Re: radeon driver heading in wrong direction :-(.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Monday 01 February 2010 20:03:40 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > You mean as in nVidia drivers taking a week or so to adjust to new kernel
> > version and reach rpmfusion? Wow, that's a bummer! So you suggest we all
> > opt to use ATI drivers which don't work at all on current X for several
> > months now, basically since F12 appeared? And who knows when (or if) they
> > will actually start supporting modern X?
> >
> > You are saying that we should abandon closed source drivers for cards
> > which work and are well supported by nVidia, and instead use closed
> > source drivers which don't work and have lousy (if any) Linux support
> > from ATI? Call me stupid, but I don't understand your argument.
> As others have explained, this is a strawman, i.e. you're misrepresenting
>  or misunderstanding my position. I DO NOT RECOMMEND using the proprietary
>  ATI drivers or ANY other non-Free driver!!!

No, you seem to misunderstand my comment. Let me put it this way:

Suppose I am a newbie for computers, and I decided to buy the latest&greatest 
in available hardware (btw, this can make sense if you don't want your machine 
to be obsolete by tomorrow).  So when I get to choose a graphics card for my 
new shiny desktop machine, which of the two do you recommend to work better in 

(1) ATI Radeon HD 5970, or
(2) nVidia Quadro FX 5800

(note, I just went to ATI and nVidia websites and looked up the latest 
graphics cards on offer for desktop use).

There are no open source 3D drivers for either of these two cards, right? 
There is only the closed source Catalyst driver for the ATI card, and the 
closed source nvidia driver for the nVidia card. I repeat, *both* are closed 
source, right? And which of the two is supported and works in F12?

Ok, now go back and reread my initial comment above. I still don't understand 
recommending ATI. Feel free to call me stupid yet again, but I simply don't 
see how is ATI better (at least in this vivid example I made up for you).

So, which of the two vendors supports its hardware better for Linux platforms? 
Mind you, I did not say "supports open source cause and free as in speech 
stuff", i said "supports its *hardware*".

And where are the specs for the card (1) above? Where is that famous Free as 
in speech support from ATI when it comes down to non-obsolete hardware like 
that? They are just a bunch of hypocrites who claim to support the whole 
"Free" idea, but only when their technology secrets become obsolete. And you 
are falling for that, and persuading others to follow.
> What I recommend is using one of the following:

You are basically listing hardware that is either inferior in performance or 
is going to become obsolete in a year.

> All of these are supported with 3D/OpenGL acceleration in the Free (as in
> speech) drivers.

You are basically recommending that Fedora users buy inferior hardware, for 
the sake of Free Software. While I have nothing against FS and support it in 
general, it is a tough call to ask someone to deprive themselves of available 
functionality for the sake of FS. This is precisely the point where Free 
Software idea is starting to become a "religion". And this is very bad. The 
software must serve humans, not the other way around.

I hope my point is more clear now. :-)

Best, :-)

users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux