Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Starts Rolling Out New Linux Driver Model, But Many Issues Remain

Posted by timothy on from the many-rivers-to-cross dept.

An anonymous reader writes: With the upcoming Linux 4.2 kernel will be the premiere of the new "AMDGPU" kernel driver to succeed the "Radeon" DRM kernel driver, which is part of AMD's long talked about new Linux driver architecture for supporting the very latest GPUs and all future GPUs. Unfortunately for AMD customers, there's still much waiting. The new open-source AMDGPU Linux code works for Tonga/Carrizo GPUs but it doesn't yet support the latest R9 Fury "Fiji" GPUs, lacks re-clocking/DPM for Tonga GPUs leading to low performance, and there are stability issues under high-load OpenGL apps/games. There's also the matter that current Linux users need to jump through hoops for now in getting the code into a working state with the latest kernel and forked versions of Mesa, libdrm, new proprietary microcode files, and the new xf86-video-amdgpu user-space driver.

61 comments

  1. Intel's linux support is impeccable by vivek7006 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not sure why AMD and nVidia keep dragging their foot. It makes no businesses sense

    1. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Graphics is a patent minefield - it's one of the most legally aggressive areas in computing. Both parties have a strong commercial incentive to keep their technology secret - both to stop their rival stealing ideas, and to avoid inadvertently revealing any code that infringes upon a patent they were not aware of at the time. This slows down open-source development as every change needs to be examined by legal experts, and most legal experts are very cautious in their advice.

    2. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because, beyond being able to display a negotiated resolution, Intels graphics chips don't do anything graphically impressive compared to what AMD & Nvidia are offering. To say Intels Graphics offering are on the same playing field as Nvidia or AMD, is apples to tomatoes.

      Now, on the scope of driver model in Linux, yes. Intel does fare better. However, Intel isn't vying for improved gaming performance and support that AMD & Nvidia are. That is, unless Intel has decided to do a 180 with their stance on chpset performance, and I missed the announcement. Care to share such information?

    3. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was impeccable. Every Intel chip post-Broadwell will require binary blobs, and Intel has yet to release the inteldrm module for Broadwell chips. Intel /used/ to be great, but now they're no better than nVidia.

    4. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the problems come from the traditional issues you have with every new architecture and it is just a matter of time before the issues get fixed. But probably you will be right about the patent minefield and secrecy around technology. Although, isn't that what patents are for? To protect your IP. So AMD can make open source drivers for the patent protected hardware (GPU). Intel, NVidia or any other manufacturer might find something really interesting in their technology and pay for a license to use the same technology in their products and at the same time they can help improve the open source drivers with their own insights.
       
      But of course, pardon my ignorance. I'm just a simple Java/Qt programmer at the bottom of the ladder who is happy to deliver what is asked without too many show stopping bugs or performance issues. I still have a lot to learn, both in experience and in catching up with new technologies.

      But I still have a question about this patent minefield: What is the GPL point of view against the use of patented hardware and writing open source drivers that are not patented to let said hardware work in a GPL kernel? Do hardware patents protect GPU makers like AMD from other companies who steal their technology when they write open source drivers for the patented hardware and thus reveal how the hardware works in detail?

    5. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by tepples · · Score: 1

      Intel has yet to release the inteldrm module for Broadwell chips.

      Let me hazard a guess why:

      "the inteldrm module"

      "inteldrm"

      "drm"

      Digital restrictions management strokes again.

    6. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Direct Rendering Manager?

    7. Re: Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll strip that shit out!

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnN7M9YIfdo

    8. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok timeline time:

      Linux AMD: catalyst for workstations, lets add a open source version for long term support, the open source version is pretty mature why don't we use the open source stuff and incorporate the workstation stuff in one driver and replace the closed source stuff with open source as it matures(this is today's news).

      Linux nvidia: Closed driver for workstations.... Independent developers working on the side with zero nvidia support making open source driver.

      At least give AMD credit for already being on the right side of history now, they do not deserve to be bundled with nvidia. What you are asking for they had already done. AMD is not going to piss off all their workstation clients(these are the guys that pay the linux driver bills) switching drivers to a less mature one.

    9. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intel's Linux support is not, and has never been, "impeccable". Their lawyers strip out masses of useful information from documentation and vendor-supplied driver code just like AMD's. I've heard the impeccable line for years, even during the years when I couldn't even switch the resolution of X on my supposedly perfectly supported Intel hardware (fixed in the meantime, I imagine, but I insist on AMD/ATI again now). Which brings another point: why do you think AMD is "dragging their foot"? They provide good documentation (as good as Intel's, at least, which means that of course some information is still hidden) and have translated that into working drivers by paid AMD employees. nVidia just doesn't care about the open aspects of supporting Linux, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people think it's Intel and AMD that are dragging their feet, not nVidia, given the supposed superiority of their binary driver.

