Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Insight Into AMD's Linux Driver Development

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the they-should-all-wear-hats-while-they-code- dept.

Cowards Anonymous writes "It's no secret that ATI Technologies has had a rough time in the past delivering display drivers that met the expectations of their customers. When ATI started out producing a FireGL and Radeon Linux driver they for some time were greatly behind NVIDIA's feature-rich driver. The early ATI Linux driver had lacked essential functionality such as PCI Express and x86_64 architecture support and was also affected by stability and performance problems — not to mention a great deal of bugs."

11 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Not really surprising by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's also no secret that ATI has long had problems with their drivers for Windows too.

    No, this is not a troll. I use ATI cards almost exclusively myself and I prefer them over NVidia, but I do have to admit that Nvidia's drivers as a general rule seem much better designed and simpler to install.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    1. Re:Not really surprising by Scoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not sure what kind of "supporting evidence" you might want, but I once bought a Radeon once to replace my aging Voodoo3. I forget the exact model number, but at the time it was about $175 or $200. In some games it was *slower* than the Voodoo3. I gave up and reinstalled Windows clean, but still had the same trouble. Took it back, got a GeForce 3 Ti 200 for about the same price, and it worked beautifully out of the box. Fast forward to several years later and I was looking to replace that card, and I got another Radeon. Installed the drivers, slapped in the new card - poof, blue screen on boot in the video drivers. Stuck the GF3 back in, removed it from the DevMan, and manually installed the VGA driver. Rebooted with the ATI, installed the drivers - back to Bluescreen on Boot. So, another clean install of Windows, and still got bluescreens on boot. Took that Radeon back and got a GF 6600GT again for about the same price, slapped it in, and it's worked ever since. I have a hard time believing I had other bad hardware in there to cause the troubles since in both cases the GeForces worked perfectly. Not to mention the GeForces worked much more nicey in Linux than the Radeons ever did. I genuinely gave ATI two tries now, and both times I was hit with troublesome drivers. I doubt I'll be buying another Radeon anytime soon.

    2. Re:Not really surprising by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sigh, yet another general statement without supporting evidence. I think your post is a sly bit of astroturfing for NVidia. No it's not. I can't really say much about the Nvidia drivers because I've never owned an Nvidia card personally. But when I have to install them for someone else, they always just seem to work.

      I've used ATI ever since I finally gave up my Voodoo2. I have just about every version of drivers ATI released since the first Catalyst came out, and quite a few from before. They all worked, for the most part, but the install process does not seem as streamlined as Nvidia's, and I still keep hearing from people who have a problem with this or that part of the driver install process crashing, not working properly after reboot, etc. I've also encountered a few drivers over the years myself that required some extra work and a couple reinstalls to get them to work properly. However ATI has come a long way, I'll readily agree to that. Their drivers today are much better than they were when I first started using them.

      For WHQL certification, we all know that doesn't mean a whole lot. I've used non-WHQL drivers that worked perfectly every time on many different machines, as well as certified drivers that caused BSODs.

      Yes I know this is all just anecdotal evidence, and it is only intended as such so please take it with a grain of salt.
      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    3. Re:Not really surprising by stewwy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      quote from their latest driver

      This release of Catalyst(TM) introduces the second generation ATI Theater(TM) 650. This product will provide support for the new MCE 2006 requirements such as DRM support. Further, it will include features to support ATI All-In-Wonder products. It will also provide improved TV quality and Broadcast Flag support which enables full US terrestrial DTV support.

      this is written as if its a good thing!

  2. Re:Nvidia is not the competition by PenisLands · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Free wireless drivers? The wireless in my laptop works with linux, but according to Ubuntu's driver management thing, it requires proprietary drivers. So, maybe you are mistaken... or are only some of intel's wireless adaptors free and open?

  3. Re:what a joke by michrech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When hardware companies try to make software, the result is almost inevitably shit. There are some exceptions, but big hardware companies tend to see software development as a 'cost center,' an afterthought to be minimized as much as possible, rather than a critical and major part of their product.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, SO LONG AS THEY OPEN UP THE DAMNED SPECS SO THE COMMUNITY CAN WORK WITH IT PROPERLY. I can only assume I'm not the only one who thinks so, either.

    I'm sure "the community" would be quite content to have a sample available to them before the hardware comes out (so they can write a driver/software package for it) to help the hardware company. Hell, I'm sure the developers (and the community) would be HAPPY to PAY for the development hardware (don't most console game companies doe this?). I know I'd chip in where I could, and I very much doubt I'm not the only one.

    --
    bork bork bork!
  4. Does AMD just not yet it? by ArcRiley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think I speak here for a fairly wide swath of GNU/Linux developers and distributors: While the quality of the driver and it's release is of some importance, the license of that driver is the deal breaker. Give us a poor driver with a free (as in freedom) license and the community will make it great. Give us an excellent driver with a proprietary license and only a minority of users will use it. Why? Many distros (I'll use Fedora as an example) will not package proprietary drivers. Ubuntu, which I believe is the most popular right now, is on the fence and, at the very least, warns the user. This is part of the fundamental nature of GNU/Linux: It's about freedom. Does AMD understand this yet? It doesn't seem so. Moreso, because most free software developers ignore ATI's drivers as proprietary, there is little GNU/Linux software that takes advantage of the higher end cards. The DRI drivers on an r200/r300 card work just fine for almost everything. Why would a user, then, pay $100+ for a higher-end video card when a $35 Radeon 9250 is better supported? For users it's thus a choice of price/benefit if nothing else. If AMD wants to work better with our community they need to join our community. Break the closed development loop in favor of integrating their paid developers and "volunteer" driver developers, there's a number of skilled developers with DRI that I'm sure would be very willing to help should AMD do this.

  5. Re:Nvidia is not the competition by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You think you want a stable kernel ABI, but you really don't.

    --
    Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
  6. Re:Intel has not release docs by crush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's interesting. Thanks for the link. Is there some productive way to pressure Intel and help them make the final step?

  7. nVidia blob isn't crap. by gukin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that lots of folks are vexed that nVidia won't open their 3D driver, saying "If nVidia stops supporting Linux you're all doomed." Well just who do you think supports the open source nv.c driver? How about the nVidia SATA driver? Yes, it's nVidia, so even though the 3D stuff is closed source, they're still supporting OSS.

    Next about the "Crap" drivers from nVidia, I've ordered a bunch of new Linux PCs, each will have a low-end nVidia video card added when it arrives? Why? Well I need dual headed support and that can be spotty with other video card vendors. I also need to run them in 8-bit color (don't ask, I just need to.) and my experience with the glorious wonderful OSS Intel video drivers is a nasty little box that follows the cursor around on the screen. I don't have ANY issues with nVidia's "Crap" drivers, everything looks great and works great.

    I applaud ANY vendor who makes efforts at supporting OSS but I buy stuff from vendors who support Linux. Every system I own is either an nForce mobo with an nVidia video card or is simply sporting an nVidia card. When asked about what to buy, I recommend nVidia products. They have the best quality 3D support and performance of ANY vendor (which isn't much), they make it possible for me to play games under Linux that I'd otherwise have to play under Windows and that is worth a lot to me.

  8. Re:Does AMD just not get it? by ArcRiley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like McDonald's board of directors meeting over poor sales in India, clueless to the ethical views of that market. Sales VP: "They don't like our beef" Marketing VP: "So we'll give them better beef, fresher!" Technical VP: "We could slaughter the cow on site if it helps" Sales VP: "That could be a great slogan, 'fresh from the cow'" [cue standard nods of agreement and voicing of support from around the table]