Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ATI Releases Drivers for XFree 4.3.0

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the better-late-than-never dept.

Graphics 428

Kyouryuu writes "ATI has finally released official drivers for XFree 4.3.0 and updated their Linux drivers to 3.7.0 for supported XFree versions, several months after the originally proposed release date of April last year. Although Schneider Digital has previously made available unofficial drivers, Linux users who have ATI Radeon cards can now benefit from an official release. Unfortunately, ATI still insists on using RPM exclusively and keeping the drivers closed source."

cancel ×

428 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thrust vectoring owns the skies... (-1)

(TK)Max (668795) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485159)

This thing can turn on a dime, Trollkore style.

Re:Thrust vectoring owns the skies... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485199)

Ooo.. a -2 karma bonus, niiiice..

ATI (-1)

Klerck (213193) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485168)

ATI. What's it all about? Is it good, or is it whack?

These drivers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485171)

Are for the RAGE PRO line of cards. Radeon drivers are expected in four years.

Re:These drivers (1, Informative)

Bishop, Martin (695163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485202)

No, rage chipsets, radeons use the rage chipsets, 9800 = Rage 350, and so on down

closed source != bad always (3, Interesting)

grennis (344262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485172)

Unfortunately, ATI still insists on using RPM exclusively and keeping the drivers closed source

So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway? It is naive to think that you could even understand, let alone improve, what the engineers - who know the hardware intimately - have written? And by the way, Nvidia does not publish its source either...

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Interesting)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485184)

can someone comment on how these perform? im heavily considering putting linux back on my box, but ive gotta be able to game...are these new ATI drivers anywhere near as good as nVidias as far as performance is concerned in relation to the performance in windows?

Re:closed source != bad always (3, Interesting)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485469)

The 3.7.0 drivers (which, btw, have been out for over a month before this Slashdot headline) are absolutely terrible. I was getting 10-15fps in UT2004 at any resolution on a Radeon 9700. I reverted to the previous release.

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485222)

Yeah, it's really naive to think that someone else might be able to spot the deadlocks I seem to get from my ATI drivers. Especially since it's a software problem, not a hardware one.

Clearly software engineers would not be able to help this at all and you're definately not trolling. I mean, duh!

However, open source == better bug finding/fixing (3, Interesting)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485224)

Remember the Win2000 source leak. Someone noticed a fairly simple programming error (signed instead of unsigned variable IIRC). That person didn't have an initimate knowledge of Windows 2000, but they still found a bug. This is the type of situation where more eyes make for better code.

Re:However, open source == better bug finding/fixi (2)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485429)

So you're saying that because someone found a bug in windows (surprise fucking surprise), then everything should be open?

I agree with the parent, graphics drivers do a lot more than say modem drivers and probably have a lot of secrets that ati would not want to get out into the open, pun intended. ATI sells hardware, not software. But the software is what makes the hardware run so well and therefore is just as important to them as the hardware. If ATI spends a couple million on research only to have nvidia steal it, it's bad for ATI. Doing this keeps the competition no matter what you communists believe (not you necessarily, but you know what I mean).

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485227)

Oh bullshit. You're telling me that nVidia cannot reverse engineer the binary?

It's about control, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:closed source != bad always (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485234)

It's /. here mate. Slashdotters will try telling you which mouth you should be putting your money in, but if you ever ask them what they do they will tell you fuck all. It sounds like that bloke owns a video card manufacturing company, which has gone open-source and now is trying to persuade the rest to do so. Just pathetic.

Re:closed source != bad always (5, Informative)

lubricated (49106) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485237)

> So what if the drivers are closed source?

No porting to ppc. No fixing minor bugs if they come up. No customizing the drivers to a particular application. No tinkering. No learning.

> ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors.

They can but they won't. Their competitors have competent engineers that can reverse engineer the stuff if needed. It's all in software anyway.

> Whats the difference anyway?

see above.

> It is naive to think that you could even understand, let alone improve, what the engineers - who know the hardware intimately - have written?

I think you are naive. There are plenty of smart people that do alot of linux work. Surely they know linux better than ATI, and thus they may be able to improve the drivers since it's not just the hardware that these drivers are specific too. Also they may be able to port the drivers to PPC or BSD.

> And by the way, Nvidia does not publish its source either...

What's your point? It would be better if they did.

Re:closed source != bad always (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485286)

So what you are saying if it is possible to reverse engineer ati's hardware then they should make it easy to reverse engineer their hardware. What is the reasoning behind this statement?

Re:closed source != bad always (5, Insightful)

Paleomacus (666999) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485351)

Because when nVidia wants to know something about ATI drivers it's only slightly less trivial to get the information when the driver source is closed than open.

No. (-1, Flamebait)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485385)

Sorry, but Ati is in the extremely competitive graphics card business, and making their drivers open source (and hence revealing a good amount of information concerning their hardware to their competitors) would be absolutely disasterous. If their competitors can reverse engineer, then let them. By the time they get done Ati will have moved on (this is why graphics companies don't waste man hours and money trying to reverse engineer everything their competitors create).

Open source has its merits and its place, but Ati is running a business that relies on secrets. Learn and tinker on your own time, take that upon yourself. Don't expect companies like Ati to forfeit potential millions just so that you can "play". You pretentious fucking idiot.

Re:No. (2, Informative)

dinivin (444905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485441)


Why do people keep spouting this BS? It took nVidia a full two years to incorporate 3Dfx technology into their own products when they bought all the 3Dfx IP. By this time, the entire industry had moved on.

Maybe you should actually research these things before you spout out crap, you pretentious fucking idiot.

Dinivin

Re:No. (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485443)

By the time the hardware goes to market they should already be atleast one or two generations further in their development.
So yeah, it doesn't make sense to rely on reverse engineering to compete, likewise it also doesn't make sense to keep it a secret anymore.

Assuming they would do atleast some reverse engineering (they could be doing some magic you hadn't thought of and adding it in your next model can still make sense) it would take so little extra time compared having the source it just doesn't make sense for a harware manufacturor in a pressed market to keep its software closed.

Jeroen

Re:closed source != bad always (-1, Troll)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485391)

PPC? Using "free software" on a MORE EXPENSIVE hardware platform is highly illogical. Lack of drivers is an appropriate punishment for such silly shenanigans.

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485462)

PPC is more than just Apple....
But you could replace PPC with any non ati supported platform: AMD64, MIPS, ALPHA, SPARC, whatever-commes-next-week.

Jeroen

Re:closed source != bad always (3, Interesting)

fedork (186985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485240)

I doubt competitors can benefit by using info from driver sources. And you also seem to be contradicting yourself - on one hand can improve it but the engineers, on the other hand competitors can abuse it somehow... This really does not add up. I beleive the real reason is plain old beaurocracy.

well... (3, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485246)

1) I have a Radeon card in a Gentoo system. Gentoo doesn't use RPMs.

2) What if ATI has linked it against the wrong library version?

3) What if I get an Opteron?

Re:well... (5, Informative)

kinzillah (662884) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485323)

Portage downloads the rpm, pulls the content out and puts the pieces where they need to go.

Re:closed source != bad always (1)

Gyorg_Lavode (520114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485252)

I honestly don't know what about nvidia is open or closed, but I do ,now 90% of my installs of nvidia drivers they recompile at least a portion of it to match my kernel. There are a lot of kernels out there and if ATI's drivers can't be compiled to match them they are much less useful.

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Informative)

y0bhgu0d (168149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485309)

ati just released an XF86 driver, not a kernel driver. only part of nvidia's kernel driver is compiled, and the xf86 driver most definantly isnt compiled.

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Interesting)

wehe (135130) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485259)

So why are other companies able to provide their drivers as Open Source? Do you think the developers of for example XFree86 [xfree86.org] were not capable to do a good job?

