AMD's New Gambit: Open Source Video Drivers
by Ryan Smith on September 25, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Closing Thoughts
With the negatives of AMD's open source efforts out of the way, let's talk about the positives.
First and foremost, once these drivers are in a usable state, this will be a massive boon to most if not all of the Linux distributions. Virtually all of the major distributions do not include binary drivers in to their distributions due to legal and philosophical reasons. With an open source driver available for ATI's video cards these distributions will be able to include this driver out of the box, making Linux installations easier for users who previously would have needed to go about more convoluted methods of installing the binary drivers. Make no mistake, binary drivers while workable are not easy to use under Linux, and having a major open source driver like this will further the goal of many Linux distributions of making themselves easier to install and maintain.
Simultaneously, an open source driver alleviates the problems posed by the unstable driver API. Currently any changes to the driver API that break the binary drivers supplied by AMD and NVIDIA require that those drivers be fixed by the appropriate party and only the appropriate party, which can take more time than some people want to wait or may never come if it's for depreciated hardware. With an open source driver, the open source community (the same one that made the API changes that broke the driver in the first place) can quickly make the changes in the driver to work with the new API. Admittedly, the Linux driver API does not change so frequently that this is a major issue, but never the less it does occur enough that it's a nuisance.
There are also some lesser benefits in terms of security and stability. One particular set of concerns within the open source community in dealing with binary drivers is that the operating system is giving the black box full access to the system, hoping and praying that it's doing what it's supposed to do and nothing else. Bad drivers causing system crashes have long been a gripe among the Windows community, and the open source community likes it even less when an open source driver would allow them to fix the offending bug. This further extends to security concerns, as drivers can introduce weaknesses that can be exploited, something that has happened with NVIDIA's Linux drivers in 2006, and ATI's Windows Vista drivers in 2007. Open source drivers may or may not be inherently more secure depending on whose rhetoric you believe, but open source drivers can be patched a great deal sooner, reducing the risk earlier.
Finally, there is the feedback effect that this could have on hardware manufacturers. We of course are hinting towards NVIDIA, whom has faced very little of a threat from ATI due to their superior drivers. If the open source AMD video driver does end up evolving in to a driver capable of delivering Windows-like performance, AMD will have little trouble sweeping the Linux graphics market with the combination of powerful hardware and drivers that are both technically and philosophically superior. This of course would be bad for NVIDIA, who would need to consider their own full feature open source driver to keep the balance of power with AMD on Linux. This would bring all of the previously mentioned benefits to Linux users with NVIDIA cards.
With that said however, it's important not to lose sight of the present. What AMD has begun is a remarkable plan to bring in to the world open source drivers for their entire range of video cards, but it's something that we believe is a significant risk for them. We are not convinced that this is something AMD completely wants to do as a result, and remain skeptical about how far this will go. We hope that our skepticism is misplaced, but it's too soon to tell.
The only immediate unfortunate result of AMD's open source efforts here are that they will not be directly contributing code from their current drivers for the open source drivers. We understand the reasons for this, but it also means that the open source driver is starting from scratch and has a lot of ground to cover. A good video card driver will take years to develop and while we're talking about what can be, by the time this driver is finished and we can test our predictions and its effects the R600 won't even be AMD's leading GPU series.
This is the start of a long process, not the end of it, but never the less we can't wait to see how things turn out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
JKflipflop98 - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid.
Linux has viruses too, ya know. It's not invincible.
DRM doesn't breath. And it only activates when you play a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray disc.
Vista doesn't throttle your network when listening to an MP3. You are stupid.
I'd rather get bent over by someone with cash than some broke-ass hippie free-love antiestablishment commune.
Sorry guys, Windows is just better. There's a reason they can't even give it away - it sucks.
dare2savefreedom - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
>> Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid.Some people drive pintos(u) and some people drive 4x4s with lift kits.
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
"Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid."
Normally you don't need it, but if you DO need them, you CAN have them.
after all it's about you freedom to choose.
"Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid"
Yes there is about 60 (yes only 60) viruses for Linux. and only ~60,000 for windows.
and it's only viruses.
"Vista doesn't throttle your network when listening to an MP3. You are stupid."
