9:48 a.m.
Hi,
This is a bit of a whiny post but at its heart is a serious point.
F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
My question is, what now?
- Wait until it gets fixed? If so please tell me when this might
happen so I can try out some different distros and come back at the
appropriate time.
- Update my hardware? Are we saying this hardware isn't supported and
this is an acceptable way to deprecate it?
- Work in text mode? Come on, it's 2009.
- Fix it myself? This might be a bit beyond me.
These are the options as I see them. I understand that Fedora pushes
leading edge development but for me this Just Doesn't Work (TM). And
would reflect badly for any new users trying this.
If there's a better way to handle this, please let me know.
Thanks,
Leon...
10:03 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com>wrote:
Hi,
This is a bit of a whiny post but at its heart is a serious point.
F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact F9
only worked when I turned RHGB off.
This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard) video
hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
distributions.
Or use RHEL/Centos
My question is, what now?
- Wait until it gets fixed? If so please tell me when this might happen so
I can try out some different distros and come back at the appropriate time.
- Update my hardware? Are we saying this hardware isn't supported and this
is an acceptable way to deprecate it?
- Work in text mode? Come on, it's 2009.
- Fix it myself? This might be a bit beyond me.
These are the options as I see them. I understand that Fedora pushes
leading edge development but for me this Just Doesn't Work (TM). And would
reflect badly for any new users trying this.
If there's a better way to handle this, please let me know.
Thanks,
Leon...
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
--
Type bits /keyID Date User ID
pub 1024D/483B234C 2007/06/29 Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Fedora Project) <
jeevanullas(a)gmail.com>
Key fingerprint = ED45 62EA A4D7 53FB 44C7 774A D55B F3F0 483B 234C
10:12 a.m.
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
distributions.
oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
supported by Fedora???
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
10:19 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>wrote:
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
>
>
> Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
> distributions.
>
oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
supported by Fedora???
Yes.
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
--
Type bits /keyID Date User ID
pub 1024D/483B234C 2007/06/29 Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Fedora Project) <
jeevanullas(a)gmail.com>
Key fingerprint = ED45 62EA A4D7 53FB 44C7 774A D55B F3F0 483B 234C
10:26 a.m.
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
> > distributions.
> >
>
> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
> supported by Fedora???
Yes.
>
and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years or what
else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and the
related guidelines for Fedora???
I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an old PII-400
MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years old: and I
suppose that I am not the only one around...
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
10:40 a.m.
--- On Sun, 3/8/09, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: When will Fedora work again?
To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases"
<fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com>
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 8:26 AM
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat
<deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M
<antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat
<deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be
upgraded to support latest
>> > distributions.
>> >
>>
>> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware
should not be
>> supported by Fedora???
>
> Yes.
>>
and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years
or what
else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and
the
related guidelines for Fedora???
I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an
old PII-400
MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years
old: and I
suppose that I am not the only one around...
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
--
I am scratching my head on this one, I have a 6 yr old machine with Nvidia chipset and I
have no X, pending updates from rawhide report 20090306(they did not come in -0.207 kernel
which fixes this and a 3 yr old laptop Toshiba and I have no working X on both.
Ironically only a 9 yr old machine with 512 MB ram, Ati card running rawhide is working
correctly right now.
You are not the only one around. I believe Fedora should support most things, if not then
what is it good for? Most likely testers will give up and move to another distro that
supports their hardware. Why should users have to move to new hardware just so that they
can run Fedora on it?
Otherwise, in the FAQ/Wiki please post what hardware is not supported so that users
won't even bother installing Fedora in the first place.
Regards,
Antonio
10:45 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>wrote:
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support
latest
>> > distributions.
>> >
>>
>> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
>> supported by Fedora???
>
> Yes.
>>
and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years or what
else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and the
related guidelines for Fedora???
I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an old PII-400
MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years old: and I
suppose that I am not the only one around...