Anyway I like Open Source drivers. BTW: Don't forget to sign the Intel Support of Centrino Under Linux Petition [petitiononline.com] . See more details about Linux on Centrino laptops [tuxmobil.org] .

Re:closed source != bad always (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485261)

So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway?

The difference is that this is Slashdot where the cranks di tutti cranks hang out. ATI could give away free video cards, open source all their drivers, and hire a bunch of strippers to come to your house and make you birthday cake... and the Slashdot crowd would still piss and moan.

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Interesting)

wfberg (24378) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485263)

So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway? It is naive to think that you could even understand, let alone improve, what the engineers - who know the hardware intimately - have written? And by the way, Nvidia does not publish its source either...

It's naive to think ATI's competitors don't have a much better understanding of their hardware than whatever can be gleaned from their drivers' sources, especially if you consider that they can already reverse-engineer the binaries better than any random Joe, seeing as they have actual money to sink into it. And there's the thing about them making the same sort of hardware.

Having the source would greatly benefit the little people though. These cards will sometime go End-Of-Live, and the manufacturer won't support them.

Perhaps the source won't be released to hide the fact these "engineers - who know the hardware intimately" make code that is in fact cruddy at times, and that it contains bugs than random Open Source jockeys can fix.

Though it's likelier that the drivers simply contain patented/copyrighted stuff they sublicensed from third-parties that are paranoid about anyone seeing it.

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Insightful)

Endive4Ever (742304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485313)

These cards will sometime go End-Of-Live, and the manufacturer won't support them.


Graphics cards that have gone 'end-of-life' in the past have been dropped by the XFree86 team themselves. An example is the S3 Trio chipset cards. Sure, an ambitious hacker could forward-port support themselves. However, this points out that 'free software' people abandon hardware as well, rendering it worthless to anybody but the most diligent.

Re:closed source != bad always (5, Insightful)

zzabur (611866) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485266)

Whats the difference anyway?

Even if we don't count idiological issues, closed source drivers mean numerous annoyances to the users.

For example:

  • Drivers can be buggy, and there is no way to fix it. (NVidia drivers are hang my system all the time.)
  • Closed source drivers need additional EULAs and thus often cannot easily be distiributed with Linux distributions.
  • Drivers need to be installed separately, which is annying, sometimes difficult and may break your system. (this is also true for Windows)
  • When some new soft/hardware appears (like AMD64, 2.6 kernel), one has usually wait for months for drivers to be updated.
  • Source-based distributions like Gentoo cannot compile new, performance optimized version, if driver is distributed as a binary.

Re:closed source != bad always (1, Informative)

damballah (691477) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485336)

What's worse is that RPM is NOT the only binary package availabe for linux. Hence Debian, Gentoo, and Slack users are missing on it. At least NVIDIA's binaries are written in sh, something any linux distro has...

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Informative)

dinivin (444905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485474)


That's ood, I'm happily using the drivers on two Debian systems.

OF course, I would be happier if they drivers were open source, but not because they're simply packaged as RPMs.

Dinivin

Never going to be fully open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485355)

ATI uses proprietary technology licensed from others. It also has a cross-licensing with Intel. They give Intel technology rights for access to the Pentium 4 bus. They're not going to give this stuff away. They couldn't give away the parts they license even if they wanted to.

Re:closed source != bad always (5, Insightful)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485424)

> It is naive to think that you could even
> understand, let alone improve,

I get to stare at "professional" code every day. It is nothing like what was in the textbooks. There is acres of room for improvement. silly little things like something called a buffer overflow are present in many of the implementations. I cannont believe my eyes somedays, and it's a wonder that the product that this certain company puts out, functions at all. It is under the cover of closed-source that these things are allowed to persist, and will probably never change. The company just keeps issuing patches and revisions and fixes what is terminally broken. Futhermore, the only reason these "bugs" exist is simply do to human laziness; something that could be overcome by another simple human, with the right principles, without an "intimate knowlege" of the hardware.