    10. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not sure why AMD and nVidia keep dragging their foot. It makes no businesses sense

      Whaaaaaaaaaaat? AMD and nVidia has a quite well optimized proprietary OpenGL engine following the latest standards, Intel has not. Intel is doing it open source because who could possibly benefit, Matrox? They have about 0.00% market share these days. AMD and nVidia already has engines doing it better. They got nothing to lose and a fair bit to gain from doing it open source. You have to be pretty deaf, blind and dumb to not see that AMD and nVidia has a competitive advantage they don't want to give away. Mesa is about 5 years behind OpenGL, in terms of hardware sales that's forever.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by tepples · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Let me spell it out: Intel probably is having a hard time figuring out how to release a Direct Rendering Manager module that upholds its Digital Restrictions Management obligations.

    12. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not sure why AMD and nVidia keep dragging their foot. It makes no businesses sense

      I have an older AMD card and the current AMD 'radeon' opensource driver in the kernel impeccably supports it.

      In fact it's been about 5 years since I've had to ever even think about drivers for my video card. It just works, with great 3d performance, with every distro out of the box because it's supported by every default kernel and mesa libs. Even usb-flash distros.

      Heck I've even run many steam games just to try them out. Had to install i386 packages for steam, but the AMD kernel driver, never had to worry about it.

      If AMD can make the next driver arch as good and as open as the 'radeon' driver, I'll be buying AMD again soon.

      By the way Nvidia, I wouldn't touch your junk with a 10ft pole. Come back when it's become mostly Free Software and is shipped default in every kernel and distro and I never have to worry about it.

      --

      Liberty.

    13. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The model of your card, brother :)

    14. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No. AMD is afraid that someone at Nvidia, IBM, or elsewhere, will look through their open source code and see that they are violating one of Nvidia/IBM/whomever's patent, and sues them for not just the linux driver, that opens the door to discovery on all their other platforms as well.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mesa got OpenGL 4.0 and 4.1 support this week. 4.2 will likely arrive in the next couple of weeks ready for the Mesa 11 release in September.

      Open GL 4.3 is probably going to take a while (i actually wouldn't be surprised if all the parts of 4.4 and 4.5 are finished before 4.3).

      See http://mesamatrix.net/ for details of what needs to be done.

    16. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You're not the first to be confused by the coincidence in terms.

    17. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Graphics is a patent minefield - it's one of the most legally aggressive areas in computing. Both parties have a strong commercial incentive to keep their technology secret - both to stop their rival stealing ideas, and to avoid inadvertently revealing any code that infringes upon a patent they were not aware of at the time...

      Sorry, no, it's not that at all. If there was any serious suspicion about that then the weenies would be all over the binary blobs with decompilers. Cost is no object for that sort of thing. The real reason is... a mystery. Fear of giving the competition a leg up on optimization algorithms? Maybe, but it seems a long shot. The real reason is probably just manager idiocy. I mean it's not like manager idiocy is in short supply.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Intel] They have about 0.00% market share these days.

      You're quite mistaken there, unless you meant Matrox. Intel has a huge share of the server market, and these headless devices don't need fancy graphics to run a terminal or the occasional RDP/VNC. The build-in graphics lower the total price and makes Intel's servers more attractive.

    19. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no, it's not that at all. If there was any serious suspicion about that then the weenies would be all over the binary blobs with decompilers. Cost is no object for that sort of thing.

      I have no proof, but i also have no doubt this already happens. That, and reverse engineering the actual silicon.

    20. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most servers don't use the integrated CPU graphics they come with a low-end dedicated GPU built into the motherboard (ironically enough a lot of them are, in fact, Matrox G200e graphics).

    21. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is reverse engineering not illegal. If it is illegal then any discovered result is unusable in court?

    22. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-iris-6200&num=1

      The current iGPU is on par with some pretty high end competition (when using open drivers)

    23. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by CajunArson · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? Broadwell support under Linux is just fine and Phoronix just ran a piece showing Broadwell beating the crap out of anything else on the market when it comes to integrated graphics: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

      Hell, there's already SKYLAKE support that's publicly released!

