Rant about ATI

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:11:37PM +0200, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> Why would it not be appropriate? It was choosen to allow a binary ABI,
> explicitly so that closed drivers can exist. So i don't understand,
> all the crying about the vendors now, when obviously this was wanted.

No-one _wants_ binary-only drivers per se.  Some people are more willing
than others to accept their existence.

Assuming you meant 'stable binary ABI' by 'binary ABI', there was
another compelling reason to do this: now that we're modular, it doesn't
make any sense to continuously break it.  Tying server and driver
upgrades together will just lead to pain, and cause severe annoyance
with a) distros, and b) users trying to test simple bugfixes, both of
which are extremely counterproductive.

So I wouldn't leap to conclusions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060808/26e077ed/attachment.pgp>