"AMD will soon deliver open graphics drivers"

[eatmuchpie]

Finally!! I KNEW there was a reason I bought an ATI card:

http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...phics-drivers/

Key point:
- AMD will soon deliver open graphics drivers, said Henri Richard just a few minutes ago, and the audience at the opening keynote of the Red Hat Summit broke into applause and cheers

So long as this isn't false or marketing fud (can't really see how it is, given how plain his words were) we should be seeing opensource fglrx drivers soon!!! (variable soon yet to be defined :P )

Enjoy! (Comments/criticisms please)

[Michael]

Originally Posted by eatmuchpie

Finally!! I KNEW there was a reason I bought an ATI card:

http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...phics-drivers/

Key point:
- AMD will soon deliver open graphics drivers, said Henri Richard just a few minutes ago, and the audience at the opening keynote of the Red Hat Summit broke into applause and cheers

So long as this isn't false or marketing fud (can't really see how it is, given how plain his words were) we should be seeing opensource fglrx drivers soon!!! (variable soon yet to be defined :P )

Enjoy! (Comments/criticisms please)

My comments will come later . And yes, AMD's statements are real.

[yoshi314]

ok....for which cards?

[Raven3x7]

Cant wait. Released along with R600?

[yoshi314]

that would be nice.

but it will still take some time to
- a somebody to wrap his head around the source code to start improving it (like it is with opensourced parts of java now), unless the xorg radeon driver team extracts the specs out of the code and just continues with their work ;-)
- make a difference on the market. because of inertia caused by years of ati's slacking off in the linux department.

[d2kx]

My birthday present and I like it

[sundown]

How open will those "open" drivers be?

[yoshi314]

from my point of view ati could open everything except for 3rd party code portions, and just keep them as binary-only libraries used when linking the driver.

or they could just replace that 3rd party code with their own. assuming that's legal and posssible (putting aside hdmi etc).

oh well, time will tell how this situation develops.

although i think we would be better off if they just gave out the specs instead of the fglrx source code. i'm getting the impression that fglrx code base is pretty huge just by looking at the size of the compiled driver.

[Huenengrab]

You misunderstood his statement, AMD won’t publish open source driver, see http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/ for a more accurate analysis of this statement. They will just deliver closed source drivers that suck less than their actual one.

What's with that from one of the comments from Chris Blizzard's blog?

Also I'm a bit confused by "open graphics drivers". Why produce all the hype by mentioning "open", without the "-source"?

I really hope they do publish the entire graphics driver, instead of just opening parts, that aren't full IP that AMD wants to keep a secret.

[glisse]

Originally Posted by Michael

My comments will come later . And yes, AMD's statements are real.

I hardly believe they will release specification or even code of their drivers. I think the statement was more about fixing their closed source driver. Btw as a developer i am not willing to sign any NDA, as informations they might provide will anyway end up in the header or source of the driver.