> Unless something radically changed in the last couple years, I am not sure where you got this from?

This was the first thing that stuck out to me when I skimmed the article, and the reason I decided to invest the time reading it all. I can tell the author knows his shit and isn't just parroting everyone's praise for AMD Linux drivers.

> (I am specifically talking about GPUs for computer usage rather than training/inference)

Same here. I suffered through the Vega 64 after everyone said how great it is. So many AMD-specific driver bugs, AMD driver devs not wanting to fix them for non-technical reasons, so many hard-locks when using less popular software.

The only complaints about Nvidia drivers I found were "it's proprietary" and "you have to rebuild the modules when you update the kernel" or "doesn't work with wayland".

I'd hesitate to ever touch an AMD GPU again after my experience with it, haven't had a single hick-up for years after switching to Nvidia.

Another ding against Nvidia for Linux desktop use is that only some distributions either make it easy to install and keep the proprietary drivers updated (e.g. Ubuntu) and/or ship variants with the proprietary drivers preinstalled (Mint, Pop!_OS, etc).

This isn’t a barrier for Linux veterans but it adds significant resistance for part-time users, even those that are technically inclined, compared to the “it just works” experience one gets with an Intel/AMD GPU under just about every Linux distro.

Wayland was a requirement for me. I've used an AMD GPU for years. I had a bug exactly once with a linux update. But has been stable since.

Wayland doesn't matter in the server space though.

they are, unless you get distracted by things like licensing and out of tree drivers and binary blobs. If you'd rather pontificate about open source philosophy and rights than get stuff done, go right ahead.