|
|
|
 |
ATI Petition for Adequate Drivers in Linux |
|
22 Aug 04 4:15
|
| | posted by nilfilter |
Anonymous dropped us a note about a new petition asking for better Linux drivers:
As of now, the petition has been signed over 4000 times. Enough to make ATI's doorbell ring?
|
|
|
|
|
[Post a new comment]
Comments
[Show all 12 comment threads on one page]
 |
4827
posted by
Anonymous
@ 222.152.133.98
on Aug 27 2004 5:55 PM
|
|
 |
| I find that with the ATI proprietary drivers, my screen becomes garbled after sleeping or using the ctrl-alt-f1 CLI and returning to X winows. What a pain. Otherwise 3D is great! |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
Get them all!
posted by
cellstije
@ 159.134.103.71
on Aug 24 2004 7:02 AM
|
|
|
| At the moment 8675 people signed the petition.
Somebody (in a post below) said rightly:
"Petitions could possibly actually be of some use if someone went and handed them personally to the adressed party (ATI in this case), then they could not completely ignore the issue. Someone should review and print the list and go searching for an ATI executive."
Well, sign the petition and let them know using their linux driver feedback page:
http://apps.ati.com/linuxDfeedback/index.asp
At least they can not say "we did not know"!
BTW
It looks like not only ATI costumers signed the petition. NVIDIA as well.
Fair play to them and keep up signing. If we can get one of this "companies" to do what their are supposed to do for the sakes of the costumers ... well we will get them all!
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
Petition not enough to ring ATI's bell?
posted by
rudebot
@ 210.213.146.28
on Aug 23 2004 9:50 PM
|
|
|
How about:
- Switching to their competitor.
- Return ATI cards for a refund.
- Boycott any and all future products from ATI.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
 |
|
Re: Petition not enough to ring ATI's be
posted by
Anonymous
@ 195.54.71.3
on Aug 24 2004 5:58 AM
|
|
| Unfortunately their main competitor is even worse. Sure you could get an old Matrox card, they have the best drivers, but don't expect it to run any recent game. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Petition not enough to ring ATI's be
posted by
Anonymous
@ 141.156.179.37
on Aug 25 2004 7:00 AM
|
|
| What alternate world are you living in?
Matrox's drivers stopped being decent past the G400. The G450 isn't completely supported in the HAL portion of the drivers (which, BTW, is closed-source), and the Parhelia doesn't even have accelerated 3D.
nVidia still doesn't have personal cinema support, but you've got to hand it to them for supporting ALL their products in a reasonable fashion and a fairly quick manner.
-Erwos |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
|
Re: Petition not enough to ring ATI's be
posted by
Anonymous
@ 216.126.89.213
on Aug 27 2004 2:30 PM
|
|
| You are petitioning for ADEQUATE Linux drivers & open the specs of their FLAGSHIPs???? Are you all stupid??? Ati's BULK users are Windows users - they are not gonna open their specs for a SMALL bunch of Linux users!!!! Even if they do, like the R200, they certainly wont include HYPEr-z, TRUEform, SMOOTHIEvision, PIXIE shaders, etc. A more reasonable demand, is to ask for full-refund because you bought them for Linux & are not satisfied with their support.
While opening partially (BASIC 3D CORE), will please a handful of NAIVE open-source 3D fanatics. The rest of us will notice, it runs SLOWLY without T&L , does not look SMOOTH without SMOOTHIEVision, does live-up to the HYPE without HYPEr-z, etc. There are simply NO MAGIC in these open-source drivers without PIXIE dust (shaders). You might as well buy an older VOODOO card on Ebay or run their FIREFLY drivers if you are running Linux!!!!