There is no such definition besides that for GUI you need minimum of 384 MB
of RAM to make it just work.
That's in the install guide which you should read before installing.
And I will suggest you to look into smolt.fedoraproject.org for the working
hardware database.
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
--
Type bits /keyID Date User ID
pub 1024D/483B234C 2007/06/29 Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Fedora Project) <
jeevanullas(a)gmail.com>
Key fingerprint = ED45 62EA A4D7 53FB 44C7 774A D55B F3F0 483B 234C
11:03 a.m.
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>> and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years or what
>> else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and the
>> related guidelines for Fedora???
>> I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an old PII-400
>> MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years old: and I
>> suppose that I am not the only one around...
> There is no such definition besides that for GUI you need
minimum of 384 MB
> of RAM to make it just work.
> That's in the install guide which you should read before installing.
> And I will suggest you to look into
smolt.fedoraproject.org for the working
> hardware database.
> --
pfiuuuuu....if the only asset to have Fedora running is 384 MB of RAM,
I feel re-assured and I do not to have to save money to buy a new box
:-)
I think that 384 MB is for graphical installation, as my experience
says that it running satisfactory on a 256MB machine (and it is
rawhide..).
To come back to Leon's problem, I am experiencing same troubles on a
laptop with intel-810 driver: any update is a mess (I mean of the
xserver-x11-drv-...) and I have to revert back to old packages (by rpm
-Uvh *.* --oldpackage) that I keep in a separate folder on my hard
disk.
And I find strange that some drivers should work with a certain
kernel, and not with all kernel : I don't know how a standard user
should manage update, some people updates only graphic drivers and not
kernel or the opposite...
For sure intel drivers have been an issue in F10 in the past and in
rawhide now..
Fortunately I am running rawhide on an experimental machine, but when
I read great articles about stability and readiness of Fedora 11, I
have some doubt..my two cents.
And I suppose that installation of Alfa from DVD should leave people
using intel hardware with a non working system (fortunately, my
rawhide is coming directly from a working F10)
Rgds
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
10:46 a.m.
Antonio M wrote:
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>>>
>>> Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
>>> distributions.
>>>
>> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
>> supported by Fedora???
> Yes.
and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years or what
else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and the
related guidelines for Fedora???
I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an old PII-400
MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years old: and I
suppose that I am not the only one around...
Antonio: I would agree with you.
Deependra: you say "must", is this a policy? Surely this would need some
mechanism of defining what hardware is supported and what isn't. I don't
have a problem with Fedora going down this route but the line between
old/unsupported and new/supported hardware can't be arbitrary.
11:02 a.m.
>>>> "LS" == Leon Stringer
<leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> writes:
LS> Deependra: you say "must", is this a policy?
He's just a random person on the Internet stating his opinion. You're
welcome to heed it or ignore it as you wish.
I happen to have about twenty machines with the same motherboard that
you're having issues with. In my experience it's always been pretty
crappy hardware, but my job is to make it work, not admire it for
technical brilliance. I have them all running F8 right now, with only
occasional weird graphics problems (the first boot after installation
will be corrupted, but it's fixed after a cold boot). As soon as I
get one free I'll try to boot rawhide on it and see how it goes.
- J<
11:18 a.m.
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "LS" == Leon Stringer
<leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> writes:
LS> Deependra: you say "must", is this a policy?
He's just a random person on the Internet stating his opinion. You're
welcome to heed it or ignore it as you wish.
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that an @fedoraproject.org address was
an indication of at least some authority.
I happen to have about twenty machines with the same motherboard
that
you're having issues with. In my experience it's always been pretty
crappy hardware, but my job is to make it work, not admire it for
technical brilliance. I have them all running F8 right now, with only
occasional weird graphics problems (the first boot after installation
will be corrupted, but it's fixed after a cold boot). As soon as I
get one free I'll try to boot rawhide on it and see how it goes.
Thanks. Generally I've had a good experience with these systems (as long
as I apply the latest firmware)...
