Hello there
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
The release is kmod 2.6.32.16-141 for 195-36.31-1 The driver is 195-36.31-2
I am not sure if it miss labelled or just not the right kmod
This does not show up in update but when I search nvidia it's there.
Any input
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
On 07/19/2010 10:00 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Milesmmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
Well thanks for your input!!!
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
This is true, but to the extent that some people can't use the recent kernel until a working video driver is available, it is a Fedora issue. Updates which have security implications really shouldn't have to run in R/L 3 as text only. I don't need 3D accelerated anythings to run a few simple xterms and load monitoring, but not having X at all is an upgrade stopper. I'm running radeon, but more than a few systems which ran well on FC9 need to use VESA modes or even a laptop a VNC. The support for ATI and Nvidia hardware only a few years old is spotty at best.
Good suggestion, though, he won't get any help here.
On 07/19/2010 04:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Milesmmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
This is true, but to the extent that some people can't use the recent kernel until a working video driver is available, it is a Fedora issue. Updates which have security implications really shouldn't have to run in R/L 3 as text only. I don't need 3D accelerated anythings to run a few simple xterms and load monitoring, but not having X at all is an upgrade stopper. I'm running radeon, but more than a few systems which ran well on FC9 need to use VESA modes or even a laptop a VNC. The support for ATI and Nvidia hardware only a few years old is spotty at best.
Good suggestion, though, he won't get any help here.
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are two seperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.
Anyway I have waiting to do
The problem is that there is a kmod but instead of 195.36.31-2 the label for the new kmod 195.36.31-1
This is confusing as the driver does not end with -1 but a -2
Thanks for agreeing anyway
On 07/20/2010 05:53 AM, Michael Miles wrote:
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are twoseperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.
Among the mainstream distributions, Fedora is unique in that, it doesn't have a official non-free repository or repo for patent encumbered code. Although RPM Fusion is as close as it gets, it should be noted that RPM Fusion is a third party repository with a different infrastructure. Fedora simply does not care about proprietary kernel modules or any third party kernel module for that matter. If Fedora does, the kernel maintainers, add it as a patch rather than leave it as a kernel module package. This means, if you run a third party repo, support for it within Fedora is limited.
Rahul
On 07/19/2010 05:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/20/2010 05:53 AM, Michael Miles wrote:
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are twoseperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.
Among the mainstream distributions, Fedora is unique in that, it doesn't have a official non-free repository or repo for patent encumbered code. Although RPM Fusion is as close as it gets, it should be noted that RPM Fusion is a third party repository with a different infrastructure. Fedora simply does not care about proprietary kernel modules or any third party kernel module for that matter. If Fedora does, the kernel maintainers, add it as a patch rather than leave it as a kernel module package. This means, if you run a third party repo, support for it within Fedora is limited.
Rahul
It's really too bad because if you want your Video card to work 100% you need the nvidia drivers.
Oh well, considering the two main Video companies is Nvidia and Ati it would be good to have a Fedora based driver that works 100%. I am not knocking Nouveau but it still has a way to go before it can be called a driver replacement.
Thanks again for the answer back
Michael
On 07/20/2010 06:09 AM, Michael Miles wrote:
Oh well, considering the two main Video companies is Nvidia and Ati it would be good to have a Fedora based driver that works 100%. I am not knocking Nouveau but it still has a way to go before it can be called a driver replacement.
Thanks again for the answer back
Yes, the driver is under rapid development and is getting better with more feedback. It works well for some users but not all and the difference is that we have the expertise and the ability to improve the Nouveau driver but we can't do anything to fix bugs in the proprietary Nvidia driver. If it doesn't work well for you, do let the developers know via bug reports. Red Hat does have a full time Nouveau developer to help improve this driver who spends most of his time on bug reports from Fedora users. Do remember, that this is a fundamental value of Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
See the first para on "Freedom"
Rahul
On 7/19/2010 7:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
This is true, but to the extent that some people can't use the recent kernel until a working video driver is available, it is a Fedora issue. Updates which have security implications really shouldn't have to run in R/L 3 as text only. I don't need 3D accelerated anythings to run a few simple xterms and load monitoring, but not having X at all is an upgrade stopper. I'm running radeon, but more than a few systems which ran well on FC9 need to use VESA modes or even a laptop a VNC. The support for ATI and Nvidia hardware only a few years old is spotty at best.
Good suggestion, though, he won't get any help here.
Obviously the previous kernel worked correct? Why not use that one?
On 07/19/2010 05:51 PM, David wrote:
On 7/19/2010 7:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:53:51 -0700, Michael Milesmmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
Fedora doesn't produce the kmod. You really should be asking about this on the RPMfusion mailiing lists.