ATI drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485438)

It is naive to think that you could even understand, let alone improve, what the engineers - who know the hardware intimately - have written?

Writing a driver requires an understanding of the hardware and the OS/driver framework.

ATI has a reputation for delivering drivers that affect system stability.

Re:closed source != bad always (2, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485470)

One effect of the drivers being closed source is that new kernels must wait on the convenience of the manufacturer for support. Another effect of the drivers being closed source is that when a model is discontinued, support can go away, and your card becomes worthless. (The second argument is really a part of the first argument.)

There may be others, but those are sufficient for me. I won't be paying for high end cards. I've had too much experience with closed source applications breaking with system patches & upgrades. If that's likely to happen, I'm no longer willing to fork out a wad of cash.

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Insightful)

Nurf (11774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485472)

So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway? It is naive to think that you could even understand, let alone improve, what the engineers - who know the hardware intimately - have written? And by the way, Nvidia does not publish its source either...

I design hardware for a living, and you are wrong. There is no real benefit to hiding your hardware internals from the rest of the world. It's a knee-jerk PHB thing. It has no bearing on reality.

If you are scared of your competitors, then hiding your hardware internals costs them maybe a week, because:

1) They know how to do everything you do, anyway.
2) What they don't know they can figure out in under a week, if they put an engineer or two on it. The delta between what they do and what you do is minimal, and anything they want to know is trivial to reverse engineer.

There might be "IP" issues, which usually means there is stuff in there protected by a stupidly restrictive license with another company. In my experience, the IP usually isn't worth the bother, or if it is, the license is only restrictive because lawyers simply assume it has to be. They come from a zero sum world, and never think of any other possibilities unless you start witholding cookies.

Usually, being closed will cost your partners much more than a week - they don't just want to learn what you did, they need to interface to it, and that is _hard_. It requires much better information than simply figuring out a trick your competitor used.

I will say it again: It is very rare and unlikely that closing your software helps in a situation like this.

Re:closed source != bad always (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485485)

So what if the drivers are closed source? ATI cant and wont expose the low level details of their hardware's functionality to competitors. Whats the difference anyway?
In my case it makes the drivers unusable.

I wanted to plug my laptop into a 1600x1200 LCD using DVI. If you select "linux laptop driver download" at the ATI site, it says "go ask the manufacturer." Oh, goody, corporate marketing BS fingerpointing.

But IBM doesn't support 1600x1200 over DVI on my laptop. Why? Who knows. Supposedly under Windows you can get it by hacking the registry. But IBM doesn't feel like supporting it. More corporate BS.

So you go back to the ATI site and download the Mobile FireGL driver, if you're persistent enough to think of trying it on the M9 Radeon chip. Turns out it does work, but they won't tell you that due to even more corporate marketing BS.

You find that it almost works, but makes a sparkling or shimmering effect from random bit errors at 1600x1200. From the open source radeon driver mailing list, it appears that the fix is very simple. But ATI got it wrong and of course a closed source driver can't be fixed. Of course you could try to contact the ATI engineers, tell them the solution, and maybe they'll send you a fix. In your dreams.

Meanwhile the open source radeon driver runs 1600x1200 over DVI just fine. Some versions did create the shimmering effect, so somebody posted to a mailing list and helped the developer figure out what was wrong and it got fixed.

So yeah, closed source is different.

haha (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485173)

open source=caca

ATI was waiting for debian (5, Funny)

Rushuru (135939) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485180)

ATI was just waiting for xfree 4.3.0 to eventually enter debian

Re:ATI was waiting for debian (1)

Mitchua (755534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485225)

But where is the justice for Gentoo users :-)

Re:ATI was waiting for debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485349)

you inflict justice on yourself with every 'emerge' ;P

XFree86 4.3 support is not new. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485195)

ATI has been offering drivers for XFree86 4.3 since some time late last year.

What's new is that there are new Linux drivers. No mention of whether they support GLX 1.3.