11:45 a.m.
>>>> "LS" == Leon Stringer
<leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> writes:
LS> I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that an @fedoraproject.org address
LS> was an indication of at least some authority.
Essentially every contributor gets one; it doesn't mean anything
specific. You can check the account system if you want and see what
groups any account belongs to, if you like. I don't use my Fedora
address, but I do have one, and if you'd check it you'd see things
like provenpackager and some admin stuff which should indicate that
I'm a trusted and active member of the community. Even with that, I
wouldn't trust myself if I tried to speak from some position of
authority.
LS> Thanks. Generally I've had a good experience with these systems
LS> (as long as I apply the latest firmware)...
I'm pretty sure Intel stopped updating the firmware years ago. But,
yes, they do keep running so I can't really complain. It's just that
i810-level hardware (like the i845 graphics on these boards) is rather
poor and most development time these days is spent on much newer kit.
- J<
11:59 a.m.
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "LS" == Leon Stringer
<leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> writes:
LS> I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that an @fedoraproject.org address
LS> was an indication of at least some authority.
Essentially every contributor gets one; it doesn't mean anything
specific. You can check the account system if you want and see what
groups any account belongs to, if you like. I don't use my Fedora
address, but I do have one, and if you'd check it you'd see things
like provenpackager and some admin stuff which should indicate that
I'm a trusted and active member of the community. Even with that, I
wouldn't trust myself if I tried to speak from some position of
authority.
I see.
LS> Thanks. Generally I've had a good experience with these
systems
LS> (as long as I apply the latest firmware)...
I'm pretty sure Intel stopped updating the firmware years ago. But,
yes, they do keep running so I can't really complain. It's just that
i810-level hardware (like the i845 graphics on these boards) is rather
poor and most development time these days is spent on much newer kit.
Oh sure, but the shipped firmware was often buggy (or buggier!). And I
appreciate that the older, less glamorous hardware is going to get less
attention, I just felt that 3 distributions in a row where Fedora didn't
work with a default install was a bit much.
3:06 p.m.
Leon Stringer wrote:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "LS" == Leon Stringer
<leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> LS> Deependra: you say "must", is this a policy?
>
> He's just a random person on the Internet stating his opinion. You're
> welcome to heed it or ignore it as you wish.
>
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that an @fedoraproject.org address was
an indication of at least some authority.
It is really trivial to sign up for a Fedora account, join some group
and get an alias. Doesn't mean much, if anything really. A lot of
developers who do have a say on things do not use such aliases. Don't
read much into it.
Rahul
6:20 p.m.
Antonio M wrote:
2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>>>
>>> Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
>>> distributions.
>>>
>> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
>> supported by Fedora???
> Yes.
and what is meant by old hardware?? two years, five years or what
else??? where can I find the definition of old computer and the
related guidelines for Fedora???
I want to know as at the moment I am running rawhide on an old PII-400
MHz with 256 Mb and a cirrus graphic card about ten years old: and I
suppose that I am not the only one around...
I can understand Fedora not performing will when running GNOME or KDE on
such a system, but I would fully expect it to work, for some definitions
of work.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
6:28 p.m.
New subject: Re[2]: When will Fedora work again?
Please don't post HTML to this list.
poc
6:12 p.m.
Deependra Singh Shekhawat wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M
<antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>>
>> Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
>> distributions.
>>
> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
> supported by Fedora???
>
Yes.
Get real, that's extremely silly.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
8:02 p.m.
I don't think Deependra is attempting anything sinister. As another
poster said he is just expressing a personal opinion.
I think what is really happening here is that Deependra is not a native
English speaker and he (or she?) is having trouble tactfully expressing
a personal opinion in English. I notice that non-native English speakers
tend to use extremely short sentences. They try to have the words 'yes'
and 'no' convey a universe of varied meanings and intent and they hope
you understand the precise intent that is meant.