This is true, but to the extent that some people can't use the recent kernel until a working video driver is available, it is a Fedora issue. Updates which have security implications really shouldn't have to run in R/L 3 as text only. I don't need 3D accelerated anythings to run a few simple xterms and load monitoring, but not having X at all is an upgrade stopper. I'm running radeon, but more than a few systems which ran well on FC9 need to use VESA modes or even a laptop a VNC. The support for ATI and Nvidia hardware only a few years old is spotty at best.
Good suggestion, though, he won't get any help here.
Obviously the previous kernel worked correct? Why not use that one?
I am using the previous kernel.
I just like to keep up and it is a update I would like to know why the kmod is for a driver that does not exist. 195.36.31-2 is the driver and the kmod for this driver and new kernel 195.36.31-1 which ends with the wrong number Even the kmod for the previous kernel is mismatched and ends with -1 instead of -2
Michael
On 7/19/2010 9:17 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
On 07/19/2010 05:51 PM, David wrote:
On 7/19/2010 7:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Obviously the previous kernel worked correct? Why not use that one?
I am using the previous kernel.
I just like to keep up and it is a update I would like to know why the kmod is for a driver that does not exist. 195.36.31-2 is the driver and the kmod for this driver and new kernel 195.36.31-1 which ends with the wrong number Even the kmod for the previous kernel is mismatched and ends with -1 instead of -2
You really should ask this on the RPMfusion list. It is their package after.
On 19 July 2010 18:53, Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
Hello there
I have been waiting to see if a kmod comes available and there seems to be the wrong one published by RPMfusion.
The release is kmod 2.6.32.16-141 for 195-36.31-1 The driver is 195-36.31-2
I am not sure if it miss labelled or just not the right kmod
This does not show up in update but when I search nvidia it's there.
You could always try to install amkods and akmod-nvidia, both from rpmfusion. You'd also need the kernel-devel package installed. This works well for me.
Regards,
Chris
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com wrote:
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are twoseperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.
That's just it, Michael. While I understand your frustration, this isn't a Fedora issue any more than, say, Adobe lagging on releasing a version of Photoshop for Windows 7. That's an Adobe issue, not a Microsoft issue. The same holds true here, as well. There is lag in releasing a new kmod (and always will be). This is an RPM Fusion issue, not a Fedora issue.
RPM Fusion is just as much a 3rd party vendor to Fedora as Adobe is to Microsoft. Nothing RPM Fusion does or doesn't do is ever a Fedora issue.
On 07/20/2010 09:44 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Michael Miles <mmamiga6@gmail.com mailto:mmamiga6@gmail.com> wrote:
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are two seperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.That's just it, Michael. While I understand your frustration, this isn't a Fedora issue any more than, say, Adobe lagging on releasing a version of Photoshop for Windows 7. That's an Adobe issue, not a Microsoft issue. The same holds true here, as well. There is lag in releasing a new kmod (and always will be). This is an RPM Fusion issue, not a Fedora issue.
RPM Fusion is just as much a 3rd party vendor to Fedora as Adobe is to Microsoft. Nothing RPM Fusion does or doesn't do is ever a Fedora issue.
-- Chris
Tis frustrating though
On 07/19/2010 07:17 PM, David wrote:
On 7/19/2010 9:17 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
On 07/19/2010 05:51 PM, David wrote:
On 7/19/2010 7:41 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Obviously the previous kernel worked correct? Why not use that one?
I am using the previous kernel.
I just like to keep up and it is a update I would like to know why the kmod is for a driver that does not exist. 195.36.31-2 is the driver and the kmod for this driver and new kernel 195.36.31-1 which ends with the wrong number Even the kmod for the previous kernel is mismatched and ends with -1 instead of -2
You really should ask this on the RPMfusion list. It is their package after.
I tried to get some info and I was also advised that some thing will be there soon
The kmods there for the new kernel but the new nvidia driver ends with a -2 and the kmod is labeled -1 ant the end Different kmod
This is on the mail RPM Fusion page
You can get support for RPM Fusion in most of the usual Fedora discussion places -- e.g. fedora-list https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list, #fedora on freenode https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate and fedoraforum.org http://fedoraforum.org.
Michael
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
This is on the mail RPM Fusion page
You can get support for RPM Fusion in most of the usual Fedora discussion places -- e.g. fedora-list, #fedora on freenode and fedoraforum.org.
yup. it's there. pretty generous of them (RPM Fusion)
charles zeitler
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/20/2010 05:53 AM, Michael Miles wrote:
I am finding it hard to deal with as RPMFusion and Fedora are twoseperate thing but when it blocks a update then yes I do think it is a Fedora issue.