Re:XFree86 4.3 support is not new. (1)

Stickney (715486) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485411)

True, I don't see any difference between the "new file" and the ones I installed to run my Radeon 9800 under SuSE several months ago...the only thing I'm waiting on now is for the 9800 drivers to become integrated into the SuSE YaST configuration, so that it will actaully use them!

Which is why I buy nVidia (-1)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485207)

yup

justice, sweet justice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485280)

finally glad to see that the fucking prick corebreech finally got modded into oblivion

bitchslapped? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485340)

Posting with +1 Karma bonus, now -1?

Re:bitchslapped? (-1)

corebreech (469871) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485446)

Yeah, they zapped all my karma. Went from excellent to terrible in just two posts.

And all because I dared to suggest that TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy.

Whatever. I suspected going in that slashdot was rife with censorship. Now I know for sure.

patience (-1, Flamebait)

hitchhacker (122525) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485209)


All we have to do is wait for The Weather Channel [slashdot.org] to upgrade their video cards..

-metric

Not just RPM... (5, Informative)

OrangeHairMan (560161) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485211)

from the readme:

Some notes for debian users:

The debian Linux distribution in most cases does not come with the
ability to handle rpm packages with the rpm tool. But there is a
tool called "alien" which allows you to convert rpm files into the
debian supported *.deb package format. Please consult your debian
documentation on how to operate this tool.

A typcial debian installation commandline will look like this:

dpkg -i <ati_package_name>.deb

In order to override complaints (which might be caused by an already
installed package "xlibmesa3" that also provides the file libGL.so.1.2)
please use this installation command line:

dpkg -i --force-overwrite <ati_package_name>.deb

Hopefully this helps!

Re:Not just RPM... (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485250)

But how hard would it be for them to fix up an alienised deb and distribute that, or to plain create debs in the first place?

Re:Not just RPM... (4, Informative)

Erratio (570164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485314)

There's support issues, once they release those packages they are responsible for them.

I'm running a computer with an ATI without a package management system but I installed RPM and forced an install of the package and it works fine. I think the RPM in this case is mostly just a way to archive the different parts of the driver (kernel module, X module, doc) without actually being too system specific, and considering it worked on my computer which is running all the latest, non-standard libraries, I'd guess that the only real variable to watch for is the X version which is the one they release different versions for. I did need to hack the driver in previous versions to get direct rendering to work though (I'll find out about the new one shortly).

Re:Not just RPM... (4, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485482)

ATI doesn't support their driver on Linux, so there are no "support" issues at all.

I have ATI hardware but I'm considering switching to nvidia. They very frequently release drivers, their drivers actually work correctly, and their drivers are available for Opteron and even Itanium.

Re:Not just RPM... (2, Interesting)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485269)

I can run a disassembler on the code and claim they released the source in 100% pure assembly as well, but that doesn't really make it so.

Uh... this isn't new? (1, Informative)

TyrelHaveman (159881) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485216)

I downloaded fglrx-glc22-4.3.0-3.7.0.i386.rpm over 2 weeks ago. Why do you post old news?

Re:Uh... this isn't new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485229)

I agree... this is old stuff that doesnt work with kernel 2.6.3 .

error while loading the .kvo module.

an anonymous coward

Re:Uh... this isn't new? (0, Troll)

Paul Crowley (837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485337)

That's nothing, I downloaded xqzyk_K32-287634-m452Z-ZZ92ZA.e987.DNA.fqz three months ago!

Well (5, Informative)

Bishop, Martin (695163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485219)

There is always rpm2tgz [rowonet.de]

I downloaded them (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485223)

having real troubles here. will this effect my mac os x 10.3.3 update???

two points (5, Informative)

Lucretian (136335) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485226)

1. ATI has offered drivers since last year.

2. the RPM has nothing to do with being closed source. It has a binary "IP" library that gets linked in when you compile it... if you want to install on a non-rpm system use alien or some other method of unrpming it, then compile and install. Yes, it's still closed source, but rpm the reason for this.