Oh, this is getting to be like a Dr. Seuss book!
Bob Cochran
John Summerfield wrote:
Deependra Singh Shekhawat wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Antonio M
> <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/8 Deependra Singh Shekhawat <deepsa(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>>>
>>> Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support
>>> latest
>>> distributions.
>>>
>> oldish chipset??? do you mean that old hardware should not be
>> supported by Fedora???
>>
> Yes.
Get real, that's extremely silly.
12:08 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 08:33:51PM +0530, Deependra Singh Shekhawat wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
....
This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard) video
hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
Intel 845 sounds very oldish chipset. Must be upgraded to support latest
distributions.
Not really; and besides this is rather hard to do if this is a
laptop with an integrated video which is very often the case with
these chipsets. In any case this is a piece of Xorg.0.log from a
laptop with F10 installed on it (it required also in a boot command
'clocksource=jiffies' before that started to work):
.....
(==) intel(0): Default visual is TrueColor
(**) intel(0): Option "NoAccel"
(II) intel(0): Integrated Graphics Chipset: Intel(R) 845G
(--) intel(0): Chipset: "845G"
.....
The driver in question claims the following support:
(II) intel: Driver for Intel Integrated Graphics Chipsets: i810,
i810-dc100, i810e, i815, i830M, 845G, 852GM/855GM, 865G, 915G,
E7221 (i915), 915GM, 945G, 945GM, 945GME, 965G, G35, 965Q, 946GZ,
965GM, 965GME/GLE, G33, Q35, Q33,
Mobile Intel® GM45 Express Chipset,
Intel Integrated Graphics Device, G45/G43, Q45/Q43, G41
so if it does not then this is a bug. Unfortunately it is not hard
to find those for that driver in bugzilla.
My question is, what now?
Now it is a time to read 'man intel'. It definitely would be nicer
if that would work straight "out-of-the-box" but if it does not ....
Michal
10:36 a.m.
Leon Stringer wrote:
Hi,
This is a bit of a whiny post but at its heart is a serious point.
F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
My question is, what now?
I had a quick look at the bugzilla,
it was initially reported against F10(rawhide).
Are you still using Rawhide, or did you stick with F10?
Frank
10:41 a.m.
Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
Leon Stringer wrote:
>
> F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
> F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
>
> This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
> video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
>
> My question is, what now?
>
I had a quick look at the bugzilla,
it was initially reported against F10(rawhide).
Are you still using Rawhide, or did you stick with F10?
No, in fact I stuck with F9 since F10 never worked. I've seen some posts
from people with similar hardware getting the same issue on F11
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484276). So I haven't
retested but will if you think there's any progress on this...
11:34 a.m.
Leon Stringer wrote:
Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
> Leon Stringer wrote:
>> F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
>> F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
>>
>> This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
>> video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
>>
>> My question is, what now?
>>
> I had a quick look at the bugzilla,
> it was initially reported against F10(rawhide).
> Are you still using Rawhide, or did you stick with F10?
>
No, in fact I stuck with F9 since F10 never worked. I've seen some posts
from people with similar hardware getting the same issue on F11
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484276). So I haven't
retested but will if you think there's any progress on this...
No, the issue still exists as of last weekend. I've got the same
intel chipset and have been reporting since F10-alpha here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469292
I'm updating against rawhide now, and I'll give it another try tonight.
-Bob
noon
Robert Arendt wrote:
Leon Stringer wrote:
> Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
>> Leon Stringer wrote:
>>> F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In
fact
>>> F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
>>>
>>> My question is, what now?
>>>
>> I had a quick look at the bugzilla,
>> it was initially reported against F10(rawhide).
>> Are you still using Rawhide, or did you stick with F10?
>
> No, in fact I stuck with F9 since F10 never worked. I've seen some posts
> from people with similar hardware getting the same issue on F11
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484276). So I haven't
> retested but will if you think there's any progress on this...
