[Pc_Support] AMD Turion x2 (Xpress 1100) v. Intel Core (945GM) ... surprising!

[Bryan J. Smith]

Damien McKenna wrote:
> There was a press release / official statement from ATI/AMD recently
> regarding their drivers to the effect that they weren't going to boost
> their GPL support, and it instead suggested tightening the reigns on
> them.  I'm having a hard time finding the URL though, I'll try to find it.

But _which_ drivers?

1)  kernel-memory management?
2)  LibGL?
3)  X11?

#2 and #3 is already _proprietary_ from not only ATI and nVidia, but
Matrox and even some parts of Intel's own drivers.  Yes, people don't
realize not everything Intel has released is GPL or MIT -- and some of
it is sacked with IP that is _incompatible_ with the GPOL.

#1 is the major kernel issue, and part of it is Intel's IP/software
hacks for non-CPU peripherals (i.e., AGP/PCIe connected).  For AMD's
interconnect with native HTX (non-peripheral AGP/PCIe), you don't need
that Intel IP.  Intel does _not_ include it in their own drivers
(hence why the performance sucks on Linux versus Windows).

So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if AMD/ATI had a GPL driver for the
kernel, but then everything else was 100% proprietary.

I sure with Linux bigots would stop and look at the details, instead
of just screaming "I need it 100% GPL" constantly.  Many companies
release select things GPL and LGPL, other things under an
OSD-compliant license and yet other things non-free software.

In fact, I constantly defend companies that release most of their
things GPL, LGPL and other OSD-compliant -- even if they have some
proprietary for various/obvious reasons.  E.g., nVidia.

The only companies that bother me are the ones that release nothing
GPL at all, and barely any OSD-compliant -- e.g., IBM.