AMD Promises Open Source Graphics Drivers

MoxFulder writes "Henri Richard, AMD's VP of sales, has promised to deliver open-source drivers for ATI graphics cards (recently acquired by AMD) at the recent Red Hat Summit. A series of good news for proponents of open-source device drivers. In the last year, Intel, the leading provider of integrated graphics cards, has opened their drivers as well. But ATI and NVidia, the only two players in the market for high-performance discrete graphics cards, have so far released only closed-source drivers for their cards. This has created numerous compatibility, stability, and ethical problems for users of Linux and other open source OSes, and prompted projects like Nouveau to try and reverse-engineer NVidia drivers. Hopefully AMD's decision will put pressure on NVidia to release open-source drivers as well!"

Comments

I could not read the summary

[niceone]

I'm sorry, I could not read the summary. I have worked in R&D... I got as far as "VP of sales has promised" and had a panic attack.

Re:I could not read the summary

[xenocide2]

Actually, thats one of the things that a VP could probably promise without severe problems for engineering. I guess you'd probably have to filter out the curse words in comments though...

Nice

[suv4x4]

They're just trying to get them some press. Unfortunately Linux gamers are an edge case. People needing video card support on Linux above vanilla SVGA as a whole is an edge case.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

No, some other users just want fully operational 2D graphics with dual head support. More especially for dual DVI cards where the external TMDS is not supported under X.

Re:Nice

[someone1234]

Well, if there is a good video card support on linux, linux gaming will just strengthen. It isn't a godgiven that you can play games only on Vista.

Re:Nice

[dc29A]

They're just trying to get them some press. Unfortunately Linux gamers are an edge case. People needing video card support on Linux above vanilla SVGA as a whole is an edge case.

Having solid drivers isn't just "an edge case". Go install the default ATI or Nvidia driver on a recent linux distro then upgrade it to a non open source one from the company. It's like day and night. I noticed a huge difference between having a default driver vs company made one, silly things like dragging a console with transparent background is no longer a pain, it's smooth. The desktop feels fast and I don't even have any 3d desktop installed.

Then you got things like multiple monitor support. My Feisty install without closed source drivers just wouldn't work. It kept resetting the screen resolution after reboots, wouldn't recognize my second monitor, I couldn't even force it, it was a black screen. Once I installed the closed source driver, shazam! All my video worries are gone. Now I am happily using a 2560 x 1024 dual monitor setup with hardware acceleration.

Also you got 3d desktops like Beryl. With eye candy being a major selling point in some operating systems, 3d features will become important if desktop linux wants to get more popular. I hope all graphic card companies will develop good drivers for Linux.

Re:Nice

[gsasha]

Wrong.

3D should not be about gaming only. Right now there are 3D-based window managers, and it's not inconceivable to have more real 3D-based applications. The fact that some mainstream cards have problems with drivers does nothing to help these use cases.

Re:Nice

[mackyrae]

Linux gamers are an edge case because it's too hard to game when your graphics look like $*&#!

Re:Nice

[lakeland]

Not any more. Compiz and Beryl are becoming the standard way of drawing onscreen in much the same way as aero and quartz. That means unless you have decent 3D you will stuff up desktop performance. Gamers might have much higher demands, but the days of 2D chips being adequate for desktop use are over.

Re:Nice

[Lumpy]

Nice to see you dont know squat about linux.

3d acceleration and the Video acceleration is used daily by EVERY linux user (short of text based server installs.

What you just said is as redicilous as saying "Vista users dont need anything but 2d Svga."

I run Wxvga all the time WITH 3d and guess what I dont play games in linux at work.

And I am not a "edge case" but a typical linux user.

Re:Nice

[jZnat]

Why should software development companies waste money developing games for Windows when they could get a far larger market share by making games for Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, DS, PSP, etc.? The PC gaming market is much smaller than the console games market, and Nintendo is helping widen the gap with the Wii and DS which appeal to non-gamers as well.