Deliver ADEQUATE Linux drivers, dont they already have enough time to get their act together???? Nvidia recently delivers NT/9X/2K/XP/... (6x.xx), Linux (1.0_6111) & FreeBSD (1.0_6113) - notice all platforms are equally uptodate!!! (older/newer Windows platforms & older/newer *nix platforms). The FreeBSD driver development started not that long ago. Besides, why do Ati phased out NT, while Nvidia still ports the latest Geforce 6xxx on it? Dont gimme the crap Ati dont have the resources ( they sold plenty of 9xxx series). Also, bulk of the drivers (OpenGL) are already in C code & the driver architectures in 2000/XP are not substancially different (except for DirectX - dont care - NT is an OpenGL workhorse!!!)... Why do we let industry decide when we should phased out older systems... If we let them have their ways, we would all be looking at quarterly upgrades!!!! Many people running older systems as servers, want to replace broken videocards (not necesarry to run 3D), but couldnt, because silly manufacturers decided to phased out AGP2x (9600 series is the first to phased out) - eventually it will become difficult to find older peripherals on local shelves....
Why do some Linux users jumpship to Nvidia's competitor, at the first chance when some newcomer to the market started promising golden drivers for Linux , is beyond any comprehension????? Nvidia has supported Linux when it dont even make a dent on the OS statistics. Nvidia still supports legacy OS (NT). Even started on an alternate OS (FreeBSD)... Doesnt that spell commitment & loyalty to their custormers???? The newcomers are unproven in dedicated support for these alternate OS, may even halt/slow adoption if they become sole hardware supplier on alternate OS. They could stop offering support for the latest peripheral models - leaving Linux gaming with yesteryears technologies . Why do even want that???? Sheez...
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Petition not enough to ring ATI's be
posted by
Anonymous
@ 68.122.190.166
on Aug 29 2004 1:03 PM
|
|
Wow. Long-winded? Check. Posting all over the thread? Check. Caps lock kicks on and OFF seemingly AT random? CHECK. Irrational, browbeating manner? Check, you morons! Overuse of punctuation marks??????? Check!!!!!!!!!!
Apparently the poster got tired of getting modded -1 Troll at /. and came here. What luck for us.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Petition not enough to ring ATI's be
posted by
Anonymous
@ 216.126.89.213
on Aug 31 2004 12:13 PM
|
|
| Truth hurts, Ati Fan BOY??? SO it is okay for a you to listen to other Ati Fan boys bragging better DirectX9 & better frequent linux support to Nvidia fanboys face (go to any forums -- see how these fanboys defends their linux drivers - more frequent update is better, then why this petition?????) There are more of these Ati fanboys than Nvidia fanboys. But when someone points the linux driver truth in detailed, you cry TROLL jackA$$. It all too easy for you - to turn your cheek & choose your own truth.
It is okay for ati fanboys running around claiming how their latest FLAGSHIPs are superior to Geforce 6xxx when there is no shred of truths to it!!! The 6xxx has MORE OF EVERYTHING (pipes, bandwidth, etc ) than your current FLAGSHIP. It is only waiting for a mature drivers to showcase these extra silicons. Premature benchmarks dont tell the truths!!!! Did the shadows (indiscretly use alot for ULTRA REALISM) in DOOM3 freezes you to MOLASSES-SLOW because you dont have UltraShadows (proprietary)???? Yet some Ati fanboys can claim it ran better on theirs - it just dont make sense... Good luck in waiting for John to support your FLAGSHIP's proprietary version of it - considering the last DOOM3 alpha leaked. Let's just say it MAY very well be at the bottom of his priority list.
How ati fanboys run around claiming they still have better FSAA when both now share the same mechanism (rotated grid) is just unbelievable??? How is it any better in Serious Sam - FUGLY trees because you dont have supersampling. The new 6xxx just double the performance of their supersampling modes with improved quality too,,, Not to rub on your face . These same fanboys still thinks their FLAGSHIPs contained supersampling core - why would they not simply reenable it instead of wasting tech. support hearing you guys whine???? |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 210.84.237.90
on Aug 22 2004 11:57 PM
|
|
|
I can't say I've ever had any serious problems with ATI cards under Linux. But then, that's probably because I don't use the drivers ATI provide, and use the open source ones from the DRI project instead. I specifically replaced my Geforce 4 MX with a Radeon 9200 when I was sick of waiting for NVIDIA's drivers to be fixed so they would work with kernel 2.6 under distros like Fedora.
The open source drivers work fine, and I can run NWN without a problem. It was a bit annoying at first with flickering textures and stuff, but that was easily fixed by installing one of the latest snapshots of the drivers they provided.
Does anyone know if any Radeon cards beyond the 9200 will ever have open source 3D support? Did ATI specifically stop allowing the DRI developers to see the specs beyond this, or do they simply wait until the cards are no longer top-of-the-range before allowing it? The former would be a pity, but I can understand the latter.
What I would like to see from ATI are some drivers that don't assume we're all running an RPM-based distro. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 66.171.173.244
on Aug 23 2004 8:55 AM
|
|
| I have a Radeon Mobility, and I can barely do *2d* graphics without installing a DRI snapshot. They work, but the X server doesn't handle the LCD panel properly and tends to put it into unsupported modes (not good for the hardware!) Worse, the snapshot (which had some 3d acceleration but felt slower than my desktop's g400) caused my computer to lock up at least once a day; more if I was running a program that used the graphics card. Even if I wanted to use the non-free drivers, I can't: ATI only provides drivers for its desktop cards!
For all these reasons, I for one have made my mind up that I will not buy or recommend any ATI cards in the near future.
Daniel |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 68.122.190.166
on Aug 23 2004 4:09 PM
|
|
| Did you submit bug reports to the DRI team? Join the mailing list and talk to people there? Radeon Mobility support is buggy, yes, but it's something that can be fixed, and there's a lot more that you can do about it than just wait around, and complain on happypenguin. You don't have to be a programmer to help these things along.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
|
Re: Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 210.84.234.220
on Aug 24 2004 1:13 AM
|
|
Well, that's just it: when I bought my graphics card, I specifically went to the DRI website to see what cards were supported, and made my purchase based on that. The 9200 seemed to be the best available with 3D support.
I've certainly learned the hard way in the past that it pays to check what hardware you're buying when running Linux/BSD, at least if you don't want headaches. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
|
Re: Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 195.54.71.3
on Aug 24 2004 6:00 AM
|
|
| AFAIK, Radeon 9600 and below are supported by DRI drivers. Only the new R300 (and up) based cards are not supported. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Running with a Radeon 9200...
posted by
Anonymous
@ 210.84.234.220
on Aug 24 2004 7:31 AM
|
|
Well, from what I could find on the website:
Open source 3D acceleration is available on all Radeons up to and including the 9200 (rv280). The 7800/rv200 and below are supported by the radeon DRI driver; the 8500 through 9200 are supported by the r200 DRI driver. Both r200 and radeon DRI drivers use the radeon DRM driver.
3D support for r300 based cards (9500 and above) is only available from ATI's binary linux driver.
Unless you were talking about 2D support. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
|
Make them more useful
posted by
Anonymous
@ 194.100.193.47
on Aug 22 2004 11:14 PM
|
|
|
| Petitions could possibly actually be of some use if someone went and handed them personally to the adressed party (ATI in this case), then they could not completely ignore the issue. Someone should review and print the list and go searching for an ATI executive. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
ATI & nvidia
posted by
Anonymous
@ 195.34.32.11
on Aug 22 2004 11:05 PM
|
|
|
| All petitions are pointless. When was the last time they changed anything? What the world really needs now (well, regarding 3d hardware) is a 3rd major player. And a fourth one. Two a just ain't enough for them seeking for even such minor advances like releasing specs and so on. Some time ago, when we had several big companies in competition (S3, Trident, Tseng, Matrox), they were much more cooperative with small development houses and independent developers. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
ATI
posted by
Anonymous
@ 65.33.97.77
on Aug 22 2004 4:52 PM
|
|
|
| It would be nice, but they've (ATI) treated Linux like crap for years. A petition is nice, but honestly, my next video card would be a nVidia. Not trying to start a flame war. But if you have money to spend, spend it on a company that supports you. I wish you luck on the petition in any case.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: ATI
posted by
Anonymous
@ 68.122.190.166
on Aug 22 2004 8:12 PM
|
|
Supports you by trying to be "a leader in TCPA" you mean. Face it, both companies suck, just in different ways.
