Slashdot.org is reporting that AMD has begun releasing the specifications for newer ATI video cards as they hinted they would do when they purchased the company last year. This is of course great news for those of us who refuse to pollute our open source operating systems with closed source drivers because our choices have been pretty limited if we wanted decent 3D graphic support. I have to admit I'm actually looking forward to parting with a few hundred dollars to upgrade my Radeon X800 in the near future.
ATI Graphic Specs Released
- Thread starter EzInKy
- Start date
Asher
Warlord
Isn't it a bit stupid to be so concerned with open vs closed source? I'm an end user, I never want to see the source -- nor do I ever want to hear the excuse "if it's broken fix it yourself!"
Being concerned about what ingredients are being ingested by your computer is no more stupid than being concerned about what ingredients are being ingested by your body.
Understandable, as a motorist I don't want to be covered in grease every day just to drive my car...but I certainly do value having more than one mechanic available to fix things for me.
Asher
Warlord
So you demand the recipe of all food you eat?
Mise
isle of lucy
I think the point is that "the community" can release fixes/updates/work-arounds for specific systems, even if ATI themselves won't support it in that much detail. That said, I don't care if it's open source or not - if it doesn't work I'll take it back and get one that does.
Asher
Warlord
I understand the theory, but I also understand how incredibly complex graphics drivers are and how finicky they are and the incredible amount of testing it takes to make them stable.
In reality, this is lipservice. A feel-good announcement for naive open source buffs.
In reality, this is lipservice. A feel-good announcement for naive open source buffs.
It's a heck of a lot more than lip-service. It means those of us who value freedom can actually get a decent driver for our ATI cards.
I could point you to assorted articles on Gnu.org, but you either wouldn't read them, or you would not truly comprehend them, and wallow in your own ignorance. Free software (not just "open source") allows me to use my computer the way I want to, not just the way MS wants me to. But I have neither the time nor the energy for a full refutation of your statements.
(Edit: Asher, I apologize for what I wrote here earlier. I was out of line. )
:sigh:Asher said:
I could point you to assorted articles on Gnu.org, but you either wouldn't read them, or you would not truly comprehend them, and wallow in your own ignorance. Free software (not just "open source") allows me to use my computer the way I want to, not just the way MS wants me to. But I have neither the time nor the energy for a full refutation of your statements.
(Edit: Asher, I apologize for what I wrote here earlier. I was out of line. )
Padma: Asher has a point, to the end user not using the source code, it shouldn't matter if a program is open source, all that matters is the actual program.
Comparing Opera and Firefox, they both have their strengths, but the actual fact that Firefox is open source doesn't matter. The extensions that are a result of the program being open source do matter, but if Opera had an equally powerful set of free (and I realize I don't use "free" like open source people want, too bad
), proprietary extensions, it would become a moot point.
Being open source can have advantages, but because of the nature of video drivers, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference, especially for a company the size of AMD.
How much did going open source help XGI and Matrox?
Comparing Opera and Firefox, they both have their strengths, but the actual fact that Firefox is open source doesn't matter. The extensions that are a result of the program being open source do matter, but if Opera had an equally powerful set of free (and I realize I don't use "free" like open source people want, too bad
), proprietary extensions, it would become a moot point. Being open source can have advantages, but because of the nature of video drivers, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference, especially for a company the size of AMD.
How much did going open source help XGI and Matrox?
Asher
Warlord
It really means no such thing. Again, I think people underestimate the complexity of modern graphics drivers and how fast they evolve. By the time the Open Source community can figure out how it works and how to change it, the hardware will be obsolete.
I understand the psyche of the open source user. I can understand your excitement. But in the end, nothing will change. The hardware cycles are far too fast and the code far too complex and finicky for Joe Hacker to understand it. Most of the ATI driver developers I knew had at least a Masters degree and were pretty senior and experienced.
Asher
Warlord
Comparing Opera and Firefox, they both have their strengths, but the actual fact that Firefox is open source doesn't matter. The extensions that are a result of the program being open source do matter, but if Opera had an equally powerful set of free (and I realize I don't use "free" like open source people want, too bad
Actually, extensions have nothing to do with Firefox being open source. It's a modular architecture that permits extensions, not it being open source.
It's actually a good example, VERY few people who make any kind of non-trivial change to Firefox are not employed to work on FF full-time.
Bummer, I was wondering if the extensions were due to the open source nature when I posted that, apparently not.
Good point for FF, a lot of people don't realize that Mozilla corp makes millions of dollars, and has dozens of full-time employees.
Actually, my last post is rife with problems for its argument... I have no idea myself how open source drivers affected either XGI or Matrox.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Most of the people who work for the Mozilla Corporation (and are thus employed by them) were the same people who did it for free years ago. Now they just get paid to do it, so they can spend much more time on the project itself.
Mise
isle of lucy
For me, this is actually a "good" thing, since most problems I have are with legacy hardware not being supported by the vendor any longer.
Other than that I'm largely indifferent towards open/closed source, for the reasons Zelig pointed out (if it quacks like a duck...)
kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
I welcome the news. 
I myself became really concerned with free software last year, and will soon prepare for a full migration to free software (bye bye Windows, bye bye MSN, etc...). So this news is a good step in what is one of the black points for Linux : gfx drivers.
Hardware will become obsolete once free drivers are done and tested ? So what ? Can't I use obsolete hardware ? I don't need the latest hardware after all. I don't play gfx games. I'm not even playing Civ anymore. Just because it's not on Linux. It's a joy to be freed of the continuous pressure of buying the latest hardware and games. It's a joy to tell how you can forget Microsoft. It's a PERSONAL trend, and it goes along well with my desire to do other things than just surfing on the web and playing games on my PC.
It's about choosing yourself and not letting the market decide for you.
I myself became really concerned with free software last year, and will soon prepare for a full migration to free software (bye bye Windows, bye bye MSN, etc...). So this news is a good step in what is one of the black points for Linux : gfx drivers.Hardware will become obsolete once free drivers are done and tested ? So what ? Can't I use obsolete hardware ? I don't need the latest hardware after all. I don't play gfx games. I'm not even playing Civ anymore. Just because it's not on Linux. It's a joy to be freed of the continuous pressure of buying the latest hardware and games. It's a joy to tell how you can forget Microsoft. It's a PERSONAL trend, and it goes along well with my desire to do other things than just surfing on the web and playing games on my PC.
It's about choosing yourself and not letting the market decide for you.
Shadylookin
master debater
Bummer, I was wondering if the extensions were due to the open source nature when I posted that, apparently not.
Good point for FF, a lot of people don't realize that Mozilla corp makes millions of dollars, and has dozens of full-time employees.
Actually, my last post is rife with problems for its argument... I have no idea myself how open source drivers affected either XGI or Matrox.
Even proprietary software can allow for third party plugins. remember Internet explorer toolbars?
it's not necessarily a problem. Since Linux is very kind on minimum system requirements a video cards usable lifespan on a Linux machine will likely exceed vendor support.
For example ubuntu's video card minimum requirement is only a VGA card new enough to support 640X480 resolution
kryszcztov: I applaud you. I only recently started playing Civ3 again, when I installed it in a VMWare server running Win2K. It's a small "partition", is only there when I want it, and has absolutely no effect on the rest of my system.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Maybe for ATI, but nVIDIA has better linux drivers then they do windows.