>
No, the issue still exists as of last weekend. I've got the same
intel chipset and have been reporting since F10-alpha here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469292
I'm updating against rawhide now, and I'll give it another try tonight.
Doesn't sound encouraging but I'd be interested in your results.
2:14 a.m.
Leon Stringer wrote:
Robert Arendt wrote:
> Leon Stringer wrote:
>> Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
>>> Leon Stringer wrote:
>>>> F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either.
In fact
>>>> F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
>>>>
>>>> My question is, what now?
>>>>
>>> I had a quick look at the bugzilla,
>>> it was initially reported against F10(rawhide).
>>> Are you still using Rawhide, or did you stick with F10?
>> No, in fact I stuck with F9 since F10 never worked. I've seen some posts
>> from people with similar hardware getting the same issue on F11
>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484276). So I haven't
>> retested but will if you think there's any progress on this...
>>
> No, the issue still exists as of last weekend. I've got the same
> intel chipset and have been reporting since F10-alpha here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469292
> I'm updating against rawhide now, and I'll give it another try tonight.
>
Doesn't sound encouraging but I'd be interested in your results.
Still broken with tonight's rawhide (no cursor, slow, distorted
glxgears, thinks there's 4G videoram, "possible circular locking
dependency detected" dump in /var/log/messages). Today's config:
kernel-2.6.29-0.207.rc7.fc11.i586
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.6.0-9.fc11.i586
package xorg-x11-drv-i810 is not installed
xorg-x11-drv-synaptics-1.0.99.4-1.fc11.i586
libdrm-2.4.5-0.fc11.i586
mesa-libGL-7.3-10.fc11.i586
mesa-libGLU-7.3-10.fc11.i586
mesa-dri-drivers-7.3-10.fc11.i586
The Xserver comes up, but 2D performance is extremely slow. I use
the putimage100 test from x11perf as a quick benchmark of 2D performance
(x11perf -putimage100) and glxgears for 3D. The glxgears image is very
distorted (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=333612), but
this week the throughput nears F9 performance:
F9 Rawhide
2D putimage100 1300/sec 232/sec
3D glxgears 257 fps 212 fps
More details logged at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469292#c55
Cheers?
-Bob Arendt
10:45 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 14:48:56 +0000,
Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
My question is, what now?
See if either of the bugs below cover your problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459437
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371
If so add yourself as a cc and add any useful information you have.
If not open a new bug. If possible boot to run level 3 and grab the
Xorg.0.log file from one of the failed tries. You probably want to
include some information on your hardware. If you have a smolt profile
you can point to that, otherwise lspci -v output is usually good
enough.
A lot of changes are going on for intel video hardware right now in rawhide.
So whether or not things work may change from kernel to kernel. I don't
know whether or not your particular device is targetted to work for F11,
but the developers do want to get kernel modesetting for intel working.
See the F11 feature page for Intel KMS:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IntelKMS
11 a.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 14:48:56 +0000,
Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> F10 didn't work on my hardware. It looks like F11 won't either. In fact
> F9 only worked when I turned RHGB off.
>
> This is due to a problem with X and support for my (fairly standard)
> video hardware (Intel D845GERG2 on-board controller,
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371).
>
> My question is, what now?
See if either of the bugs below cover your problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459437
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470371
Bruno: Thanks but I reported both of these!!!
#470371 already includes the Xorg.0.log and lspci output.
If I'm feeling bored I'll try to pull down and update F11A and try again
later tonight (if I can work out how to get the Wi-Fi card going in text
mode).
If so add yourself as a cc and add any useful information you have.
If not open a new bug. If possible boot to run level 3 and grab the
Xorg.0.log file from one of the failed tries. You probably want to
include some information on your hardware. If you have a smolt profile
you can point to that, otherwise lspci -v output is usually good
enough.
A lot of changes are going on for intel video hardware right now in rawhide.
So whether or not things work may change from kernel to kernel. I don't
know whether or not your particular device is targetted to work for F11,
but the developers do want to get kernel modesetting for intel working.