Re:Nice

[Osty]

Why should software development companies waste money developing games for Windows when they could get a far larger market share by making games for Wii, Xbox 360, PS3, DS, PSP, etc.? The PC gaming market is much smaller than the console games market, and Nintendo is helping widen the gap with the Wii and DS which appeal to non-gamers as well.

Many developers do exactly that. Some traditionally PC-only developers have been looking towards the consoles to keep them afloat (id). Other publishers (EA, Ubi) go for the spam approach -- develop the game for as many platforms as possible, which right now means release on Xbox 360, PS3, PS2, Wii, PC, DS, and GBA. The PSP doesn't get a port for the same reason as Linux -- the user base is too small (the PSP has a much larger userbase than linux, and is probably larger than the Xbox 360 and PS3 userbase as well, but it has a reputation of being a poor seller with users more interested in hacking for homebrew than buying games; thus, it doesn't get in on the port frenzy and has to hope for a one-off tie-in at some point later).

That said, the PC does have some strengths. Specifically, the mouse and keyboard layout is great for RTS games (I'd also mention FPS, but I believe it's easier to do FPS on a console controller than it is to do RTS on a controller so FPS is not a clear-cut PC win). Also, breaking into the PC market is much easier, given that anybody can develop a game and publish it on the web. Microsoft is trying to capture that market for the Xbox 360 with XNA, but it's still going to be a little while before XNA has enough support to make it worthwhile (needs network support, proper packaging to share games, the ability to play other people's games without spending $100/year on the creator club subscription, etc). I wouldn't be surprised to see big names like EA or Ubi decide to quit porting to PC, but even that won't totally kill PC gaming. It'll probably turn the PC into the platform for the "hardcore", with only hardcore FPS, RTS, or simulation games being profitable on the PC.

Re:Nice

[MoxFulder]

Having solid drivers isn't just "an edge case". Go install the default ATI or Nvidia driver on a recent linux distro then upgrade it to a non open source one from the company. It's like day and night. I noticed a huge difference between having a default driver vs company made one, silly things like dragging a console with transparent background is no longer a pain, it's smooth. The desktop feels fast and I don't even have any 3d desktop installed.

Agreed... this is why I was excited about possibly having open-source drivers, and posted this article. My current box has onboard NVidia, and a low-end ATI discrete PCIe card... frankly, I can't wait for *one* of them to have open drivers. Although using the binary drivers improves 3D performance and a lot of strange display bugs, as you point out, it's a huge pain to keep them up-to-date with kernel upgrades since they can't be bundled with the main kernel. I don't like putting a big binary blob in my kernel, which by all reports is out-of-date with respect to a lot of other kernel subsystems, and may open up security holes.

I don't do 3D anything (word processing, programming, web browsing mainly), but baseline unaccelerated SVGA is definitely *not* acceptable: 2D graphics acceleration is necessary for a smooth and productive desktop experience. The open-source 2D acceleration is actually pretty good at this point, but of course it simply DOES NOT WORK with a lot of the latest ATI cards in particular.

The current pace of open-source driver development is positively glacial, largely because most of the people who have sufficient documentation to easily improve the drivers are under NDA. Read this incredibly frustrating blog entry from a developer who's under NDA with ATI... using only a few hundred lines of code, he has patched the open-source Radeon driver to support most of the newer ATI cards... but ATI has spun its wheels for months without allowing him to release the code.

Re:Nice

[Stewie241]

* You != an average Linux user.
        * Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.


I think we also have to take into account the fact that the Linux landscape has changed drastically in the last five years. How popular was the iPod in 2002?

Re:Nice

[Aladrin]

You've missed 1 key point: 5 years ago!

Linux is a MUCH better desktop OS than it was 5 years ago. Coincidentally, that was about the same time I tried to use Debian as a desktop. It stunk and I quickly dropped it. Then 2 years ago, I found reason to try it out again. Slackware was pretty good, but still iffy for a desktop.

Now I've got Kubuntu. It's amazing, and definitely a good desktop OS. The home PC I have ordered was chosen based on the idea that it would only run Linux, and Windows didn't matter. (This one is going to be my 'game' PC in the living room now.)

