely that more people will be interested in paying you to write more software. By contrast, when you work inside a proprietary software company, your name is not associated with your product. You are a prisoner of the proprietary vendor. There are other rewards as well, such as knowing that you are helping humanity progress... but it's time for breakfast.

-ed.

[bug77]

Proprietary software is ethically wrong. It's holding back the progress of mankind...

Programmers get paid to write free software. People buy hardware that is supported by free software. And companies sell support for free software.

I'm a programmer. Should I start writing unusable software and give it away for free so I can make a living solely based on support? Because, you know, I'm quite embarrassed for holding the mankind back.

[Rexilion]

I'm a programmer. Should I start writing unusable software and give it away for free so I can make a living solely based on support? Because, you know, I'm quite embarrassed for holding the mankind back.

Shame on you!

[Hamish Wilson]

I'm a programmer. Should I start writing unusable software and give it away for free so I can make a living solely based on support? Because, you know, I'm quite embarrassed for holding the mankind back.

Again, free software does not have to be free, but anyway...

Written on the quite usable R600g drivers.

[Rexilion]

Again, free software does not have to be free, but anyway...

Care to elaborate? I don't quite follow.

[crazycheese]

I'm a programmer. Should I start writing unusable software and give it away for free so I can make a living solely based on support? Because, you know, I'm quite embarrassed for holding the mankind back.

Again, free software does not have to be free, but anyway...
Written on the quite usable R600g drivers.

Care to elaborate? I don't quite follow.

There is multitude of free licenses. The true ones adhering to hacktivism are the copyleft ones. Like GPL.

One should always watch for the reason the software is developed, because its the primary motivation behind any action and license is only a legal expression of this. If the author has made up his mind and can market the free software in correct way, he will earn just the same amount of income as with proprietary license, but the results will develop faster and will never risk dying under corporate dust.

First, there are concepts where the software is written purely for demonstration or enjoyment purposes. Aka "student software". Regardless of license its very likely not to be used anywhere, the author will abandon any support or functionality improvements the day he decides. Its a "walking dead software". Still, using free license is arguably better here, because his work might be picked up and pushed forward. But never a promise here.

Only exception to this is writing a patch for demonstration/out of joy - the author just needs certain functionality for himself, so he writes a patch, maybe submits it upstream and is done. But because its only a customization to existing stack, it does not possess the negative instability of the whole and he works essentially for results that he consumes himself.

Then there are more-less professional goals. Lets take the top versions of both proprietary and free software - those written for money.
p1) The software is written with either great bank debt or prepayment (kickstarter). The subject of sells is the code, this is why the author absolutely needs to sell multiple copies of that - regardless of content. If author has not miscalculated his abilities, took time and did honest work, and if he is lucky enough to impress the investors, and if he is lucky enough to impress the reviewers, and he makes it just long enough till software gets understood by the public - 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6, then he can earn a TINY bit of his each sold copy.
By the way - no one mentions any support here. No one mentions that software should be bug free. No one mentions absence of DRM. Thats in the package anyway. So? Writing proprietary software is easy eh?

p2) When someone is not sure enough (or never sure enough in his life), he can apply to work as "one of the many". He will be monthly paid, expected to implement certain amount of work, and will receive a tiny fraction of income back. Like a sheep in stock. This is arguably current situation in gaming market, when indies and deceivers are excluded. No risk, no gain.

f1) The software is written either as a service to someone paying, or the author advertises features with strict payment amounts - while not denying any external help (for what ever reason necessary). The author can also charge for the functionality, till his costs are covered and then provide the segment as open. Open license makes it possible for many to take part in development process and for subject to progress fast - correct management provided. The author makes a living by selling his abilities as a professional. If the work is not meeting expected quality standards, the project will not survive. No one will pay for crap. In free version - the crap is seen when its mile away. The chance of fraud is substantially lower. The ability to directly control the developer is much higher. The amount of non-creating positions is also substantially lower.