See the F11 feature page for Intel KMS:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IntelKMS
11:23 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 16:00:21 +0000,
Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Bruno: Thanks but I reported both of these!!!
I am sorry about not noticing, especially the one you included in the
original message.
I was trying to rush and didn't do a good job.
I am not familiar with that particular hardware, but I didn't want you
to give up because someone suggested that because the card was old it
wouldn't work.
Video in Fedora is a bit crazy right now, but my expectation is that things
will settle out well for Intel and ATI hardware in the F12 time frame.
I expect that X will at least be usable (if not very accellerated for some
cards) for the F11 release.
11:39 a.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 16:00:21 +0000,
Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> Bruno: Thanks but I reported both of these!!!
I am sorry about not noticing, especially the one you included in the
original message.
I was trying to rush and didn't do a good job.
No problem, I'm just happy to be getting suggestions on progressing this
issue.
I am not familiar with that particular hardware, but I didn't
want you
to give up because someone suggested that because the card was old it
wouldn't work.
And thanks for the encouragement. Like many people on this list I've
been here since FC1 and was starting to feel a little abandoned.
Video in Fedora is a bit crazy right now, but my expectation is that
things
will settle out well for Intel and ATI hardware in the F12 time frame.
I expect that X will at least be usable (if not very accellerated for some
cards) for the F11 release.
I'll see if I can install and apply the latest updates in text mode,
retest and bug the guy on the Intel KVM page.
11:12 a.m.
Sorry about not reading your message carefully.
Still the other bug with your hardware mentioned might be worth looking
at as well as the Intel KMS feature. The person working on the feature
may be able to tell you if your hardware is targetted to work as part of it.
11:33 a.m.
New subject: Re[2]: When will Fedora work again?
Hello Bruno,
Sunday, March 8, 2009, 12:12:07 PM, you wrote:
Sorry about not reading your message carefully.
Still the other bug with your hardware mentioned might be worth looking
at as well as the Intel KMS feature. The person working on the feature
may be able to tell you if your hardware is targetted to work as part of it.
The Intel drivers are very fragile, and defaulting acceleration to "on"
F9/10 while simultaneously removing the X-Org configuration file and the
system-config-display utility have made addressing the problem much worse.
The last release that worked for me was F8 (now EOL). I skipped F9
(broken for X). I was able to install from the final F10 release (the F10
preview release also was broken for X).
Things went south a week after install, when the Intel hardware / dbus and pam
updates came out. Many bugs have been filed, by myself and others. Most
go unanswered, and the focus seems to be on bypassing rather than fixing
issues. All F10 code updates so far have not addressed these problems.
Many generations of Intel graphics hardware (both old and new) are affected.
A check of Bugzilla, both Fedora and Xorg since the fall shows it's not a pretty
picture for any Linux distributions with current X on Intel.
It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems to be
very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10. Rawhide
may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in real life.
Al
12:01 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:33:26PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Things went south a week after install, when the Intel hardware /
dbus and pam
updates came out. Many bugs have been filed, by myself and others. Most
go unanswered, and the focus seems to be on bypassing rather than fixing
issues. All F10 code updates so far have not addressed these problems.
Many generations of Intel graphics hardware (both old and new) are affected.
A check of Bugzilla, both Fedora and Xorg since the fall shows it's not a pretty
picture for any Linux distributions with current X on Intel.
It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems to be
very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10. Rawhide
may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in real life.
FWIW:
Not sure if this bug I reported is related:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473101
Personally, I'm not specifically interested in running Fedora on that
HW (I only check every Fedora release of the problem is still there ;-)),
but I *am* interested in running RHEL6 on it (like I use RHEL4 and
RHEL5 on it now), so I'm pretty scared about the future...
And this maybe is an "old" chipset, in some people's opinion, but it
is HW that is sold *today*. Specific HW like this POS HW or industrial
stuff does often use older chipsets.
