Dell Asking ATI For Better Linux Drivers

Open Source IT writes "According to a presentation at Ubuntu Live 2007, Dell is working on getting better ATI drivers for Linux for use in its Linux offerings. While it is not known whether the end product will end up as open source, with big businesses like Google and Dell now behind the push for better Linux graphics drivers, hopefully ATI will make the smart business decision and give customers what they want."

Comments

Nothing for you to see here...

[andrewd18]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Has there ever been anything to see in ATI's Linux drivers?

Re:Nothing for you to see here...

[Calyth]

Yeah, my hair, on the keyboard, freshly torn out of my scalp, whne I was trying to configure their bloody driver.

I use to have a bit of respect when there was open source 3D accelerated drivers for some of the older Radeons, while nVidia had none, but right now, screw that. I just want the thing to work.

GPL or nothing

[Werrismys]

Even if ATI released 100% working, fast drivers, they would be useless if they weren't OPEN and FREE.

Re:GPL or nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't agree with the "GPL or nothing" position on the level of principles, I often wonder why hardware vendors keep their source closed. It's not like a driver is of any value without the hardware and quality open source drivers would boost hardware sales. Maybe just a little, but still.
Just publish the source to whatever you have and see what the community makes of it. How could it possibly hurt?

Re:GPL or nothing

[Maxo-Texas]

Another faulty mod at slashdot...

Your opinion is that only open free code is of value.

However, in the real world, a lot of things won't get done unless someone is compensated in some way.

Over 45 years, I've seen that most people who declare things should be free do not contribute a bit of their time to help things be free. They want to be compensated for their time but they want to get everything free.

Given a choice between no driver and a closed driver that works and is installed as a binary object, I have to disagree with you.

Since ATI is a hardware company, I think they'd be foolish to ignore a rapidly growing portion of the market to sell their hardware too. However, if that market doesn't buy enough cards to pay the salary ($150k a year with benefits) of the driver developer then ATI is being extremely rational to blow them off. $150k would probably require a minimum of 20k card sales per year on linux boxes.

Re:GPL or nothing

[PalmKiller]

I would use them, as would most any other linux desktop user. Heck I have used the closed source nvidia drivers and it didn't make me ill or nothing (but lsmod did say my kernel was tainted as I recall...oooo I said, tha 'taint good at all...but at least I got good resolution on the desktop).

Re:GPL or nothing

[darth_linux]

oops. You've made the classic mistake of confusing free with free. Remember, the term 'open and free' means open source and free as in freedom. closed-source binaries do not offer the community the freedom to adjust the driver (read hack - in a good way) to make it fit any related hardware not directly supported by the company. One of the first fires that lit up Richard Stallman was the closed-source printer driver necessary (but not provided) to make his older server play with the new printer.

You can and will get compensated for your work under a 'free as in freedom' open-source model. That's one of the reasons the GPL exists - to give authors credit for 'free as in freedom' work.

Re:GPL or nothing

[mark-t]

The problem with giving away driver source code is that it inhibit a company from being able to recover its research and development costs effectively because of the likelihood of somebody else figuring out the hardware interface specs from the driver and reverse engineering a compatible product for a fraction of the cost (because figuring out a way to do something that somebody else has already done is a lot easier than inventing the idea in the first place), and it would price the first company's product out of the market before they've recovered their R&D costs.

This may help a lot

[Bullfish]

If you consider that AMD owns ATI and that AMD needs (considering how they have been hemorrhaging money) Dell to buy their CPUs, Dell just may be able to get what the Linux community has been asking wanted for quite a while.

While Dell doesn't have a lot of fans on Slashdot, they may also be able to get a lot more hardware supported as well.

Strange bedfellows, but...

Re:This may help a lot

[nine-times]

My immediate thought when I read the headline was, "And this is the answer to all those people who asked, 'Why should I care if Dell sells computers with Ubuntu?"

I remember when that story broke, and loads of people were saying, "I use Linux, but I'm not going to buy a Dell," or "Well I don't use Ubuntu, I use [insert distro here], so this doesn't help me!"

Re:Better drivers?

[mabhatter654]

Dell has something the community doesn't have... sales orders for chips!! If Dell wants drivers they stand a good chance in getting them. They just started building AMD systems and bundling ATI chipsets is a key part of the sales pitch. Hopefully several hundred thousand computers will be enough to get the ball rolling!!!

Oh yeah. Completely.

[Petersko]

"Even if ATI released 100% working, fast drivers, they would be useless if they weren't OPEN and FREE"

Totally. Unless, well... unless you want to some stuff that requires working, fast drivers. In that unlikely circumstance the drivers would be very useful.

When it comes to closed systems like video cards and their drivers, I think only a fool would turn up his nose at a binary simply because it doesn't come with source code. They should, of course, provide it for any GPL'd libraries they use.