What I'm upset about is that they have all the hooks for 64bit amd support in the wrapper code, but the binary IP driver is not released for x86_64.

Re:two points (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485248)

Iron my shirt, bitch!

This isn't a news (1)

maxun (691000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485245)

ATI 3.7.0 drivers are already a few month old.
3.7.1 are in fact been release this week.

Re:This isn't a news (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485278)

you are a genuine dickface [slashdot.org]

Re:This isn't a news (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485284)

3.7.1 has been pulled because it doesn't work. Unresolved symbols in fglrx_drv.o prevent X from loading, so it's back to 3.7.0 but with a much more recent release date, giving the impression that it was just released, if you weren't paying attention :-)

Re:This isn't a news (1)

Arae (658158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485381)

Just FYI, the unresolved symbols only occur on non-SSE2 systems.

Re:This isn't a news (1)

dniq (759741) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485499)

Works fine here. In fact, finally OpenGL works fine on my Radeon 9800XT!

Re:This isn't a news (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485296)

you are a genuine dickface [slashdot.org]

XFree86, not XFree (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485253)

OK, it's sometimes seen as an overly pendantic point to make, but it has to be said: the project, nor the software it produces, is NEVER called "XFree". The "86" is part of the name -- it's like calling Linux "Linu" or Windows "Window".

Just because it runs on more architectures than x86 thesedays, it doesn't mean parts of the name can be omitted.

Several? (4, Funny)

ghostis (165022) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485256)

several months after the originally proposed release date of April last year.

for large values of several apparently...

Whay has RPM got to do with anything? (4, Interesting)

X-Nc (34250) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485273)

Closed source is bad, there's no question about that. But what's the big deal about the release being in RPM format? Any competent Debian (or derivitive) user will easily be able to install it using alien and as for tgz binary distros, again, alien will convert.

RPM -> Good!
Closed source -> Bad!

Re:Whay has RPM got to do with anything? (1)

ptr2void (590259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485319)

I'd still prefer a proper Debian package made by a competent maintainer over some converted RPM. Automatic conversion can never be as good as a handcrafted solution, and this is especially true for Debian kernel-related packages. (Ever heard about make-kpkg?) Yes, we can still convert to tar.gz and rip it apart :-)

An Open Source driver would be even better, but probably that's unrealistic to expect from ATI.

Re:Whay has RPM got to do with anything? (1)

scrytch (9198) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485390)

You don't even need alien. Last I looked at RPM, it was simply an ar archive wrapped up in cpio. Nothing tricky about it, just odd choices of archivers, but ones any unix should have.

ERROROR? (0)

brain_not_ticking (722737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485289)

I wonder what's different between this v3.7.0 and the v3.7.0 I've been using for the past few weeks...

I didn't h4x0r aTI or anything, they've just been publicly available for quite some time. Hopefully they pre-patched their code to allow the drivers to work under 2.6.x with no additional modifications. It was a bitch to get them working.

huh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485312)

umm this artical is wrong on so many levels =(

AMD64? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485324)

Just bought four Athlons 64 with radeons. I will
replace them with nvidia on Monday. I can not wait for ATI's x86_64 drivers...

Why ATI? (1, Insightful)

Phoinix (666047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485326)

With the availability of other companies who are willing to provide open source drivers, why should anyone by ATI products?

I would rather buy products of other companies who sympathize with the open source community.

Re:Why ATI? (2, Insightful)

ptr2void (590259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485377)

Now that sound interesting. Which company makes 3D cards akin to nVidia and ATI technology and provides open source drivers? I'd like to get one, please tell me!

Re:Why ATI? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485410)

It's ATI or Nvidia. Neither support Open Source. You can use an inferior card from another company or you can deal with the drivers being how they are. You can't have everything your way...there are some compromises.

Re:Why ATI? (1)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485493)

With the availability of other companies who are willing to provide open source drivers, why should anyone by ATI products?

