Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Is The ATI Driver Really "Evil"?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Truthfully, AMD/ATI's Linux support is not poor. Their goals may not
> | align with users wanting to run Beryl or Compiz, but they continue
> | to provide monthly updated drivers.
> `----
>
> http://www.michaellarabel.com/index.php?k=blog&i=27
>
Hold the phone, AMD are not blind, they know that they have Linux to thank
for a great deal of their success in over taking Intel. Not so much on the
desktop, but certainly in the sales of AMD to the server side. MS were
nowhere near ready for each advance that AMD came out with, Linux was
ready. In fact the Suse distro I remember had the 32/64 bit double sided
DVD out long before us mere mortals could have afforded a 64 bit. Dual
processors, of cause Linux with it's roots in UNIX had an advantage here
because it was just like coming home, but it is Linux that gave dual
processor it's success.
But on the desktop, though not proportionally as effective yet as the server
side, we users are enjoying full featured machines. There isn't any limits
set by a UNActiveX layer. Because in UNIX/Linux we know something very
important that MS seems to have missed, or avoided. That although we are in
a shared environment that does not mean that software can not take full
advantage of the hardware that is available to it. You can be in a shared
environment and have the full graphic capability of your graphics card,
full sound card, full motherboard and all the other bits-n-bobs on your PC.
As for the ATI side, their drivers are not just wimpy 'do enough but put no
extra effort in' drivers, they are full blown full featured. Ok, it is true
that many users had troubles, not so much from the drivers themselves but
from the confusion over XFree86 setup. Well ATI have addressed that and did
an update across the board. That to me says that they are not sitting idle,
they are listening and the drivers for Linux section is very active.
|
|