Me, I still prefer giving my money to the bumbling f-ups from Canada. Crappy is better than evil, especially if you can convince crappy to help out the creation of better open source drivers to replace theirs.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
|
signing rate
posted by
Anonymous
@ 212.241.111.99
on Aug 22 2004 4:14 PM
|
|
|
| hmm, when i signed the petition, and afterwards browsed through the other signers for bout 5 (or even less) minutes, there were 10 more after me having signed up. makes bout 3000 signers per day... |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 80.235.89.165
on Aug 22 2004 7:34 AM
|
|
|
| I refuse to sign a petition that looks like it's been written by a 10-year-old. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 67.101.186.172
on Aug 22 2004 8:11 AM
|
|
| The petition merely states the facts. ATI's current drivers are absolutely terrible. I tried switching from an nVidia GeForce FX 5200 256 Meg to an ATI 9800 Pro 256 Meg while performance was better for some games, many simply wouldn't run or would crash. So, I've gone back to nVidia for my graphics needs and sold the ATI. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 209.120.189.42
on Aug 22 2004 12:56 PM
|
|
| The petition may state the facts, but I agree with the OP; it does so with the English skills of a 10 year old. The arguments do not flow well, and the grammar is atrocious. Grammar is very important when one wishes to impress another party. Use of poor grammar in business communication is inexcusable, be it in a resume. a business proposal, or even a public petition such as this one. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 213.114.25.171
on Aug 22 2004 2:20 PM
|
|
Then why don't you contact the author and help him correct it?
Not everyone is a native speaker you know!
BTW It could be MUCH worse, I've seen lots of americans build worse sentences. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
Re: No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 84.128.92.87
on Aug 22 2004 3:02 PM
|
|
I sorry to say that most people on this planet aren’t native English speakers and don’t even speak it as a second language. So in my opinion the occasional shity English is to be expected.
P.S.: I signed the petition. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: No
posted by
Anonymous
@ 221.245.210.86
on Aug 22 2004 10:13 PM
|
|
| I thought the petition was well written. Unfortunately I don't believe Ati will improve their drivers. They don't fully support their cards on ms windows either, it isn't just linux. The only card you should get for a linux box is nvidia, who already support linux and deserve commercial support from linux users. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
We want source code, not improvements
posted by
Anonymous
@ 80.116.20.61
on Aug 22 2004 5:46 AM
|
|
|
| It's worth to note that Linux kernel modules *must* be released under the terms of the GPL, since they use kernel headers, which are GPL'ed. This has been discussed many times on the lkml. The only _still arguable_ exception to this case may happen when they are clearly a port from windows drivers, released other particular licenses; one could easily show up whether this is the case or not.
WE WANT THE SOURCE CODE, BECOUSE BINARY MODULES VIOLATE THE GPL!
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 213.94.250.25
on Aug 22 2004 6:12 AM
|
|
| It's worth noting that you're being silly- also discussed many times on the LKML is Linus' long-standing "loadable kernel modules exception to the GPL"
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 80.116.20.61
on Aug 22 2004 2:53 PM
|
|
| It's clear that you have not read it. Linus said: "[...] you have to include Linux header files in order to be able to make any nontrivial module. [...] In other words: feel free to be inspired by Linux all you want. But if you release a binary module that loads and works, you have been doing more than just feeling inspired." And again, "BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES. Comprende?".
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 216.126.89.213
on Aug 27 2004 9:32 PM
|
|
| Hmmm....., you are saying...
