Actually, in Canada an engineer generally won't drive a train. I mean, if you want to go through all that university and work in the engineering field for years to be legally allowed to call yourself an engineer, why would you want to become a train driver?
I have bought nvidia cards for the past 3 years because of their superior Linux support. And I am a prolific purchaser. This has amounted to at least seven cards, all nvidia. If ATI created and maintained stable open source video drivers with the Linux kernel, then I would very quickly switch my allegiance. I have always been uncomfortable with the closed source nature of nvidia's Linux drivers. But having a working card is the top priority, and so I've compromised thus far. I'd gladly switch to open source
There's too much proprietary licensed code in these drivers for them ever to be open sourced. ATI and nVidia don't have ownership of alot of the code. At least nVidia did the decent thing and GPL'd their "glue" code which they do have control over (maybe ATI have too, but I'm not familiar with their drivers).
To be frank, I'm just glad that these companies are supporting Linux at all, although I don't think we'll see a major change in the status quo until Linux CAD workstations become more popular, in which
There's too much proprietary licensed code in these drivers for them ever to be open sourced.
That doesn't matter. No one wants their (not very good) driver code anyway. What is needed is the proper technical specifications. The GPL code can be clean-roomed from that.
I agree completely, but once again I feel the companies will be hampered with the "but if we release the specs then company XYZ will start producing amazing graphics cards!" line on things. There's also the worry that, with full access to the specs, people will work around the "crippling" of cores that is supposed to mark the difference between a £100 card and a £400 card. Given the performance war that's been going on between nVidia and ATI since the year dot, I think the chances of either side
So as a whole the problem is probably part IP, part marketing/management,
No, its the usual culprit: blind, pin-headed, unreasoning, narrow-minded, animalistic, slimey, vicious corporate greed. You know those air-head jocks from the football team in you old high-school? They are running the (ATI, Nvidia, insert random corporation) show now. "Intellectual Property" - oh how satisfying it must be to "own" something named "intellectual", the only way they will ever get to be associated with the word.
I feel the companies will be hampered with the "but if we release the specs then company XYZ will start producing amazing graphics cards!" line on things.
Yeah, right. Any unscrupulous company can just take the binary driver, disassemble it and convert it to C. Not a trivial undertaking, but not anything a reasonably good hacker can't do in a few months of full-time work. And if ATI can't design hardware that can't be used without revealing all their K00L "Interlecshul Property" they're idiots. Besides
Mod parent up. If there's propietary code, i bet the OSS developers will be happy to settle for specifications. You're in the hardware buissness, for god's sake.
My bet is that both nVidia an ATI are reluctant to release OSS drivers/specs because of endless "tweakings" (AKA, "cheats") and software cripplings of their hardware. I wish i was paranoid, but just look at how many times both companies have been found doing these kind of things either to squeeze an extra FPS off the competition or to sell a n
This is possible. The recent todo with the drivers for the Philips webcams led to some folks that hadn't signed NDAs taking a closer look at them, and seems to have revealed some trickery and false advertising there.
Anyhow, so far as I can see, there are only two reasonable explanations why NVidia and ATI don't want to give developers enough specs to write the drivers. Either the decisionmakers are suffering from serious technical illiteracy and really think that this will stop the competition from reverse
um, why are you arguing that the driver is too proprietary when an actual (well purported...) employee is saying it is just an issue with management? In fact, I have not see any ATI employee argue that there are proprietary routines in the driver that prevent it from being open sourced. The only people that I have seen that make that argument is nvidia. And nvidia does it because they fix their badly designed hardware in the driver, the so called secret driver optimizations. If it's broken, fix the hard
I'm an ATI engineer too, and the proprietary code is stolen from a secret alien race that's been running Earth since the 1930's. We're trying to build a powerful resistance force, fighting the beings who've given us just enough technology to enslave us all.
Also, management is just a collection of bio-engineered drones.
