[thomastjeffery]

The fact that kernel devs are sticking to their guns does not mean that they are not working hard on AMDGPU, it just means they are not compromising to make it easier for AMD to provide the proprietary part (AMDGPU-pro).

AMDGPU-pro is only necessary for features that AMDGPU does not provide, and for the proprietary implementations of Vulkan, OpenCL, HDMI/DP audio (I'm not sure if that has been fixed yet), OpenGL, etc. AMDGPU-pro has nothing to do with KMS or Wayland. It's also worth noting that AMDGPU provides competitive OpenGL and Vulkan performance, so you are better off using it instead of forcing yourself to run an outdated kernel and Xorg that support AMDGPU-pro.

> I’d rather use proprietary technology.

You are free to your own opinion there, but know that there are many of us who care a great deal about open drivers. I, for one, bought 4 AMD cards, partly because of price, but mostly because of the promise of open drivers.

[kuschku]

> You are free to your own opinion there, but know that there are many of us who care a great deal about open drivers. I, for one, bought 4 AMD cards, partly because of price, but mostly because of the promise of open drivers.

I generally care more about open source, too, but when the Linux kernel maintainers tell me to "fuck off" and "just use proprietary drivers", then I’ll do exactly that.

> The fact that kernel devs are sticking to their guns does not mean that they are not working hard on AMDGPU, it just means they are not compromising to make it easier for AMD to provide the proprietary part (AMDGPU-pro).

Well, they are trying to make it harder to do that.

All that would be necessary would be a tiny abstraction layer to add driver extensions for functionality that can not be open source today (because it might be something where AMD is actively competing with NVIDIA).

Instead, I’m forced into running an outdated kernel, outdated Xorg, and proprietary versions of everything.

[thomastjeffery]

> but when the Linux kernel maintainers tell me to "fuck off" and "just use proprietary drivers", then I’ll do exactly that.

When have they ever done that?

Linus has famously told NVIDIA to "fuck off" because of issues caused by their proprietary drivers. These people want open drivers, possibly even more than I do.

> > The fact that kernel devs are sticking to their guns does not mean that they are not working hard on AMDGPU, it just means they are not compromising to make it easier for AMD to provide the proprietary part (AMDGPU-pro).

> Well, they are trying to make it harder to do that.

The Linux devs are not doing a singular thing to actively make AMD's life more difficult. AMD is begging them to do something that makes their life more difficult, and they are saying, "no".

> functionality that can not be open source today (because it might be something where AMD is actively competing with NVIDIA).

That is, always has been, and always will be, total bullshit. Whether or not you share that opinion, it is the opinion of those who put hard work into maintaining Linux.

> Instead, I’m forced into running an outdated kernel, outdated Xorg, and proprietary versions of everything.

That is the entire premise of Free Software. Only proprietary software forces users, and proprietary software begets proprietary software. Free Software begets Free Software.

If the Linux devs suddenly decide they will compromise to make proprietary software more convenient, then I, the user, will lose freedom. The stubbornness of the Linux team is not just for them, it is for me, for you, and for anyone who uses Linux.

[kuschku]

> When have they ever done that?

During the AMD vs. Kernel maintainers mailing list slapfight?

It all was discussed there.

> The Linux devs are not doing a singular thing to actively make AMD's life more difficult. AMD is begging them to do something that makes their life more difficult, and they are saying, "no".

AMD has provided a fully working driver with abstraction layers fully implemented, and has offered to pay devs to continue to maintain it.

The maintainers would have had zero extra work.

> If the Linux devs suddenly decide they will compromise to make proprietary software more convenient, then I, the user, will lose freedom. The stubbornness of the Linux team is not just for them, it is for me, for you, and for anyone who uses Linux.

Yes, and that's why the Linux kernel's license is being enforced against OEMs that sell proprietary forks of the kernel and refuse to publish source code...

Oh wait, Torvalds actually support those OEMs. And complains about people who fight them.

> That is the entire premise of Free Software

What good is free software if it is broken?

As I mentioned before, AMD published a fully working solution under GPL, with all functionality there.

I could have much better functionality today, and better stability, and it would all be open.

Instead I have to use proprietary code, because the alternative is an unusable system.

This is ideology limiting my freedom.