64-bit linux drivers.

[markelo]

As some other people I would like to have 64-bit linux drivers with working ( not fastest ) 3d-hardware acceöerated drivers. For that matter I have few questions.

1. Is ATI really doing something for 64-bit linux drivers ?
2. What is the best way to get ATI acknowledge my desire?
3. There was a poll for 64-bit linux drivers but I can't find it. Where it is and is it still active ?
4. Has somebody any insight info when ATI might release 64-bit linux drivers ?

[JimBeam]

Originally Posted by markelo

1. Is ATI really doing something for 64-bit linux drivers?

Nobody can tell you that except for the guys working at ATI. Sad but true.

Originally Posted by markelo

2. What is the best way to get ATI acknowledge my desire?

There is no way to get ATI acknowledge anything regarding Linux specific end user requests. This community is crying for ages to get ATI to fix/enhance their drivers. No luck so far.

Originally Posted by markelo

3. There was a poll for 64-bit linux drivers but I can't find it. Where it is and is it still active ?

Don't know. I haven't even noticed that there was poll for 64 bit drivers.

Originally Posted by markelo

4. Has somebody any insight info when ATI might release 64-bit linux drivers?

See answer to question 1.

[Thetargos]

Man!, is this grim or what?!

[Malakai]

targos, i think a different video card logo belongs on your penguin


matrox perhaps? :P

More likely the N word (which I must say N makes their hardware very pleasant to use in linux. There's a f**king control panel?!)

[Diffie]

Originally Posted by markelo

As some other people I would like to have 64-bit linux drivers with working ( not fastest ) 3d-hardware acceöerated drivers. For that matter I have few questions.

1. Is ATI really doing something for 64-bit linux drivers ?
2. What is the best way to get ATI acknowledge my desire?
3. There was a poll for 64-bit linux drivers but I can't find it. Where it is and is it still active ?
4. Has somebody any insight info when ATI might release 64-bit linux drivers ?

The answer to #4 according to one of the interviews would be beta quality code sometime by the end of the year said the ATI guy that was interviewed.

[Thetargos]

Originally Posted by Malakai

targos, i think a different video card logo belongs on your penguin


matrox perhaps? :P

More likely the N word (which I must say N makes their hardware very pleasant to use in linux. There's a f**king control panel?!)

I'm reluctant, more because lack of money than anything else

And yes, I already have one penguin with the N logo

[markelo]

Originally Posted by Diffie

The answer to #4 according to one of the interviews would be beta quality code sometime by the end of the year said the ATI guy that was interviewed.

That would be great. ...or actually that is fine for me. I can live with that. Sooner the better but this year is enough. Now I can safely install 64-bit version over my 32-bit version.

[macleod199]

Originally Posted by markelo

That would be great. ...or actually that is fine for me. I can live with that. Sooner the better but this year is enough. Now I can safely install 64-bit version over my 32-bit version.

I think there was also some talk about HP putting out 64-bit linux machines soon, and the fact that they ship systems with ATI cards leading people to believe that HP had 64-bit ATi betas already, and that was probably why the 32-bit driver development was extra slow. AFAIK it was all speculation, though.

[wiresquire]

There's an article at eweek with a quote:

ATI, based in Thornhill, Ontario, currently lacks a 64-bit Linux beta. "This is something we are currently working on and anticipate having a beta release available before the end of the year," spokesman Jon Carvill said.

[Lithorus]

Btw.
Just saw that debian included the amd64-libs packages into unstable, which probably means that they are really close to make an official amd64 arch tree.

If the debian guys can put together a whole amd64 distro before ATI can get a single driver out, something is deffinately wrong

[markelo]

Originally Posted by Lithorus

Btw.
Just saw that debian included the amd64-libs packages into unstable, which probably means that they are really close to make an official amd64 arch tree.

If the debian guys can put together a whole amd64 distro before ATI can get a single driver out, something is deffinately wrong

Had to bump this old thread again
Maeby ATI is just waiting for the release of Intels 64.bit capable desktop CPU which should be out later this year.
For another matter why debian names their 64-bit libs as amd64-libs ? Doesn't these also work in Intel based machines or is there a separate package for emt64 ( or what ever Intel calls their compatible 64-bit extension. )?

[Thetargos]

Originally Posted by markelo

Had to bump this old thread again
Maeby ATI is just waiting for the release of Intels 64.bit capable desktop CPU which should be out later this year.
For another matter why debian names their 64-bit libs as amd64-libs ? Doesn't these also work in Intel based machines or is there a separate package for emt64 ( or what ever Intel calls their compatible 64-bit extension. )?

for the first time, Intel had to follow another's IHV extensions, since AMD was the first to successfully attain 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 platform, Intel had to follow the AMD64 standard... So yes, AMD64 software will run fine on EMT64 processors.

[Lithorus]

Originally Posted by markelo

Had to bump this old thread again
Maeby ATI is just waiting for the release of Intels 64.bit capable desktop CPU which should be out later this year.
For another matter why debian names their 64-bit libs as amd64-libs ? Doesn't these also work in Intel based machines or is there a separate package for emt64 ( or what ever Intel calls their compatible 64-bit extension. )?

The dear child has many names The name in linux of this new architecture has been subject for much discussion. Basically both x86-64 and x86_64 have problems with getting along with the rest of the naming scheme. For instance the "-" is a problem to use in package names, as do the "_".

[Thetargos]

Why not just name it as it has been done, "amd64"? Or simply remove the dash and make it "x8664"?

It's just a thought.

[Compholio]

How about just fix the package system to handle dashes and/or underscores? Fedora Core handles these great (of course, it also has an official x86-64 tree).

[Lithorus]

Originally Posted by Thetargos

Why not just name it as it has been done, "amd64"? Or simply remove the dash and make it "x8664"?

It's just a thought.

And that's excactly what debian did.

How about just fix the package system to handle dashes and/or underscores? Fedora Core handles these great (of course, it also has an official x86-64 tree).

Lol. The inability to handle the dash is something deeply into the whole package structure. As I recall it, it's that the last dash and number in a package is the package revision. For instance :
lftp_2.4.9-1_mips.deb
version : 2.4.9
revision : 1
architecture : mips

The reason that fedora doesn't have a problem is that it uses a different naming scheme(pretty much the same, but a dot instead of underscore). So they were lucky I guess. For debian to "fix" it like you proposed would be to change the name of ALL packages both old and new. Not something you do just for making intel og amd happy.

[Thetargos]

So Debian names the x86-64 packages as amd64 for emt64 and amd64 extensions?

[Lithorus]

Originally Posted by Thetargos

So Debian names the x86-64 packages as amd64 for emt64 and amd64 extensions?

Yes

[Thetargos]

Makes sense...