1. You can't add proprietary driver source in the kernel (GPL) source & recompile,
2. You can't load proprietary driver module into the kernel (GPL kernel header).
I think culprit is GPL. Where is the freedom in GPL? That preety much take away the freedom of any company to sell proprietary hard/soft-wares. If that is what you are saying, then it smells like a commie OS - since no capitalism (no freedom to make money from proprietarism - since you can only make money if you have an edge
- if everyone has the same modified code, how are you gonna compete- these companies are not into technical support - leave those to India).
With clauses like these, you are lucky that there are still hardware companies that will support it!!!! Imagine all proprietary hardware companies suddenly withdraw supports because of your PROFOUND INTEPRETATION OF LINUS' WORDS. What are you gonna do for 3D, network, sound, etc.? Now, you will have to run Linux on Boch emulator (TOY MACHINE) on Windows to get basic ethernet access!!!! Then it will truly be a TOY OS.
Besides, the driver source are copyrighted individual companies (hey they have their rights - what makes yours placed above theirs) & may have clauses that prevent such source to be ACCIDENTALY used in a GPL viral environment (I hope so, to protect their ASS). Is this how a company must protect itself to develop codes on this OS????
Just like any INTERPRETED/JITTED LANGUAGE that runs on a VIRTUAL MACHINE (TOY MACHINE) is a TOY LANGUAGE!!!! That should be the CONCISE definition in dictionary - unlike all definitions found online currently for TOY* (proof of concept language. sheez....)!!! If you dont want a TOY DESKTOP, dont replace or write KDE/GNOME/WindowMaker with a TOY LANGUAGE. Similary with TOY OS.
Like any TOYs (runs on non-realistic demands like small batteries, etc. Hey these languages also have unrealistic demands on resources too), grown-up kids will get bored & grow-out of it easily.
Now that I understand what GPL means in a kernel, I hope Apple will do like what Redhat does & contribute a user-friendly hardware/software Installer for FreeBSD, we could really use one & a great publicity!!!! It is the least you could all that FreeBSD has given with no strings attached like GPL. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 66.93.134.176
on Aug 30 2004 11:56 PM
|
|
| I see what you're saying, but I disagree. A company that doesn't have a real edge is going to fail in capitalism, regardless of how open their code is. That's how it works, capitalism in its purest form is dog-eat-dog. It's not a mistake that most businesses fail. What you're talking about is a socialist structure supporting businesses which can't compete on their own merits. How does this help the consumer? The GPL enforces capitalism, allowing the best product to be produced for the most reasonable price. That's how market demands work. The GPL simply allows free software (such as the Linux kernel) to compete on equal footing with proprietary software, without being absorbed into irrelevance. See FreeBSD for an example of what I mean by this statement.
That being said, I would like to see NVidia contribute toward free software (GNU definition) drivers for their product. The developers currently using their cards would quickly aid in ironing out bugs in the drivers, which otherwise will probably continue to exist. The ability to use the hardware to its fullest on any OS and architecture to which the code could be ported would surely be welcomed. As it currently stands, you're pretty lucky that they decided to port anything to x86 BSD at all. With free software drivers, it's a matter of porting it over.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 216.126.89.213
on Aug 31 2004 10:58 AM
|
|
| The real world is indeed DOG EAT DOG - hence it is a capitalist world by your definition!!! where have you been???? It has always been survival of fittest!!!!
First, how is GPL enforcing Capitalism?????
