1. I had some problems in F 11 with my motherboard and display driver: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496545 This I started reporting on 19th April 2009, without any solution till now. I expected the problem to go away with F 12, but it did not. In fact, as I reported in the bug today, that, in F 12 it became bigger. So I went back to F 11 (with nomodeset in the kernel line).
2. Today, I was doing scp between my laptop (F 12) and desktop (F 11), some ogg files I was copying from the desktop to the laptop. And a most queer thing happened. I was so surprised that I took a screenshot, and I am attaching that PNG with it. All the files on the laptop was showing exactly the double size of that on the desktop. As you can compare in the screenshot. The terminal on the left is dd@mamdo, which is my desktop, and this is on SSH. And the terminal on the right is dd@dia, that is, my laptop where I took the screenshot. 'ls -sh' showing exactly double size, 'ls -s' showing exactly the double number of blocks, though the 'md5sum' for both of them is generating the same number. Both of them are on EXT4. This is something that is explosively beyond my comprehension. As you can see in the screenshot, some package update was going on, I rebooted after it. Expected it to go away: some kind of misreporting. But, it is showing exactly the same thing till now.
On 21 February 2010 19:33, das das@randomink.org wrote:
- I had some problems in F 11 with my motherboard and display driver:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496545 This I started reporting on 19th April 2009, without any solution till now. I expected the problem to go away with F 12, but it did not. In fact, as I reported in the bug today, that, in F 12 it became bigger. So I went back to F 11 (with nomodeset in the kernel line).
It seems the QA team is not keen in Fedora related issues: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538761
regards
On 02/22/2010 12:39 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
On 21 February 2010 19:33, das das@randomink.org wrote:
- I had some problems in F 11 with my motherboard and display driver:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496545 This I started reporting on 19th April 2009, without any solution till now. I expected the problem to go away with F 12, but it did not. In fact, as I reported in the bug today, that, in F 12 it became bigger. So I went back to F 11 (with nomodeset in the kernel line).
It seems the QA team is not keen in Fedora related issues: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538761
We will always continue to have hardware specific issues every single release and I don't see that going away no matter how much effort is put into testing it before the release by the developers or QA community team members and that doesn't mean more participation in testing won't help but let's be realistic about the results. We have measurably made improvements with the current QA team and I wouldn't fault them
Rahul
On 22 February 2010 12:49, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/22/2010 12:39 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
On 21 February 2010 19:33, das das@randomink.org wrote:
- I had some problems in F 11 with my motherboard and display driver:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496545 This I started reporting on 19th April 2009, without any solution till now. I expected the problem to go away with F 12, but it did not. In fact, as I reported in the bug today, that, in F 12 it became bigger. So I went back to F 11 (with nomodeset in the kernel line).
It seems the QA team is not keen in Fedora related issues: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538761
We will always continue to have hardware specific issues every single release and I don't see that going away no matter how much effort is put into testing it before the release by the developers or QA community team members and that doesn't mean more participation in testing won't help but let's be realistic about the results. We have measurably made improvements with the current QA team and I wouldn't fault them
I don't want to divert the main issue in this thread. To be specific about #538761, there are two facts:
1. I used to have higher resolutions in Fedora 10 and 11 on the __same__ hardware 2. I was able to get 1024*768 in kernel-2.6.31.6-147.fc12(after reporting this issue in bugzilla) and all the later versions till 2.6.31.12-174.2.22.fc12.x86_64 has default resolution 800*600
regards
On 02/22/2010 03:51 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
I don't want to divert the main issue in this thread. To be specific about #538761, there are two facts:
- I used to have higher resolutions in Fedora 10 and 11 on the
__same__ hardware
Yes and this is a regression from the switch to kernel mode setting
Rahul
On 22 February 2010 15:53, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/22/2010 03:51 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
I don't want to divert the main issue in this thread. To be specific about #538761, there are two facts:
- I used to have higher resolutions in Fedora 10 and 11 on the
__same__ hardware
Yes and this is a regression from the switch to kernel mode setting
Why didn't the patch applied to 2.6.31.6-147.fc12 didn't find it's place in later versions?
From an end-user point of view such bugs are real headache, so the
community may need some mechanism to quickly respond to end-user related issues.
I am still proud of Fedora, since it's the only distribution which has fewer critical bugs than any other distro. :)
I am still proud of Fedora, since it's the only distribution which has fewer critical bugs than any other distro. :)
This is meanningless unless you clearly define "critical".
Cheers, Debarshi
On 22 February 2010 16:11, Debarshi Ray debarshi.ray@gmail.com wrote:
I am still proud of Fedora, since it's the only distribution which has fewer critical bugs than any other distro. :)
This is meanningless unless you clearly define "critical".
critical in the sense "high" in Severity https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity
On 02/22/2010 04:07 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
Why didn't the patch applied to 2.6.31.6-147.fc12 didn't find it's place in later versions?
It is not merely a single patch to the kernel but complex interactions between the X server Intel driver and DRM subsystem in the kernel which often has hardware specific issues
Rahul
On 22 February 2010 16:15, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/22/2010 04:07 PM, Manilal K M wrote:
Why didn't the patch applied to 2.6.31.6-147.fc12 didn't find it's place in later versions?
It is not merely a single patch to the kernel but complex interactions between the X server Intel driver and DRM subsystem in the kernel which often has hardware specific issues
I don't want to take this thread to "kernel" level. period
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:33 PM, das das@randomink.org wrote:
I was so surprised that I took a
screenshot, and I am attaching that PNG with it. All the files on the laptop was showing exactly the double size of that on the desktop. As you can compare in the screenshot.
I approved the mail because the issue is important, however, given the size of the screenshot, please do use an external image-hosting site (there are many) instead of attaching them to the mail.
On 02/21/2010 07:33 PM, das wrote:
Both of them are on EXT4. This is something that is explosively beyond my comprehension. As you can see in the screenshot, some package update was going on, I rebooted after it. Expected it to go away: some kind of misreporting. But, it is showing exactly the same thing till now.
Can you see if the block size is the same? tune2fs would tell you that
Rahul
-
das -
Debarshi Ray -
Manilal K M -
Rahul Sundaram -
sankarshan