--
-- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
12:10 p.m.
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems to be
very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10. Rawhide
may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in real life.
Exactly. I can't test or contribute if it doesn't work and there
*appears* to be little interest to resolve this. (Maybe there's just a
bigger focus on other chipsets and a limited number of developers).
I now see that there are quite a few people with Intel controllers who
are in the same position and feeling pretty frustrated...
1:04 p.m.
2009/3/8 Leon Stringer <leon.stringer(a)ntlworld.com>:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
> regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems
> to be
> very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10.
> Rawhide
> may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in
> real life.
>
Exactly. I can't test or contribute if it doesn't work and there *appears*
to be little interest to resolve this. (Maybe there's just a bigger focus on
other chipsets and a limited number of developers).
I now see that there are quite a few people with Intel controllers who are
in the same position and feeling pretty frustrated...
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Intel driver is an issue, so many bugs filed under F10 and rawhide,
but I do not see an unified driver to manage the problem, if I go to
my front page I see bugs assigned but I have to check by myself on
each update if any particular bug has been solved (I say that at least
five updates of xorg-x11-server and intel driver have been released):
I start t
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
1:25 p.m.
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 17:10 +0000, Leon Stringer wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
> regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems to be
> very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10. Rawhide
> may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in real
life.
>
Exactly. I can't test or contribute if it doesn't work and there
*appears* to be little interest to resolve this. (Maybe there's just a
bigger focus on other chipsets and a limited number of developers).
I now see that there are quite a few people with Intel controllers who
are in the same position and feeling pretty frustrated...
Hi Leon,
I think you might want to try using the vesa driver instead (if you
haven't tried already). I believe it has (very) limited support, in a
sense that it should be able to start X, but not very good resolution,
acceleration, etc., on a pretty wide range of hardware... Not sure if
your particular video card is vesa compatible, but its probably worth a
try.
As to why your issue goes unnoticed, I'd guess it's a combination of
developers being low in number and focusing more or mainstream (and
modern) hardware and getting the kernel mode-setting work. You might
want (if you hadn't already) to file a bug upstream [1] to get attention
of more intel driver developers. Would be also nice to try out some
other recent distos (like opensuse, mandriva or ubuntu; most of them
have live cds, so you'd be able to see if it works without the need to
install it) to see how much specific to fedora and driver version this
issue is.
Plus, if you have enough spare time, you could try to bisect between
which exact versions of the i810 driver it stopped working. If it could
be narrowed into one single offending patch (but it is not easy to do
that and it is a rather time consuming and boring process) that would be
really helpful for devs, I think.
Martin
References:
[1] http://intellinuxgraphics.org/
11:53 a.m.
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 17:10 +0000, Leon Stringer wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> It seems strange (and sad) that so soon into the life of a release major
> regressions can happen... followed by a deafening science. There seems to be
> very little urgency (or developer time/focus) on fixing this in F10. Rawhide
> may be important... but only if existing releases can actually be used in real
life.
>
Exactly. I can't test or contribute if it doesn't work and there
*appears* to be little interest to resolve this. (Maybe there's just a
bigger focus on other chipsets and a limited number of developers).
I now see that there are quite a few people with Intel controllers who
are in the same position and feeling pretty frustrated...
First off, as others have said, Deependra is just one guy posting his
opinion, so don't take what he says as gospel :). There's no general
policy that Fedora will only support really recent hardware. There's no
coherent policy for Fedora saying "we will support exactly X, Y, and Z
hardware", or "we will support 3 year old but not 4 year old hardware",
or anything like that. It's more or less up to developers and
maintainers for each particular driver.