) This is something that many know. The core version is provided as free. Anyone is free to improve it. The advanced functionality, or working version costs and is proprietary. The developers are missused to code for free. And the money is made by a small group. The open version is unusable. The closed version is just as proprietary as it gets. Welcome to opencore. Opencore is neither free nor proprietary.
The major difference with free software is that the controlling party makes sure open version is crippled.

So, like I said, work for money or from personal interest, publish changes under GPL without any "contribution agreements" that allow copyright transfer - so they are not stolen from you and from community and used as a fuel for proprietary software, and you are good.

And if you do crap, regardless under which license, you will recieve crap. You get what you put.

[dalingrin]

Have you tried to use the proprietary Catalyst (Crapitalist?) drivers with Linux? It's a constant pain in the rear. X gets updated, but Catalyst no longer works with X. So you try to install some new application and it needs some updated X functionality. One of two things happens. Either a new version of X gets installed, and lo and behold X is broken. Or you simply cannot upgrade. But let's set aside the many technical problems with proprietary drivers for a moment.

Proprietary software is ethically wrong. It's holding back the progress of mankind. Think about how much faster technology progresses when software is done out in the open.

Also, it is naive to think that proprietary software is about gettings things for free. Programmers get paid to write free software. People buy hardware that is supported by free software. And companies sell support for free software. Free in this context is about freedom, not about price.

-ed.

I'm a developer and I love open source software, but this idea that open source software progresses faster than closed source is just silly. If this were true then the original topic(HD 7000 2D accel) wouldn't have made the news in December of 2012. Can open source software progress faster than closed source? Sure, but such an oversimplified claim is borderline ridiculous.

There are many examples of proprietary software that pushed innovation and/or usability: UNIX, Photoshop, etc.

In the case of Photoshop, the open source world has had plenty of time to catch up and make software that is far better than Photoshop, assuming open source does indeed progress faster. IMO, GIMP is the closest and it does a good job of being an open source alternative but GIMP it isn't exactly pushing the boundaries. Now, don't get me wrong. I personally use GIMP and would never buy Photoshop but I'm also able to see past my own use cases and realize not everyone is the same.

This is of course ignoring the fact that if you take financial incentive away from programmers then there will be many less programmers writing software than there is today(including those that write open source software). Yes, programmers do get paid to write free software but they are far outnumbered by the folks that write proprietary software. Yes, companies sell support for free software but again this is a very small market in the grand scheme. Many(most?) open source developers have a day job involving proprietary software.


Why is selling support for a free open source program ethically better than selling a proprietary program with support?

And why does almost every conversation on this site end up in a open source vs proprietary software argument?

---------------

Has anyone tried these new patches for HD7000 that can tell us more about their experience with them?

[timothyja]

I'm a programmer. Should I start writing unusable software

You dont sound like a very good programmer.

[timothyja]

Why is selling support for a free open source program ethically better than selling a proprietary program with support?

Because open software stops wasted effort reinventing the wheel every time someone has an idea of how to do something better. And everyone benefits, the new company that makes the improvements has the benefit of the existing code base and the previous contributors have the option of incorporating the new changes if they so choose. The result is better software for everyone, the Linux kernel is the most successful example of this type of collaboration. Multiple company's contributing to one single code base for use in many different applications.
Mesa was neglected for years which is why the OpenGL support is lagging so much. But with increased activity in recent years and multiple orginisations working together they are building one codebase they can all share and improve without any single company having to waste time reinventing the wheel. This is how they can support development of new drivers with less developers, leaving more money to employ developers to invent all kinds of new innovations rather than wasting effort on what's already been done by someone else. This equals high quality software with less wasted effort that anyone/any company can improve/reuse/use hence benefiting mankind, hence more ethical.

And why does almost every conversation on this site end up in a open source vs proprietary software argument?

Because especially on a forum that's based around news on open source software it boggles the mind that people here still don't get the benefits.