Expected by whom, though?
I could understand it if it was major kernel versions or something like that, but it seems that a whole bunch of things are really tightly linked.
> Which now explicitly and clearly says the driver is for Ubuntu 18.04 only - did you not see that?
I honestly didn't. I went back and checked - yep, it does say for 18.04[1].
I have to say though that I wouldn't have automatically assumed it was ONLY for 18.04 though without it being more explicit about that. If the official drivers are available within the repo from now on, then it'd be great for AMD to actually say that. (I realise this isn't Ubuntu's fault)
[1] https://www.amd.com/en/support/graphics/amd-radeon-hd/amd-ra...
Advice to Linux users: one would best get their the graphics driver and a matching Linux kernel from the same source, either the Linux project, or the OS distribution. Mixing versions downloaded from AMD website with random kernel is supported by nobody and is testing your luck. That is a Windows model and kind of works with Linux only with nvidia drivers for their hardware, although it brings a lot of headaches too.
I agree that the installer should have warned you about the incompatibility at the beginning of the install, not at the end. That sucks.
With graphics, it is usually best to run the newest drivers with Linux, that means the newest kernel possible. Except for the older cards, which are not supported by AMD anymore (which sucks), where one can only use old drivers with appropriate old kernel.
I think the folks using Catalyst for better 3D acceleration have probably moved on to cards supported by amdgpu by now.
I'm running a quite current Dell on an essentially unpatched kernel (just includes Gentoo's default patches) with no additional modules involved and everything I tested up until now works, even fancy things like Dell's mini-dock.
I think that's a bit of a difference though. Vista came out nearly ~13 years ago, and we're talking things breaking a year or less later.
Heck, for more obscure drivers[1], it seems necessary to recompile for every kernel patch. Perhaps that's the fault of that driver's developer for not following the correct way to build kernel drivers, or there's something unique about this particular device - I don't know.
[1] an example: https://github.com/milesp20/intel_nuc_led
> I think that's a bit of a difference though. Vista came out nearly ~13 years ago, and we're talking things breaking a year or less later.
I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that drivers for devices older than me that have been merged into the kernel keep on working today while on Windows for some subsystems (like graphics or sound) you can't expect things to work after "just" 15 years. I admit that this is a long time, it's still a huge difference.
And yes, on Linux you are expected to recompile drivers for every new kernel version, that's intentional (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...). Since the driver API is reasonably stable, the code doesn't need to be adjusted for every version, and if the driver has landed in the kernel, this is done while changing the API.
Generally, yes, it's pretty decent on first go and there's a nice default happy path.
Unfortunately in my own experience, that path isn't particularly wide, and there's a huge number of gaps.
Version compatibility is a major issue, imo. One driver or package works great on one kernel version is completely broken on the next.
A few hours ago I tried to install the official AMD drivers for Ubuntu. It's not until the install script has already gone and screwed up my system that I get told that they don't support 19.04.
I just don't have that issue on Windows as a rule. I'm not claiming Windows is perfect by any means, it's got it's own set of issues.