Among the mainstream distributions, Fedora is unique in that, it doesn't have a official non-free repository or repo for patent encumbered code. Although RPM Fusion is as close as it gets, it should be noted that RPM Fusion is a third party repository with a different infrastructure. Fedora simply does not care about proprietary kernel modules or any third party kernel module for that matter. If Fedora does, the kernel maintainers, add it as a patch rather than leave it as a kernel module package. This means, if you run a third party repo, support for it within Fedora is limited.
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
There's not a limit on the number of chipsets that can work, but there is a limit on how much hardware can be carried in a store. That's what a company, in the business of selling hardware, is going to target. What does this have to do with Fedora?
On 07/28/2010 04:15 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
We have already discussed this. You are not being very specific. In Free software world, developer priority is set by their own interests or who they work for. For Radeon development by Red Hat, Compiz or games are not a priority at all. Can't speak for everyone else.
Rahul
Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
And WHY should AMD/ATI support old hardware? They ain't selling anymore.
ATI support is, mostly, on a paid basis and funded for current AMD/ATI products.
The current version of the Catalyst drivers does not and should not support my 10 year old laptop with an ATI Rage Mobility 3 2xAGP adaptor. Nor do I expect them to do so.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
Again, if I worked as a developer for a company that was paying my bills, I would do what they tell me.
This is true for nVidia, AMD/ATI and Intel. What makes them money is what they will support. Ever check the difference in Windows versus Linux support? Linux lags severely in several functions across the board. Windows gamer users are a major source of their money and sales in high end video cards. Linux users are not.
Them's the facts folks. You cannot short the developers on FOSS projects, you have to look at the manufacturers as well.
BTW, this applies to ANY of the 'non-Windows' operating systems that rely on developers to create drivers for the device.
James McKenzie
On 07/27/2010 05:58 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
And WHY should AMD/ATI support old hardware? They ain't selling anymore.
ATI support is, mostly, on a paid basis and funded for current AMD/ATI products.
The current version of the Catalyst drivers does not and should not support my 10 year old laptop with an ATI Rage Mobility 3 2xAGP adaptor. Nor do I expect them to do so.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
Again, if I worked as a developer for a company that was paying my bills, I would do what they tell me.
This is true for nVidia, AMD/ATI and Intel. What makes them money is what they will support. Ever check the difference in Windows versus Linux support? Linux lags severely in several functions across the board. Windows gamer users are a major source of their money and sales in high end video cards. Linux users are not.
Them's the facts folks. You cannot short the developers on FOSS projects, you have to look at the manufacturers as well.
BTW, this applies to ANY of the 'non-Windows' operating systems that rely on developers to create drivers for the device.
It would also be nice if the manufacturers would release better information on the devices themselves. Much of the time spent in FOSS driver development is reverse engineering drivers for Windows because of a lack of adequate information--and sometimes bits get left out or don't work well because of it.
A few years back, Texas Instruments created a wireless NIC that a number of PCMCIA and USB dongles used (mostly from D-Link). We ended up with hack very similar to nVidia kmods that'd use a binary blob from Windows for the guts of the driver. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/28/2010 1:54 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 07/27/2010 05:58 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
It would also be nice if the manufacturers would release better information on the devices themselves. Much of the time spent in FOSS driver development is reverse engineering drivers for Windows because of a lack of adequate information--and sometimes bits get left out or don't work well because of it.
A few years back, Texas Instruments created a wireless NIC that a number of PCMCIA and USB dongles used (mostly from D-Link). We ended up with hack very similar to nVidia kmods that'd use a binary blob from Windows for the guts of the driver.
The reason that manufacturers of hardware *that they sell* do not release really good specs and FOSS drivers should be obvious. :-)
Rick Stevens wrote
It would also be nice if the manufacturers would release better information on the devices themselves.
Yes, this has been hashed, rehashed and burnt to the ground. Manufacturers don't want to give away technical secrets and will go to great lengths to keep them that way. Their bottom lines depend on it. Yes, AMD/ATI/nVidia/Intel are in business to make money. In order to make money you have to have a feature your competition does not have or you have to be super cheap. Several independent developers were sued by a now defunct manufacturer for reverse 'black box' engineering their chipset just to build drivers that the manufacturer PUBLICLY stated they would not build.
Much of the time spent in FOSS driver development is reverse engineering drivers for Windows because of a lack of adequate information--and sometimes bits get left out or don't work well because of it.
