> Hardware differs a lot in complexity. GPUs are very complicated.
Yes, Intel has an open-source GPU driver in the kernel, AMD can too, they just need to follow the conventions.
> they surely have no incentive to make it easier for other companies/developers to get their drivers in (for example by very stable internal kernel interfaces).
The kernel interface around DRI is actually quite stable, I don't think making it hard for AMD to merge in their driver would help with anybody's job security. It would certainly not be enough to affect GPU market share in a significant way, so it would be very risky for little gain?
Why invent conspiracy theories, rather than just accept the far more likely explanation that AMD's code is not up to the job?
> AMD indulged on the desire of lots of Linux users for open source drivers. They did their job.
No they didn't. If they wanted to fulfil the promise of delivering a kernel driver because their users demanded it, they would have done their job, had they produced code that follows the conventions and work with the maintainers to get the code accepted.
Throwing some code over the wall, does not meet any reasonable definition of "doing their job".
> NVidia did nothing.
Ah, so now it's about, "but look over here, they're even worse!"
I mean, OK, NVidia did nothing, AMD did something, but not enough. Intel did even more than AMD did and is still not perfect. Why couldn't AMD be at least as good, if not better than Intel? If you want to compare, why compare against the worst, rather than the best player?
And, why can't we judge this independently?
Irrespectively of NVidia or Intel, this is what AMD produced and it's not yet good enough.
Yes, Intel has an open-source GPU driver in the kernel, AMD can too, they just need to follow the conventions.
> they surely have no incentive to make it easier for other companies/developers to get their drivers in (for example by very stable internal kernel interfaces).
The kernel interface around DRI is actually quite stable, I don't think making it hard for AMD to merge in their driver would help with anybody's job security. It would certainly not be enough to affect GPU market share in a significant way, so it would be very risky for little gain?
Why invent conspiracy theories, rather than just accept the far more likely explanation that AMD's code is not up to the job?
> AMD indulged on the desire of lots of Linux users for open source drivers. They did their job.
No they didn't. If they wanted to fulfil the promise of delivering a kernel driver because their users demanded it, they would have done their job, had they produced code that follows the conventions and work with the maintainers to get the code accepted.
Throwing some code over the wall, does not meet any reasonable definition of "doing their job".
> NVidia did nothing.
Ah, so now it's about, "but look over here, they're even worse!"
I mean, OK, NVidia did nothing, AMD did something, but not enough. Intel did even more than AMD did and is still not perfect. Why couldn't AMD be at least as good, if not better than Intel? If you want to compare, why compare against the worst, rather than the best player?
And, why can't we judge this independently?
Irrespectively of NVidia or Intel, this is what AMD produced and it's not yet good enough.