Loki was too early. If they tried the same thing now, they'd have a LOT better success.

As for the 'waiting' issue... Was that the only issue? Or did Loki fail to advertise that they were going to be releasing that game in a few months? Because if I didn't know about it, I'd just pick it up for Windows, assuming Linux would never get it. Maybe there were other issues as well, that don't come to mind immediately.

Loki didn't prove anything except that they didn't make it.

Re:Nice

[Breakfast Pants]

World of Warcraft is one of the most profitable games ever created. If they had taken your advice, would it have been?

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Loki Software proved the lack of market for Linux games 5 years ago when they shut down in 2002.

Actually, you are incorrect. Loki Software died mainly because of managerial incompetence and mismanagement. You can read about some of that here.

And, as others have pointed out, the Linux desktop has matured a lot in the last 5 years. Even if Loki died because of a lack of customers (which is not the case), the same would not necessarily happen today.

Re:Nice

[db32]

I think linux users are probably more likely to pay for a game than windows users as long as we go down that road. I mean really the linux user is 100% legal in his usage of free software and is likely to just go buy the game because he doesn't run in the warez scene to get his software. The windows user who is probably running a pirate version is probably out downloading illegal software as we speak. Ultimately any given linux user is more likely to be using 100% legal software. And that is my stereotypical rant for the day.

Re:Nice

[Goodgerster]

Blender _does not run_ without the binary blobs on my system. Who gives a damn about games?

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am a Linux gamer and I too have purchased my games. I think that you completely misunderstand the Linux crowd. I didn't switch to Linux because it was free. I switched in the days of Windows 98 because I found a system that didn't crash and that didn't have to be rebooted with every minimal change in the system. Now, Windows has gotten much better than what it used to be, but I still prefer Linux. Firstly, because it's in my comfort zone and secondly because I get better performance out of it.

Examples:

Games on Linux typically run 10-20 FPS faster than they do on the same machine using Windows (I base that on games that I've installed on my personal dual booting machines).

Speed: Try to unzip/decompress a 61.5 MB in Windows. I tried several machines including a brand new machine running Vista. Typical results for windows were 10-16 minutes. Linux.... 8 SECONDS. Not minutes, seconds.

3D: 3D desktop that makes Linux look like Windows 2026. Enough said.

So, you're wrong when you state that people use Linux because they're too cheap to buy software. Sure, free is better, but when there's no free alternative, or a better commercial product exists, I'm more than willing to use my money to make a purchase. So, let's not start overgeneralizing the Linux population now. Saying that everyone that uses Linux won't buy software is like claiming that every Windows user is a pirate. It's far from true.

Re:Nice

[Draek]

I will go back to the PC Gaming magazine article I believe it was where John Carmack everybody's favorite guy here around here said he was seriously disappointed on the sales of Doom 3 Linux and that would most likely affect future choices on development for games on Linux.

please do, because I've never heard of such thing as "Doom 3 Linux" being for sale, and ID Software's own Doom 3 Linux FAQ states that you need a retail copy of Doom 3 for Windows in order to install the Linux version, which is how I installed and played it btw, so either your memory is failing you, or you confused DooM3 for Descent 3 or something (the last game I recall had different retail versions for both Windows and Linux, as I found out the hard way), but Descent wasn't made by John Carmack so I'd bet on your memory failing.

ohh and btw, both Neverwinter Nights and Enemy Territory run flawlessly on Linux without Wine in case you're interested.

Re:Nice

[Max Littlemore]

People needing video card support on Linux above vanilla SVGA as a whole is an edge case.

Hello, 2000 called and said they'd like their "Linux is just for hard core geeks who do everything in an xterm" cliche back.

Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[The Orange Mage]

This has created numerous [...] ethical problems for users of Linux and other open source OSes,...