Actually, management is filled with people who didn't have the skill or drive to find something they'd actually like to do for a living. Sure, we all hear about the multimillion dollar a year Darl McBrides and Bill Gates and so on, but the truth is, to enter management is to succumb to mediocrity. The average business program, almost by definition, makes the average engineering course look impossibly hard in comparison, and because of that, anyone who doesn't have any ambitions will almost automatically opt
I think the best feedback you can provide is a note indicating that as a result of the fact that the ATI card you would have liked to use did not work out of the box in a Linux instalation, you have returned it and used the money on an nVidia card instead. Further you are advising your peers that they will get a much better result by using nVidea cards if they choose to run Linux.
You may want to note that you would be happy to help them test their cards and drivers under Linux, but if you are going to do t
If you do that, why would ATI bother? You'd just make it look like they already lost the market and should focus on Windows where they're doing well.
The correct feedback is this: When you find a bug in their driver, send in a bug report. When you find a missing feature, send in a feature request. Don't send in a feature request that reads, like, "open source your drivers, dumbasses!" as that will be ignored.
It's not hard. It's the same process you do with every other piece of software in the world.
The missing featuer is that the card does not work at all without proprietary drivers. If they want our business, fix that first so that the user can even start using their computer.
If my screen goes blank, and I can't switch to text mode, I don't care if the propietary drivers are perfect, I can't install them.
But nVidia's business model is to release as much of their driver code as they are legally permitted to (at least, that's what they say). Most likely, there's some patent licensing agreement involved which would mean that, even if nVidia were to release the source to their drivers, it wouldn't be legal for anyone else to do anything useful with it anyway. So nVidia would be doing the right thing by not inserting code of questionable legality into the kernel tree.
And if ATI stole their code, they would either have to release it under the GPL too, complete with nvidia copyrights all over it which wouldn't do their business any good, or they could just steal it and incorporate it into their binary only drivers and risk being sued.
The guy who make the decision for nVidia to keep the code closed stopped by campus last semester. A bunch of us *nix people were talking to him. The reasons he cited for closing the code had nothing to do with licensing issues and everything to do with "if its so easy for others to develop this stuff, why are other major companies having trouble with Linux support."
In other words, writing drivers isn't in nVidia's business model, but selling a product with drivers is in ATi's business model. ATi and oth
If that's true, they should just do the GL part in userspace, and have the kernel portion (which they could then release entirely) just stream nVidia-specific commands to the hardware. There are plenty of good drivers already available which stream commands to hardware, so ATi wouldn't learn much (other than what the commands are, which isn't really more informative than probing the bus).
I'd be happy to leave feedback, but the ATI card I have (AIW Radeon) isn't among those the driver supports. I don't expect you to go back and redo a driver for the 2Mbyte PCI mach64 ATI card I have sitting around in a box, but would it be too much to ask for full support for the AIW Radeon?
Look at what this guy says ! Mod it up, and if it's already capped, well.. send the right kind of feedback. That means non-inflammatory, polite, to-the-point, etc.
Tell them their feeback site doesn't work properly:
ADODB.Command error '800a0d5d'
Application uses a value of the wrong type for the current operation./linuxDfeedback/datasource.asp, line 57
Could you please specify where the right place is to leave feedback? Particularly for those of us that have been burned in the past and now won't buy ATI products until or unless they release specifications or open source? Since we don't have any current products, the driver feedback page is not going to work. We represent additional customers and revenue.
I refuse to taint my kernel by using an NVidia card. On the other hand my ATI AIW 7500 still lacks functionality. The GATOS project is great but crippled and held back by lack of specs. I'm not expecting ATI to come out and GPL code for their drivers. All I ask is that the data sheets for the hardware be made available so drivers can be made. As things currently stand I will not buy any new ATI products. I'm not a gamer and what I have works. I'd like to buy a new card but what good would it be to ha
In the business graphics workstation world, ATI cannot sell cards to Linux users as their drivers suck - OpenGL applications crash all the time. NVidia cards and drivers "just work". I will not recommend/buy another ATI product until they produce a stable driver.