      As for binary blobs, since you give off the smell of an AMD fanboy, why do you hate Intel so much for copying your beloved AMD? I hate to break it to you, but the requirements for binary blobs in the OPEN SOURCE AMD drivers (not just Catalyst kids) has been around for years. Intel is probably putting these (small) binary blobs in because of third-party IP restrictions anyway.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    24. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no, it's not that at all. If there was any serious suspicion about that then the weenies would be all over the binary blobs with decompilers. Cost is no object for that sort of thing.

      I have no proof, but i also have no doubt this already happens. That, and reverse engineering the actual silicon.

      And in-circuit emulators. Cost of one is a drop in the bucket compared to other efforts, often non-engineering, that goes into these sorts of things.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    25. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Is reverse engineering not illegal. If it is illegal then any discovered result is unusable in court

      It is if you happen to implement reverse-engineered tech covered by patents. As SuricouRaven succinctly put it, on graphics this is a minefield area.

    26. Re: Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, which is why I buy Intel integrated now. After waiting for AMD to offer something graphically impressive on Linux for over 10 years now why should I bother spending the extra money?

    27. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a driver developer for a non-Linux platform. I can assure you, the radeon drivers have come a long way, and do NOT require binary blobs for decent performance. Meanwhile, we still cannot get Broadwell hardware acceleration because it requires a binary blob in the inteldrm module that is Linux-specific. You might be a Linux user with Intel graphics, but I'm willing to bet you have NO idea what's running on your box.

      In the past three years, Intel has become more closed as they try to capitalize on the mobile space, while AMD has become more open-source friendly as they try to move to ARM and stay alive. I'm a fanboy of open source, not any corporation.

    28. Re:Intel's linux support is impeccable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not GP, but I have the same experience as GP. My card is Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB model. Once I ditched my old Phenom II X4 and got a FX-8350, I've had a great experience.

  2. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a new driver architecture, of course it has issues. I'm sure they'll be resolved as this thing shakes out over time.

  3. What about by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    the systemd requirements?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:What about by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      systemd requires 0.0000000001553 Chuck Norris

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  4. Re:Drivers are for cows. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Moo

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  5. SOP by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's also the matter that current Linux users need to jump through hoops for now in getting the code into a working state with the latest kernel and forked versions ...

    Seems the usual way Linux works.

    1. Re:SOP by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      There's also the matter that current Linux users need to jump through hoops for now in getting the code into a working state with the latest kernel and forked versions ...

      Seems the usual way Linux works.

      AMD still beats Nvidia for stability. The Nvidia community driver that ships with the Linux kernel is unstable and the proprietary driver is a pain in the a**. I have never had stability issues with AMD drivers on Linux as long as I kept clear of the very bleeding edge.

    2. Re:SOP by TyFoN · · Score: 1

      the proprietary driver is a pain in the a**

      Not sure how, at least for arch linux, pacman -S nvidia nvidia-libgl is a pain in the ass.
      I suspect it's about as simple as this for most other distributions.

      This is actually the main reason for me buying nvidia cards, they "just work" in linux and provide stellar performance.

    3. Re:SOP by lastman71 · · Score: 1

      Maybe just because is the first version released. How surprising, first released version of software may contain bug or missing feature. And no. It's not the usual way, The other (older) drivers are conveniently prepackaged by you distribution.

    4. Re:SOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does depend on what you're trying to do.

      In Debian for example it is trivial to apt-get upgrade the open source nvidia drivers, and they come with the base distro so even installing them initially isn't needed at all.

      But those drivers are limited, or unstable if you go with bleeding edge hardware and the high end 3d features (high end for the open source drivers anyway)

      In a "fake server" server I recently cobbled together along with a 10+ year old quatro pro nvidia card, it was fine for a console and headless operation, and perfectly stable.

      But if you are going the desktop/workstation route, you pretty much need the official nvidia driver, and there is no apt-getting that one.

      While your first install of the official nvidia driver tends to go pretty smooth (one big installer binary to download and run), the troubles begin when you update parts of your system that it hooks into.
      A simple apt-get upgrade will usually break the currently installed nvidia driver along with the built in one that gets pretty much disabled for good.
      Then you need to redownload and rerun the newer nvidia driver installer binary - all blind and with no graphics!
      And no it won't let you do it from the console since it uses the current X environment you run it in to determine how to install.
      So hopefully you're up on all your keyboard shortcuts and have memorized the install process enough to type and potentially click blindly to do it.

      But on the other hand I've never gotten mid to high end AMD cards to work better either.
      Even when they work "perfectly" there is plenty lacking compared to Nvidia in features.