Damnit, Jim, I'm a computer user, not a philosopher! But honestly, I think most of the people COMING to Linux in the Desktop world could care less about these "ethical" issues. Once again, it's just another thing that some of the Linux community puts above having things Just Work(tm). However, since some of these closed-source drivers aren't working for some, it's nice that AMD wants to open theirs so that eventually they can be modified until they work. A win for everybody, actually.

Re:Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[Just Some Guy]

I think most of the people COMING to Linux in the Desktop world could care less about these "ethical" issues. Once again, it's just another thing that some of the Linux community puts above having things Just Work(tm).

Under Linux, most things Just Work(tm) because people with those ethical issues took the time to do something about it. You can't possibly claim that GNU or Linux exist in an amoral vacuum.

Re:Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[TheRaven64]

Free Software has never been about ethics, it's always been about making stuff work. One of the pre-requisites to making stuff work, however, was the availability of the source code and the rights to fix or adapt it, and redistribute the changes (so not everyone needs to do the same fix themselves). BSD started with a bunch of guys trying to fix UNIX. GNU started with RMS trying to fix a printer driver. Linux started with a guy trying to fix Minix.

The last one is the most interesting, since fixing Minix ended up meaning completely re-writing it because (at the time) the license didn't allow redistribution of modified versions (only patch sets, and those were growing unwieldy).

To an outsider, it might seem that ethics or ideology were the motivating factors, but in reality it's just a desire for things to work. The problem with binary-only drivers is that they might kind-of work now, but at some point they might not and then there will be nothing we can do about it.

Re:Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for all of "Free Software" (however you define that), but RMS is definitely not about "making stuff work"; read anything he's ever written and it's obvious that it's ONLY about ethics. For him, making stuff work is secondary.

Re:Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[replicant108]

Free Software has never been about ethics

On the contrary, Free Software has always been about ethics.

From the GNU Manifesto:

"Why I Must Write GNU: I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way.I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it."

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Re:Ethics? Still, nice to hear.

[16K Ram Pack]

That's just one viewpoint.

I worked for a long time on mainframes, and never heard of Richard Stallman or the GNU Manifesto during that time. Yet, I saw first hand how much easier it is to fix something if you've got the source code than not.

Richard may have an ethical or political view on this, but most businesses that use Free Software, do so because it's the practical solution. Because they think that the savings will outweigh the proprietary alternative.

That's why I like to use it (but I'm also nice enough to contribute my changes back!).

Seeing is believing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy ATI until they have followed through with that promise. As far as I am concerned, they have until July, when their new low end card becomes available. If there are no Linux drivers for that card then, I will buy an NVidia based card.

Re:Seeing is believing

[AC-x]

Right, so instead of buying a card from the company that has just promised to release open source drivers you'll get one from a company that hasn't, yeah that makes perfect sense.

Re:Seeing is believing

[babyrat]

Good thinking!

Punish that damn ATI for not having an open source driver. Punish them by buying hardware from another company that doesn't have open source drivers!!!

This is great

[C_Kode]

I only buy Nvidia because it just runs better under Linux even though ATI is better on Windows. I happen to run both and I want the best of both worlds. My guess is this is partly because of the change of momentum towards Linux on the corporate desktop over the last year.

Some people will be sure to downplay this, but I think this is really the beginning. It will take time, but I expect that Linux desktop graphics will closely compete with the Windows desktop soon.

Nvidia, this is your wakeup call. Follow suit, or my next graphics card will ATI.

Don't Promise it. Do it.

[TechyImmigrant]

Really it isn't hard. Identify the code you own, replace the code you don't, put on a GPL header and release.

Promises are cheap.

Vague...

[evilviper]

Anybody got any more details? They talk about the lack of a timeline, but "graphics drivers" is also vague, and could mean 2D, or just another small subset of features.

I'm certainly not going to go out and start buying ATI cards until all the details are worked-out.

Ethics? Yes.

[pedestrian crossing]

I think most of the people COMING to Linux in the Desktop world could care less about these "ethical" issues.

True, right now they don't care. But that doesn't make it any less important to develop Free drivers.

Richard Stallman had his realization that Free software is necessary based on his experience with a printer driver.

Re:Ethics? Yes.