The market for linux OpenGL workstations has to be pretty significant. ATI is loosing a lot of business because of their lack of quality Linux drivers.
Wait a sec, isn't anyone using ATI's proprietary driver also tainting the kernel?
Look, the only difference is that ATI opened up with information about some of their *old* hardware, but their recent modern cards have 3D drivers that are just as proprietary as NVIDIA's drivers.
NVIDIA says they can't release the code for any of their 3D drivers for any of their cards (old or new) because they don't own all the code thats in the driver. Given that this sounds plausible to me, I'm going to give them the bene
My comment about NVidia drivers tainting the kernel was just me stating why I don't consider NVidia cards an option since many others posting here seem to speak of how great they are. True, the ATI driver situation is no better but when I bought my card it seemed they were more open with the community and those magical spec sheets were said to be coming soon.
Of course 3D drivers are complex. I'm not expecting magic. There are also many spec sheets. If you read the GATOS mailing list it becomes clear af
If you read the GATOS mailing list it becomes clear after a while they aren't playing it straight
I'm not talking about ATI. The point of my post was trying to understand why you think ATI is worthy of your consideration, while NVIDIA is deserving of nothing but contempt.
The truth here, IMO, is a little more ugly than a lot of us F/OS people would like to hear about. NVIDIA is the clear leader in 3D performance and their driver is more stable and easier to use (they use one unified driver for all their
The reasoning behind my preference for ATI is petty although I reserve plenty of scorn for them. In my view the drivers for NVidia have slowed development for open drivers by the community. As they say it works and if that's the case there isn't a huge need to write open drivers. ATI, through their contempt or bumbling (or both), pretty much assures that the community will come forth with open drivers in a more timely fashion. Now that I've seen just how timely that is I won't be buying any recent ATI c
Well perhaps they could open up the bits which *are* theirs, i'm sure the functions which interface directly with hardware are theirs atleast afterall who would they buy software to directly interface with their own hardware from? As for the higher level functionality, that could be copied from existing opensource drivers for the most part anyway.. If they did like sun did with staroffice, release everything they had the rights to and let the community replace the missing bits... Once most of the framework was
As for the higher level functionality, that could be copied from existing opensource drivers
The open-source drivers are 2D *only*. There is NO open source code ANYWHERE to control the NVIDIA cards' 3D hardware, it is and has always been proprietary (allegedly for the reasons they give).
Mate of mine did an internship at nvidia a few years ago, those drivers will never get gpl'd... why? you ask, simple. 80% of the code belongs to SGI. Quit whining. Open source drivers probably couldn't match nvidia's existing performance anyway.
This makes much sense, considering that nVidia was born out of ex-SGI employees who were pissed that SGI didn't think that making commodity 3D cards was worth their time.
Well aren't SGI a supporter of linux? They atleast run linux on a number of their workstations and on their new itanic kit, perhaps they would be willing to open up their code to linux developers?
I'd take a 50% perf from open source drivers hit any day (I'm just not going to buy the hardware of the day, but the next lower generation). I'm using R200 based cards until there it something better with open source drivers.
Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.
Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:5, Interesting)
There are just a few followers in management who think we need to follow NVidia's business model. They are wrong.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1, Redundant)
are you purporting to be an ati employee?
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
No, an engineer can do various things, including design video hardware, manage power grids and drive locomotives.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
To be frank, I'm just glad that these companies are supporting Linux at all, although I don't think we'll see a major change in the status quo until Linux CAD workstations become more popular, in which
This doesn't matter! (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. No one wants their (not very good) driver code anyway. What is needed is the proper technical specifications. The GPL code can be clean-roomed from that.
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:2)
No, its the usual culprit: blind, pin-headed, unreasoning, narrow-minded, animalistic, slimey, vicious corporate greed. You know those air-head jocks from the football team in you old high-school? They are running the (ATI, Nvidia, insert random corporation) show now. "Intellectual Property" - oh how satisfying it must be to "own" something named "intellectual", the only way they will ever get to be associated with the word.
