Eduardo Romero schrieb:
This discussion have got some press coverage by phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzEwMg And by distrowatch: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090302#news
Well, some developers did not liked the press coverage we got from phoronix, I have to say, I did liked it, they made it look more dramatic than it was but we got outstanding support from the community. There were close to no one against our decision. And yes the problem in part was the poor quality of this drivers, so why try to deviate the attention from it?
I think they missed the point of what we consider "bad quality". The article on phoronix talks about driver quality in terms of features (like OpenGL extensions and such), while we talk about quality in terms of compatibility and packagibility (I want the trademark on that word!). ATI hardcodes paths that should be configurable (and actually are configurable in Xorg - and other drivers respect those paths) and does not ensure compatibility to current Xorg and Linux developments (apparently, only to current Ubuntu developments). That is what we dislike about it, not some nice features it has that you COULD use if the driver WOULD work. The amount of time and uglification we need to make it work in our distribution is just too much and keeps holding us back.