With GPL, you are not suppose to charge for the product - you are suppose to charge for delivering/handling!!!! You expect a non-technical users to swallow the fact that a company just charged them $299 for shipping & handling when their EULA says no money is charged for the product. How would you expect these users to understand a lot of work goes on - many unpaid employee-hours spent CONTINUALLY supporting drivers, weed out bugs, etc. Ofcourse, we all know 25% really goes to delivery & handling. So that 75% is actually used to pay programmer salaries (which in essence, is a charge on to the product) - which is clearly a violation to users, who were misled by the EULA in believing that the amount was indeed paid for the packagers, shippers, etc. No more, no less... The fact the profit was use to pay off somebody else (CEO & investors including - who does no maintainence but only see to their return-of-investments) in the company, who are TOTALY UNRELATED to delivery/handling is a complete violation!!!!! So a GPL software company is a company that cannot have CEOs, investors, office-CLOWN, etc. ???? Because they wont get a single DIME!!!!! When you start to put the IDEALISTIC GPL under microscopic analysis, you see it has holes (hence the GPL exceptions). Simply because the real world dont just live in either sides of extremes (black & white, surrender all-rights & retain all-rights) . There are shades of grays (compromise, tolerance despite licensings - live on good faith of a company).
"The GPL simply allows free software (such as the Linux kernel) to compete on equal footing with proprietary software, without being absorbed into irrelevance. See FreeBSD for an example of what I mean by this statement."
Are you so sure??? While a commercial OS is required to remove their proprietary browser to allow competiting browsers (BOTH FREE & NON-FREE) the FREEdom to thrived (make money or gain popularity) on it - atleast the LAW keeps an eye on MONOPOLISTIC pratices!!! Where is the LAW to protect the other extremes - to keep an eye on UNCOMMERCIALISTIC & COMMUNISTIC practices???? The law should require all free OS to load only barebones like what they imposed on commercial OS - to be FAIR. Commercial companies fighting for MONOPOLISTIC accusation should demand this!!!! Next, all you GPL fanboys will ofcourse, naturally cry foulplay... Typical of you GPL fanboys, it is okay to shove people your IDEALS but never the other way!!!!
Example, MOST free Linux is bundle with free browsers & other often-lousy free stuffs. Some of these distros discriminate against bundling other FREE but not open-source binary apps. What hypocrites!!! Where are the commercial apps??? Not all commercial apps disallows redistribution by 3rd parties - commercial browsers used to distributed by ISP, etc. At every opportunity they found a similar, sometimes-even-lousy GPL apps, they would rather remove the FREE sometimes-more-polished but-not-open binary apps. They wont even include it as an EXTRA options!!!! Instead they bundle not-ready-yet (tons of alpha & beta open_source apps) that arent up to standards & may be open to buffer attacks (which ofcourse - no warranty as usual). You tell me -where is COMPETE ON EQUAL FOOTING? A free GPL apps already has an advantage which is the word FREE, on top it these distro discriminates against NON_FREE & FREE apps that dont share their ideology!!! Be careful of biting the hands that feed you. Once you kill away these commercial companies, you risk creating an inbalance in your economy on long run. If you stop associating the word FREE so liberaly with GPL, maybe you wont confuse all the legally-challenged users into thinking other clauses like BSD (which is truly FREE in the normal sense that everyone can understand) are not FREE, Then, maybe FREEBSD would have not fade to irrelevance - OSX uses FreeBSD. Look at the how twisted the definition FREE in your GPL -- the FREE does means free in the normal sence- most software takes away your freedom... blah blah blah. It freaking confuses the legally challenged misled users in to yours is the only ONE TRUE FREE definition. Shezz....
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Re: We want source code, not improvement
posted by
Anonymous
@ 216.126.89.213
on Aug 27 2004 10:10 PM
|
|
| I never understand how is appending an attribution in an BSD be more troublesome than the GPL/LGPL clause which encourages every average jack & jill to request the modified GPL source code, which suck up your bandwidth & waste your time asking you how to compile - just because he/she feels like recompiling when you have already provided a perfect binary (which is an INSULT of your time in delivering the end-users an easy to use binaries like on EVERY OTHER OS) - which ofcourse you could refuse help (but if he/she could not succesfully make-install - they may post online saying that these files are fake modified files - which you will make you waste more energy (enrage) trying to show them how!!!!). |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
|
|
|
Happypenguin Poll
What genre of free games would you like to see more of?
|
|
|