Re:Oh yeah. Completely.

[serviscope_minor]

I think only a fool would turn up his nose at a binary simply because it doesn't come with source code.

Nice attempt to dismiss arguments using invective. Perhaps you should read what Theo de Raadt has to say about the security implications of binary blobs.

When it comes to Theo, you might think he's an asshole, but if that's the case, then he's an assole who knows his shit.

Re:Oh yeah. Completely.

[Petersko]

"Nice attempt to dismiss arguments using invective."

Actually I didn't notice I had done so. My apologies.

In my defense it slipped out because "fool" seemed like a description rather than an insult. People who need security above performance can use existing open drivers. Slow, but secure. People who require performance are more likely to be gamers or artists - but probably gamers. For them using a binary from a manufacturer is probably not verboten, or even a bad idea.

And somewhere in the middle is the guy who wants performance, hates binaries, and has to choose between his technology-based morality and his desire to make use of his fancy new hardware.

And dismissing a binary simply because it's a binary, without even considering where the best option lies, seems like a fool to me.

Re:Oh yeah. Completely.

[somersault]

Yeah, nobody should EVER use a binary that they haven't written from scratch themself - they should start off writing up an assembler in binary, then write a decent c compiler in assembly. Then, they should write all their own libraries, and they can start on writing their own OS (or at least thoroughly inspect every single line of source in the OS that they are choosing to compile). In fact, that's not acceptable.. they should really design their own computer first to avoid the security implications of using buggy x86 processors..

While it's obviously not as transparent as open source, you could always disassemble it if you're really bothered? Or you could just say thanks for actually writing this in the first place, and then use it to drive your display. They have no obligation to provide source, especially when they are using 3rd party licensed technologies...

I guess I'm a pragmatist.

[i_love_unix]

If the drivers do what I want them to do (i.e. not suck), I will use them, GPL or no GPL.

Endless hand wringing

[tji]

Why does the never ending cycle of

    ATI Needs to produce better Linux drivers --> ATI announces they really like Linux --> ATI never produces drivers

keep exciting everyone enough to cause this constant hand wringing?

They are not going to ever really support Linux well. If that's not clear after 12 years of the above cycle, then you haven't been paying attention. Move on.. Get a board with an Intel integrated GPU if you want totally open. Get an Nvidia card if you don't care about open, but want working accelerated drivers.

If ATI does somehow produce open specs or drivers, great.. think about buying one then. In the mean time, vote with your dollars, buy something else.

Re:Endless hand wringing

[RAMMS EIN]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't ATI the graphics company that used to provide specs for their cards? Now that is the real way to get your cards supported (much better than providing drivers for a few platforms). While I can't comment on the current ATI driver situation (I've never had problems with ATI cards, but I currently have only Intel and nVidia), the picture of a company that has forever paid lip service to Linux without ever delivering doesn't seem fair to me.

Re:Endless hand wringing

[GeckoX]

Because this time it's a big gorilla throwing their weight around, and thus it just might be enough to persuade ATI to actually produce for once. ATI has always seen Linux support as something that wouldn't make them any money...but DELL certainly DOES make them money.

If anyone can get ATI to pony up working drivers for linux, it's DELL.

However, I'm still waiting for the fat lady to sing on this one ;)

Good heavens!

[Petersko]

"And dismissing a binary simply because it's a binary, without even considering where the best option lies, seems like a fool to me."

My english done gone busted itself all up inside.

I really don't care...

[jessecurry]

I really don't care if the drivers are closed-source as long as the company updates them and responds to bug reports. I hate to see politics creep into Ubuntu where I have to explicitly enable NVidia drivers, that makes it more trouble for me to use the drivers than it should.

Re:Useless? stupid zealots

[MrCoke]

A few possible advantages of GPL drivers:

- more stability
- AIX support
- proper Xinerama support
- hardware end-of-life cycle when the user decides it, not when ATI decides it

I'm sure you can find a few on your own.

Re:ATI Driver performance

[JustNiz]

because ATI management are too stupid to think bigger than cutting quality to save costs.

Re:AMD *will* soon deliver open graphics drivers

[Disfnord]

Uh, yeah, no. That blog is bullshit. He said they will work on better Linux support, and they've been saying that for years. He never said anything about open source drivers.

Re:Better drivers?

[piojo]

if someone asks what kind of card to get for their Linux laptop, you just tell them to get something by Ralink. This is off topic, but I feel the need to mention it anyway (could potentially save someone some grief): you still need to check compatibility lists, or buy it and be prepared to return it. I have a ralink card that is supposedly supported by linux, but I could not make it work even with about 3 kernel recompilations and following instructions. I could probably make it work by simply installing a much older kernel/distro, but I'm not willing to do that.