Which companies?

Why buy Ati? (2, Insightful)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485507)

Because Ati cards are better and cheaper than nVidia.

You see, a vast majority of people buy better graphic cards in order to make video games running on the Windows operating system run better. Whether or not the drivers are open source does not matter to this vast majority. What matters is price and performance.

You can get a Radeon 9600XT 256MB for roughly $170. This card performs as well as a $300 nVidia card. Other Radeon cards, such as the 9700, perform better than their $50-$75 more expensive nVidia counterparts.

I am an open source proponent. I push Linux at work and at play. But, I know that open source has its place, and frankly, it shouldn't matter to anyone if a graphics card manufacturer opens up their drivers or not. If that irrelevant fact actually bothers you, than the issue lies within you, not the company.

How about AMD64 support? (4, Informative)

johannesg (664142) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485332)

I checked out the site and cannot find anything regarding AMD64 support. Is it there?

Re:How about AMD64 support? (1)

ptr2void (590259) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485362)

No.

Re:How about AMD64 support? (3, Informative)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485386)

No, but nVidia does provide AMD64 support, so if you planning on building a Linux machine with an AMD64 CPU inside, I'd go with nVidia. Actually for Linux I would always go with nVidia, for right now anyway until ATI can pick up the pace, because a Radeon 9700 spits out FPS in GLX gears that is less than a GeForce 5200.

good graphics card? (1)

Daytona955i (448665) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485356)

Ok, so ATI and nVidia are out since they release a binary only graphics driver. I have a GeForece card and It's really a pain to get it working properly.

It there a good grapics card that has good, open source drivers? With 3d acceleration etc...?

Re:good graphics card? (1)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485416)

What problems do you have getting it working? I can't say I've had any problems, especially since the switch from distro-specific packages.

No suprise here (3, Insightful)

theatre_freak (548212) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485388)

I can't say I'm suprised by ATI's move to stay closed source. I've never been happy with anything ATI and most likely won't buy anything ATI. I've had a very bad experience with my ATI TV Wonder - sure they've updated their WinXP drivers, but the new drivers are a 2MB download, Multimedia Center (of which I only want the TV) is a 24MB download, and on top of that, you need Microsoft's Data Access Objects (a 17MB download) to make the parts of MMC that I don't even want to work. I've never gotten this combination to work, so I'm using the new drivers with an old version of MMC which mostly works, but doesn't respond well to Right-Clicks on the display area of the TV. I don't even dare to request tech support because they'll tell me to download the newest software and will be little help beyond that (which was the run-around I got when I was trying to make the card work in Win2k). Simply put, I love ATI's hardware, but their drivers are simply awful and for those of us who don't want the fluff, we still have to download the whole package and try to figure out how to install just what we want and still have everything work.

no Linux PPC support? (3, Insightful)

Chuck Bucket (142633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485395)

I still see no support for Linux PPC, so the correct title for this article is: "ATI Releases Drivers for XFree 4.3.0 for x86 based systems only"

Thanks.

CBV

I think some Nvidia users are out to get ATI .... (3, Informative)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485400)

Why do I say this ?

Because this story is pretty much misinformed. Support for XFree86 4.3.0 is nothing new at all. It has been for quite sometime.

Additionally the previous article about ATI's support for linux/XFree86 has also been totally wrong [slashdot.org] as well.

And apparently there is a port of the driver to FreeBSD going under way .... (check out #ati on Freenode for more )

Sunny Dubey

Re:I think some Nvidia users are out to get ATI .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485435)

Almost every story on Slashdot is biased one direction or another. You just figured out that ATI are the bad guys and Nvidia are good in the open source world? :)

Ati is one step from dominating Nvidia in the windows desktop and will most likely do so in april when the next set of video cards are released. Slashdot'rs will still say Ati sucks because they don't open source their drivers, yet fail to mention neither does Nvidia.