      Of course we all have that third option of integrated Intel graphics! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

      Fact is the state of 3d graphics in Linux is pretty sucky still and could definitely use much improvements.

  6. Good old OS flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not usual, but a possible route of many.

    On Windows it's the "problem solution wizard", reinstall, reboot or nothing. Apple same: it just works (or it just doesn't).

    1. Re:Good old OS flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. People who don't actually use a given OS will often believe all sorts of ridiculous nonsense about it. People who don't like a given OS will usually be the ones spreading said nonsense.

    2. Re:Good old OS flame war... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Yeah, running "apt get update" which breaks the install and requires a full rebuild of a web server is such a good idea for a OS. It happened to me. I have yet to do an install or upgrade on a Linux server that does not refer to packages that I do not have or which may be incomparable with packages I do have.

      I use Linux only because I have to (IIS is even worse).

    3. Re:Good old OS flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you've upgraded once and had an extremely unusual experience. Cool story bro.

    4. Re:Good old OS flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant apt-get upgrade. Update is different. Your problem is your lack of experience and knowledge, which is the core of every problem in computer science: It's a continual exploration of what you (personally) do not know.

      It sounds like you're not really cut out for it.

    5. Re:Good old OS flame war... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      no it was update as I was trying to update for heartbleed.

    6. Re:Good old OS flame war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      update will not touch any package. That you insist it did is telling: you have no idea what you are talking about.

  7. Better than the competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately for AMD customers, there's still much waiting.

    The NVIDIA customers will be waiting even longer for proper open source driver support.

  8. ROI by jklovanc · · Score: 0

    Will investing hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting an OS with 1.6% of market share ever return a profit?

    1. Re:ROI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If AMD can land more semi-custom design wins for products that run the Linux kernel this investment will likely pay off in spades.

    2. Re:ROI by armanox · · Score: 1

      AMD has had a big focus on their OpenCL performance lately - they could be banking on people buying their cards for that reason (and for say companies that are looking to buy the really expensive cards, but they'll need to actually get those cards working correctly with the new driver).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:ROI by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't it sad that Linux is getting ROFLstomped by both Windows 8 (the most hated Windows since ME) and Windows 10 ( a fricking beta that isn't even RTM yet) as well as fricking "other"?

      Of course shit like this is EXACTLY why the Hairyfeet challenge has lasted 8 years and why every other FOSS OS has a stable driver ABI including BSD and Android, because if you don't? You get shit drivers and updates break drivers, simple as that. I mean what did you THINK would happen? How many kernel devs are devoted full time to drivers? 30? 40? lets be generous as hell and say 200. So you have 200 devs and over 100,000 drivers with hundreds more coming every.single.quarter. and because there is no stable ABI all it takes is a pointer change in the right spot and thousands of those drivers are now worthless, they DO NOT WORK.

      It don't take Hawking to do the math folks, Torvalds and his "let the devs handle it" is a classical mythical man month situation that will never ever improve, it just can't because you will NEVER 1.- Have enough devs with low level driver experience that are, 2.- intimately familiar enough with the hardware to make more than generic (at best) drivers even if you give them the code, 3.- Nor enough hours to go through the tens of thousands of drivers when a major change causes breakage and finally 4.- No way will they have access to all that hardware to test.

      Of course all that goes away with an ABI, which is why Apple (OSX and iOS),BSD,Haiku, Windows, hell even OS/2 Warp has a fricking ABI folks! And the one argument they always bring up, the "they won't give us the code precious" BS? Yeah what is the GPU that every.fricking.Linux.article. advises people to use? Nvidia which don't give you the code, never will give you the code, yet its always the best driver of the lot!

      Its been 22 damned years folks, and Linux is lower than "other"...doesn'ty that tell you something? And you can't even bring up android as Google fricking HAS an ABI for Android! If Torvalds model worked then others would have adopted it...they haven't, not even the other FOSS OSes. Its time to face the facts, which is the kernel devs should be focused on the kernel and the ones that actually make the hardware should be focused on the drivers! But that isn't gonna happen if they have to rewrite the damned things yearly because of Torvalds fiddling, not when a driver written for Vista will run in Windows 10. You can't dictate terms when your OS is at 1.6% and trying to has kept the OS dead last for 22 years, isn't it about time to stop sticking with a failed model?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:ROI by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. This is finally the year of the Linux desktop! I can feel it!

    5. Re:ROI by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Is it worth investing hundreds of thousands of dollars on software to support tens of billions of dollars of research and development in a hardware products evelotion. Why yes, yes it is.

