Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Re: Re: More ATi driver madness

On Monday 14 August 2006 18:11, Duncan wrote:
> > While ArsTechnica tends to be fairly reliable, I've found stories from
> > the Register to be very, very, wrong - the assumptions were way off base
> > or the reporter got the entire story wrong because they ignored
> > documented history. I'd be very wary of believing a story in the Register
> > without cross checking it with independent sources.  Sometimes the
> > Register will get one sentence in the story correct.  Sometimes, the
> > entire story is made up from that one sentence.
>
> True to a point.  However, they /do/ get credit for being one of the first
> to report the AMD/ATI merger discussion, way back when it was low-cred and
> most were saying it was crazy because AMD had always said it did better
> NOT doing the chipsets -- it did them early on in a cycle when third party
> chipsets weren't yet widely available, but didn't upgrade them and
> eventually phased them out as third party chipset solutions came online.
> (This was the case for both the K7 and K8 product cycles.)

one of the first was theinquirer, which is even more prone to very wrong 
stories (of course, sometimes they are totally right..), so don't check 
theregister with theinquirer. Both are very speculative.

>
> Anyway, I'm not saying it'll happen, only that this is the best
> opportunity for it to happen we have, and if for whatever reason AMD/ATI
> fail to open their drivers, there will be a lot of folks for whom AMD is
> no longer a viable option (unless other solutions appear).  AMD certainly
> realizes this, and I expect they'll try to open them -- at least a
> functional subset (possibly retaining some stuff closed, but as I said, a
> functional 3D subset, enough to keep them in the game, anyway).

And I bet, the 'functional subset' won't be more than 2D, which ATI refuses at 
the moment too.

-- 
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list