Gentoo and 2.6? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485402)

Hi there, I am a lame dummy :)

Could i use it on Gentoo?

DRI

umm, theese are old. (2, Insightful)

noyren (701451) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485404)

The news should be ati pulls the 3.7.1 drivers because.. well, they sucked (no offence ati, but I guess you know, since you pulled em). Theese drivers are two months old..

Suggested graphics card vendor w/ Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485405)

Can anyone suggest a good 3D graphics card which is either the best officially X11R6 supported video card or has opensource drivers. Basically I don't want to buy a new card and be burnt with comments which say X is sluggish because of the drivers that I'm using. Oh yea........ this box will dual boot with that other OS for gaming especially Half Life 2.

The real question is: (3, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485414)

Will they finally stop sucking?

To be honest, I don't give a damn if drivers are closed, open or whatnot, as long as they actually work and properly use the cards features.
That the Nvidia drivers are tied to the kernel is anoying, but bearable since they actually do work. Nvidias Linux support has been next to none - they've got high karma with me.
From ATI though, I've heard only negative stuff. Same from Matrox, whos Linux support seems to be an utter joke.
Can anybody confirm or debunk this about the new ATI drivers?

Re:The real question is: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8485496)

I've been using ATI drivers (with full 3D hardware support) in Gentoo for over half a year. They existed before that. They run fine, OpenGL is supported, you can play Neverwinter Nights, etc.

How about we stop spreading FUD on very old news? I use both Nvidia and ATI cards in my linux machines. Both are closed source, which sucks, but both work just fine (on 2.4 and 2.6 kernels btw). And they were "just released" as the story implies, even the 3.7 drivers have been out for some time.

It's still an improvement (2, Interesting)

Gary Destruction (683101) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485432)

Did you see ATI or nVidia providing drivers for Linux years ago? Linux's acceptance has earned it the recognition it needs from big time hardware manufacturers. Sure the drivers might not be open source, but at least they exist. And companies like IBM embracing Linux could act as a catalyst for future hardware support.

RPM2targz (3, Informative)

cuban321 (644777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485454)

One suggested way to compile and install the ATI drivers is to use a package called rpm2targz [slackware.com] .

Just run it on the rpm
untar the tar.gz to /
cd lib/modules/fglrx
cd build_mod
./make.sh
cd ..
./make_install.sh
Modify your XF86Config-4 or run fglrxconfig

That should be it. If you have AGP 8x you really should use Kernel 2.6.X. You can get it to work with 2.4.X but it's a pain. Search google for 2.4.X.

Daniel

This is OLD OLD News (1)

Bruha (412869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485459)

I've been using ATI 4.3 drivers since december IIRC... from their site..

Did this guy just notice???

Now they did release a new version the other day.. I think he's just been out of touch with his drivers.

3.7.0 has been out at least since January (0, Redundant)

gaj (1933) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485467)

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, could you MORONS at least sniff-test stories? I downloaded 3.7.0 for 4.3 back on January 3rd. Earlier versions (at least 3.2.8, probably others) were available for 4.3 long before that.

As for the poster's whining about RPM, get real. There is no current major distribution that cannot handle RPMs right out of the box. Choosing RPM as a package format is a no-brainer if you only want to support one.

As for the closed-source X server, I, too, would much prefer that it be open-source. But, given the choice between full support for the ATI chip in my T41 and having open source, I'll take the former. The open-source server just doesn't cut it for me. Or, rather, it is great for 2D, but the 3D makes playing NWN even more painfull that it is now.

Consider using DRI driver. (3, Informative)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8485471)

ATI driver is closed source. It means that after installing you will have one piece of system (kernel module!) without source available. It makes your system not 100% free. It is almost same situation like with nVidia. Almost, because ATI driver it's little different - without all win32 shit inside.

I am pro-Radeon, because ATI released almost-complete (without HyperZ!) specification for older Radeons (r100 and r200), but I am not going to buy their new cards (with r300). If you have old one - I recommend using open source DRI drivers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?