      If you dont understand the benefits of open source why are you even posting here ?

    6. Re:ROI by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Sorry but we are not talking about open source. We are talking about a company with shareholders who are interested in revenue spending lots of money for no direct return. They most probably have a budget and are limited in what they can do.

      How does making drivers so Linux games play better support research?

    7. Re:ROI by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Only thing - why has Valve chosen to base SteamOS on Linux, instead of PC-BSD? Do they have any control over their drivers?

    8. Re:ROI by bug1 · · Score: 1

      They have spent money or research developing the HARDWARE. Hardware is useless without software.

      Spending money on hardware and not software is like designing a car without an engine.

      Open source drivers allows them to provide a better "user experience" on Linux platforms, but more importantly it enables "peer review" of the driver which helps to indentify bugs, promotes trust, and provides a better "user experience" on some platforms (ie Linux).

      So yes we are talking about open source, and we are talkign about financial benefits to AMD.

  9. ABI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stick to what you know, hairyfeet. Linux has no ABI because it does not want to encourage having random binary blobs on the users' systems. It's an ideological principle that will never change.

    You clearly only understand the desktop arena, which is fine, but most Linux users are pretty happy with its current niche. The Linux ecosystem is probably better described as a set of tools for building an OS, and so you see things made from it like Android, Maemo/Meego/Sailfish/Whatever, SteamOS, various container-style projects, and the normal run of distributions. It's a development platform, mostly for server applications. Yeah, it would be nice in some ways if everyone was programmer enough to use Linux, but it's essential to no one, and the minority of people who have aftermarket video cards is not sufficient justification to bend over backwards for closed development models. Gamers may keep you in business, but they are a tiny part of the computing market. Now if you could point to something like ABI compatibility being an issue with GPU supercomputing, that might be more compelling.

    There are arguments for a stable ABI. They are never going to get traction in a very successful open development paradigm, and desktop market share is not one of them. I'm sorry you've been riding this hobby horse for however many years, and I hate to tell you how silly you look doing it, but if that's your thing I guess you can keep it up until doomsday.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:ABI by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And I just fucking showed you that argument makes you and most Linux users hypocrites or did you not even bother reading my post before you shat yours out? "Yeah what is the GPU that every.fricking.Linux.article. advises people to use? Nvidia which don't give you the code, never will give you the code, yet its always the best driver of the lot!"

      Your argument DOES NOT HOLD WATER on multiple levels, 1.- Most Linux advocates recommend Nvidia, which is a binary, and 2.- When you are at 1.6% nobody is gonna support you so you ain't getting shit anyway LOL!

      BTW you DO realize that you just admitted your OS is NOT based on sound design principles but on religion, yes? Because that is EXACTLY what the argument you just put forth states, that when given a choice of having a functional OS or trying to push a failed driver model which you THINK might kinda sorta (but as Nvidia shows is bullshit) push your "philosophy"? The acceptable choice is a broken OS...and you wonder why Linux has been out for 22 fucking years and has YET to even get a shitastic 2%?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:ABI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Failed driver model? By what definition of failure? Linux exists on millions upon millions of devices. Many Linux advocates may recommend NVIDIA hardware for gaming, but who cares? It's a tiny market. NVIDIA and AMD both have great Linux support for workstations and GPU computing, which is where the money is.

      I hope that Linux never gets above 2% of the desktop, personally. Non-coders like you would ruin the platform, with exactly these kinds of moronic suggestions. I'd lay odds the majority of linux instances don't even have a video output connected. Why you persist in thinking of it as a desktop platform, to the exclusion of its actual uses, is beyond imagining.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    3. Re: ABI by corychristison · · Score: 2

      As Tenebrousedge already stated, you're talking about websites related to gaming that are recommending NVIDIA.

      I personally have used Linux exclusively (both on desktop and laptop computers) since 2003. I have also used AMD GPU & CPUs exclusively since 2008. The most graphics intensive thing I've ever run is Youtube in Firefox. My current video card in my primary workstation is from 2011.

      My wife and young children have no problem navigating my linux based systems. We as a family use it for regular every day things such as browsing the web, writing documents, watching netflix, downloaded movies and music. I will admit we don't play video games, and do not own any gaming consoles. I encourage my children to go outside and play (we play a lot of soccer in the field next to our home), or do something more constructive like building things with Lego or Meccano.

      The only people who care about the latest and greatest graphics and drivers are gamers. Period. Frankly, Linux is not for them. The Linux community accepts and understands that. Most of us would rather the masses stick to what they know.