But it does a lot of other things. Anyway, Vista hardware requirements is so low, that you have to buy new computer with double CPU power, double memory amount, hi-end graphics just to run Vista. NOT for your applications. And it's bad for me that beside my hi-end box, i (or other family members that don't need C2D @ 3.0GHz + 4GB of RAM and raid arrays for 2500$) can use 4-5 years old computer (or just a new ~300$ computer) and enjoy from better (more advanced, more beautiful, more user friendly) interfaces, better performance of applications, better stability etc.
"Sorry guys, Windows is just better. There's a reason they can't even give it away - it sucks. "
And this one just proves how stupid you are.
Your Linux experience=0, but you shouting that it's bad, and windows much better.
Windows (or any other MS product) is much better for MS and hardware makers. Each $ MS get from you, hardware makers get 18.
Or, and by the way. Linux community is NOT much more educated/skilled in computer sciences, IT, programming and all other computer related things than Windows users.
On the other hand, MS is good as competitor and concept and idea generator. Sometime they do think of something good, but generally brake it with poor implementation.
elpresidente2075 - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
I guess if you say it enough it becomes true, huh?I like both systems. Both have their good points. Windows has lots of easy to use softwares/hardwares. Linux is rock solid (if properly managed) and has lots and lots of little softwares for it. Windows offers a single platform to develop for, greatly reducing the dev time/resources for new programs, etc. Linux offers a very free environment that is not restrained to single packages or built-in system commands.
Simply put:
Windows is for those that use their computer,
Linux is for those that use their computer.
It's the difference between working with and working on one's computer.
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
"Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid."
Normally you don't need it, but if you DO need them, you CAN have them.
after all it's about you freedom to choose.
"Why do you need 16x16x16 desktops? Thats just stupid"
Yes there is about 60 (yes only 60) viruses for Linux. and only ~60,000 for windows.
and it's only viruses.
"Vista doesn't throttle your network when listening to an MP3. You are stupid."
But it does a lot of other things. Anyway, Vista hardware requirements is so low, that you have to buy new computer with double CPU power, double memory amount, hi-end graphics just to run Vista. NOT for your applications. And it's bad for me that beside my hi-end box, i (or other family members that don't need C2D @ 3.0GHz + 4GB of RAM and raid arrays for 2500$) can use 4-5 years old computer (or just a new ~300$ computer) and enjoy from better (more advanced, more beautiful, more user friendly) interfaces, better performance of applications, better stability etc.
"Sorry guys, Windows is just better. There's a reason they can't even give it away - it sucks. "
And this one just proves how stupid you are.
Your Linux experience=0, but you shouting that it's bad, and windows much better.
Windows (or any other MS product) is much better for MS and hardware makers. Each $ MS get from you, hardware makers get 18.
Or, and by the way. Linux community is NOT much more educated/skilled in computer sciences, IT, programming and all other computer related things than Windows users.
On the other hand, MS is good as competitor and concept and idea generator. Sometime they do think of something good, but generally brake it with poor implementation.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - link
well, the lightweight distros use way less resources than any modern version of Windows, and it's free, both of which make it good for turning old computers into file servers.smitty3268 - Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - link
Except for playing video while moving something across the network, of course.Griswold - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link
Yea, he is an idiot and all, but your example is only valid if its an gigabit network - and only until MS' network team pulls their collective finger out of their asses and fixes the situation.Dfere - Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - link
Not being a techead... This seems to indicate either AMD does not consider it is losing much in secrecy or is gaining sdomething significant.I think this means either corporate espionage and reverse engineering mean there are not that many secrets between AMD and Nvidia, or AMD expects some significant benefit.
If the latter- what is the benefit? The ability to learn from the Linux community? Future changes at the company? Possibly some benefit from open source and Fusion? Other avenues the company hopes to leverage from open source involvement?
Knight advances and takes no pawn?..... hmmmmm.
stmok - Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - link
AMD needs to quickly establish a developer community that will support future CPU/GPU implementations (ie: AMD's Fusion). Opensource is highly adaptable to new implementations when a hardware maker is generous about it. They did the same with AMD64. (The result was that Linux was way ahead of Windows in adopting AMD64).To provide most of the low level details to opensource community is a double bonus for AMD.
(1) AMD will be seen as opensource friendly. (great PR).
(2) Opensource folks will be more enthusiastic in going with AMD/ATI video card than a Nvidia one. (hardware sales)
I guess everybody wins.
As a side note, I doubt Nvidia will be doing the same thing. They are in a different position. (GPU maker, not CPU/GPU...So they have no reason to release specs).