As far as Intel goes, it may help to explain the situation with regards
to that driver. The Fedora maintainers for the 'intel' driver are also
the main upstream developers for the driver. Developing the driver
itself is their main focus. The driver covers a very wide range of
hardware, from i810 all the way up to the current GMA series adapters,
which is twenty or thirty different chips from a timespan of several
years, so they have a very wide range of hardware scenarios to try and
cope with. The 'intel' driver is also kinda one of the 'showpiece'
drivers for X.org, so it tends to get implementations of new
technologies like RandR 1.2 very early, and to an extent it is used as a
development base for those technologies.
So the intel driver devs, who also have to maintain the Fedora package,
have a lot on their plate - trying to support several years worth of
different hardware, and also working on cutting-edge X.org developments
(like, for instance, at present they are working on the new GEM
architecture). Because they're working on so much and because so much
experimental new stuff goes into the intel driver, that's why you will
see regressions in performance and complete bugs in support for specific
chips like this sometimes coming up, and it probably also explains why
it takes them a while to address issues sometimes.
In this specific case, as others have said, there are some workarounds
you can try. The emergency one is to use the 'vesa' driver, which will
make X work, but will be rather slow and may not support all the
resolutions you need. You can also create a /etc/X11/xorg.conf file -
running 'Xorg -configure' from runlevel 3 should do this - and then try
either disabling acceleration or switching to XAA rather than EXA
acceleration:
Option "NoAccel" "true"
or
Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"
in the Driver section of the xorg.conf file will do those things. Either
of those may get you going. If so, of course, please add this
information to your bug report(s). Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:33 p.m.
Monday, March 9, 2009, 12:53:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 17:10 +0000, Leon Stringer wrote:
In this specific case, as others have said, there are some workarounds
you can try. The emergency one is to use the 'vesa' driver, which will
make X work, but will be rather slow and may not support all the
resolutions you need. You can also create a /etc/X11/xorg.conf file -
running 'Xorg -configure' from runlevel 3 should do this - and then try
either disabling acceleration or switching to XAA rather than EXA
acceleration:
Option "NoAccel" "true"
or
Option "AccelMethod" "XAA"
in the Driver section of the xorg.conf file will do those things.
Either
of those may get you going. If so, of course, please add this
information to your bug report(s). Thanks!
Adam,
I'm already running two other systems in vesa mode because the F10 install
did not recognize their built-in ATI video, and they were set that way by
the installer. They are slow but usable.
I tried vesa with the GX270, but the largest video mode supported was
only 600x800. My modifications to the generated Intel Xorg.conf to
switch it to vesa didn't work and I ran out of time to diagnose. I've
not tried the acceleration workaround lately - I should be able to do
so in a week or so. For now, that box is sitting under my desk while
my larger space heater (I mean development box/server) must now stay up
7/24 simply for DNS/Samba.
I would point out the potential trap with leaving something broken for
a long time, and relying on widely published workarounds. It can reduce
the likelyhood of many of the folks affected ever testing the fixes when
they do arrive. In my experience, a significant number of folks will
leave things in the working state until they next do a fresh install of
a subsequent release on that box. If they simply update, the workaround
might well continue to be used for the life of that box.
Al
3:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:33 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
I would point out the potential trap with leaving something broken
for
a long time, and relying on widely published workarounds. It can reduce
the likelyhood of many of the folks affected ever testing the fixes when
they do arrive. In my experience, a significant number of folks will
leave things in the working state until they next do a fresh install of
a subsequent release on that box. If they simply update, the workaround
might well continue to be used for the life of that box.
I agree - I'm mainly suggesting this for the diagnostic value, which is
why I asked that the info be added to the bug report. If changing the
acceleration method fixes the problem, then the developers know the
issue is likely in the EXA code somewhere.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
5588
days inactive
5589
days old
38 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Adam Williamson -
Al Dunsmuir -
Antonio M -
Antonio Olivares -
Bob Arendt -
Bruno Wolff III -
Deependra Singh Shekhawat -
Frank Murphy -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
John Summerfield -
Jos Vos -
Leon Stringer -
Martin Sourada -
Michal Jaegermann -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robert L Cochran