If you th
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:2)
It's all marketing/management.
Any competitor that wants to know these things will simply reverse engineer it from their binary drivers anyway, and in fact already has.
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Any unscrupulous company can just take the binary driver, disassemble it and convert it to C. Not a trivial undertaking, but not anything a reasonably good hacker can't do in a few months of full-time work. And if ATI can't design hardware that can't be used without revealing all their K00L "Interlecshul Property" they're idiots. Besides
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:1)
My bet is that both nVidia an ATI are reluctant to release OSS drivers/specs because of endless "tweakings" (AKA, "cheats") and software cripplings of their hardware. I wish i was paranoid, but just look at how many times both companies have been found doing these kind of things either to squeeze an extra FPS off the competition or to sell a n
Re:This doesn't matter! (Score:2)
Anyhow, so far as I can see, there are only two reasonable explanations why NVidia and ATI don't want to give developers enough specs to write the drivers. Either the decisionmakers are suffering from serious technical illiteracy and really think that this will stop the competition from reverse
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2, Informative)
Also, management is just a collection of bio-engineered drones.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
How would you know that? Do you have access to the code? Or do you just repeat the common thinkings?
are you smoking crack? (Score:1)
Re:are you smoking crack? (Score:1)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
You may want to note that you would be happy to help them test their cards and drivers under Linux, but if you are going to do t
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
The correct feedback is this: When you find a bug in their driver, send in a bug report. When you find a missing feature, send in a feature request. Don't send in a feature request that reads, like, "open source your drivers, dumbasses!" as that will be ignored.
It's not hard. It's the same process you do with every other piece of software in the world.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
If my screen goes blank, and I can't switch to text mode, I don't care if the propietary drivers are perfect, I can't install them.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, binary-only drivers aren't real
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
nVidia owns their code (Score:2)
In other words, writing drivers isn't in nVidia's business model, but selling a product with drivers is in ATi's business model. ATi and oth
Re:nVidia owns their code (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP !! (Score:2)
If you really are one (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
http://www.petitiononline.com/atipet/ [petitiononline.com]
(No, I have nothing to do with the creation of that petition.)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2, Insightful)
The market for linux OpenGL workstations has to be pretty significant. ATI is loosing a lot of business because of their lack of quality Linux drivers.
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
Look, the only difference is that ATI opened up with information about some of their *old* hardware, but their recent modern cards have 3D drivers that are just as proprietary as NVIDIA's drivers.
NVIDIA says they can't release the code for any of their 3D drivers for any of their cards (old or new) because they don't own all the code thats in the driver. Given that this sounds plausible to me, I'm going to give them the bene
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Of course 3D drivers are complex. I'm not expecting magic. There are also many spec sheets. If you read the GATOS mailing list it becomes clear af
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
I'm not talking about ATI. The point of my post was trying to understand why you think ATI is worthy of your consideration, while NVIDIA is deserving of nothing but contempt.
The truth here, IMO, is a little more ugly than a lot of us F/OS people would like to hear about. NVIDIA is the clear leader in 3D performance and their driver is more stable and easier to use (they use one unified driver for all their
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:2)
As for the higher level functionality, that could be copied from existing opensource drivers for the most part anyway..
If they did like sun did with staroffice, release everything they had the rights to and let the community replace the missing bits...
Once most of the framework was
Re:Comments from an ATI engineer (Score:1)
The open-source drivers are 2D *only*. There is NO open source code ANYWHERE to control the NVIDIA cards' 3D hardware, it is and has always been proprietary (allegedly for the reasons they give).
Nvidia, why they're not open source (explained) (Score:1)
Re:Nvidia, why they're not open source (explained) (Score:2)
Re:Nvidia, why they're not open source (explained) (Score:2)
Re:Nvidia, why they're not open source (explained) (Score:2)