[808140]

If you'd actually read the article you linked to, you would realize that the quote in question (about charging money for software being a crime against humanity) was not in fact said by Richard Stallman, but only attributed to him by someone else. There's nothing new here: people are constantly trying to claim that the GPL is somehow anti-profit. But the GPL has never been about restricting anyone's ability to profit: in fact, consider the following statement, from the GPL itself (emphasis added):

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

People who claim that the GPL explicitly forbids making a profit from selling software or that Stallman himself is against the sale of software are either deeply confused or dishonest. In fact, in the early years of the FSF, the foundation was primarily supported by the sale of its own, GPL-licensed software. In those days, the internet was still slow, unstable, and inaccessible to commercial interests, many of whom nonetheless ran UNIX systems and desired GNU tools. These were sold, on floppy disks by snail mail, to people who were interested. Yes, for a fee.

"Yes," says the businessman, "I understand that -- but the GPL effectively drives the profit from selling software to zero, even if it doesn't explicitly prevent me from selling said software, because the person I sell it to can turn around and distribute it to his friends for free, a right the GPL guarantees!"

He's right, in a certain sense. However, anyone with a cursory understanding of economics and the free market knows that healthy markets also serve to drive profits to zero -- that's how you know the market is functioning properly. Margins will decrease with competition by definition, and prices will drop until all that is being covered by price is operational cost. This is considered good for the consumer; it means that businesses are forced to innovate and develop new markets, because when a sector becomes saturated, profits will by definition lower until the margins are so thin that companies previously providing the service will no longer be interested in providing them; this reduces competition, prices rise, margins widen, providing incentive to other companies to re-enter the field and make a profit -- and so the cycle begins anew. Clearly, in a properly functioning market with low barriers to entry, margins will oscillate very close to zero. This is how it is supposed to work. You don't have the right to make a profit, not in capitalism.

The case with the GPL is analogous -- the freedoms it guarantees the user reduce artificial barriers to entry and make competition very easy. For example, had I decided to sell GNU software in the 1980s -- ie, compete with the FSF, who was making a tidy profit this way -- I could have. I would have figured out how much it cost to distribute the software, and made my price lower than theirs by reducing my own profit margins, thus stealing their business. They could then have undercut me, or perhaps a third party could have undercut us both, and so on and so forth, until there was nothing left to undercut, and the price of selling the GPL'd software was exactly equal to the cost of distributing it. I probably wouldn't see this as ideal, and I'd probably stop selling GNU software. Competition would ease. Prices would rise. Business people call this an arbitrage opportunity: a product is overvalued, so you sell it for less to bring prices down, until the opportunity vanishes and there's no more profit.

The catch is, with the internet, distribution costs are nearly -- although not exactly -- zero.

Clearly, there's not much money to be made selling Free Software, although you'r

Re:Mainstream gaming

[howlingmadhowie]

the current situation is pretty rediculous. the way i see it, a graphics card manufacturer makes a card where the capabilities of the chips on the board are unknown, the firmware on the board in a binary blob, the meaning of the various pins in the pci-express slot is unknown and a second binary blob installed in the kernel of the operating system is also unknowable. how did it ever get this ridiculous?

I don't think everyone understanding the argument

[jabjoe]

I don't think everyone understands the argument here. There is a problem with closed source drivers. It's not just ideology. Closed source drivers means you can end up with no drivers for a device for your version of the kernel. Even if drivers for some different kernel version exists. A good example of this is old devices. If the manufacturer still exists, they probably don't care to do the work to update drivers for a device they no longer sell. Maybe there should be a device/kernel interface that stays the same for all time, but I think as a rule, people want the best interface possible, with open source drivers so devices can be kept up. You then of course get the advantage of open source so you can fix/work-round bugs (or improve it!).

eye candy and scientific workstations

[nanosquid]

With Compiz, Beryl, and XGL, excellent 3D graphics support has become a mainstream issue. Furthermore, Linux is widely used in science and engineering, and those users use excellent 3D graphics as well.