Describe 'reverse engineer'. There is looking at the input/outputs of a module with no knowledge of the code of the module (called 'black' box) and then there is decoding to the machine code level ('white' box or 'gray' box.) There is a reason that Tandy versus IBM stuck. Tandy watched what happened when an IBM PC booted on power up with a DOS disk in the machine (DOS remember was stolen and had been around as source code) and found that the Operating System queried a specific location in memory for the letters IBM. They did that and made a better BIOS. The company is now known as Phoenix. Other companies did a line-by-line decode of the BIOS and that got them in a bunch of trouble. That is why 'black box' is acceptable, but 'white' or 'gray' box is not.
A few years back, Texas Instruments created a wireless NIC that a number of PCMCIA and USB dongles used (mostly from D-Link). We ended up with hack very similar to nVidia kmods that'd use a binary blob from Windows for the guts of the driver.
Again, black boxing the 'blob' is ok. Reverse engineering the code is not.
Now for the problem with RPMFusion. If they ain't on the stick, someone gotta take over. That means if we can get the 'propriatary' bits and then black box them to see what happens and then write our own drivers. ATI released a 'blob' for a very famous, but almost defunct, operating system. Maybe they will do this again for those cards they cannot financially justify supporting. Has anyone in the FOSS environment approached them? This might put Fedora and the upstream company above their competition if they did.
James McKenzie
On 7/28/10 11:37 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Describe 'reverse engineer'. There is looking at the input/outputs of a module with no knowledge of the code of the module (called 'black' box) and then there is decoding to the machine code level ('white' box or 'gray' box.) There is a reason that Tandy versus IBM stuck. Tandy watched what happened when an IBM PC booted on power up with a DOS disk in the machine (DOS remember was stolen and had been around as source code) and found that the Operating System queried a specific location in memory for the letters IBM. They did that and made a better BIOS. The company is now known as Phoenix. Other companies did a line-by-line decode of the BIOS and that got them in a bunch of trouble. That is why 'black box' is acceptable, but 'white' or 'gray' box is not.
James McKenzie
Very interesting paragraph ... I wanted to see if the forum would tolerate my asking a question on this.
If doing a "black-box" only job of "reverse engineering" requires one to load memory with a trademark, how does this fall into the realm of acceptable?
Curiosity only on this question, as it would seem to me that such would be an acknowledgment of ownership (as opposed to some random memory load for "validation check"?),
Thanks, Paul
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 20:37:04 -0700, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Manufacturers don't want to give away technical secrets and will go to great lengths to keep them that way. Their bottom lines depend on it.
And the way to change this is to not buy stuff from companies that don't document how to use it.
Several independent developers were sued by a now defunct manufacturer for reverse 'black box' engineering their chipset just to build drivers that the manufacturer PUBLICLY stated they would not build.
Anybody can sue for anything in the US. It doesn't mean it will get very far. The rulkes on reverse engineering depend on where you are. Typically it's going to be legal unless you agree to a contract that says you won't.
Now for the problem with RPMFusion. If they ain't on the stick, someone gotta take over. That means if we can get the 'propriatary' bits and then black box them to see what happens and then write our own drivers. ATI released a 'blob' for a very famous, but almost defunct, operating system. Maybe they will do this again for those cards they cannot financially justify supporting. Has anyone in the FOSS environment approached them? This might put Fedora and the upstream company above their competition if they did.
AMD / ATI releases documentation of their video cards. nVidia does not and will not. They don't harass the Nouveau project and that seems to be as far as they are willing to go.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 23:48:57 -0400, Paul Allen Newell pnewell@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
If doing a "black-box" only job of "reverse engineering" requires one to load memory with a trademark, how does this fall into the realm of acceptable?
There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase for access control purposes.
That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might have gone differently.
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
There's not a limit on the number of chipsets that can work, but there is a limit on how much hardware can be carried in a store. That's what a company, in the business of selling hardware, is going to target. What does this have to do with Fedora?
It is a commentary that computers which ran using Fedora drivers in FC6 thru FC9 now must use vendor drivers or run in VESA mode. Was that not clear in the above quoted 1st paragraph? Hardware which was new less than four years ago no longer has the same functionality it did.
I mention it because people flame if someone suggests using vendor drivers which work.
I mention it because people flame if someone suggests using vendor drivers which work.
--
Sad but true :(
Hardware which worked before no longer does with newer software builds. In some cases, one can build the driver(s) but most have to wait for others to do it since they were asked to do it because it was the Feodra way*
But, as long as those FLAMES don't start a fire :) Then we will need ^{1} and ^{2}
Regards,
Antonio
{1} A fire extinguisher {2} Call Firefighters * Fedora way {use rpms from rpm-fusion or other 3rd party vendors for nvidia,ati, ....,/etc}
On 29 July 2010 09:39, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
It is a commentary that computers which ran using Fedora drivers in FC6 thru FC9 now must use vendor drivers or run in VESA mode. Was that not clear in the above quoted 1st paragraph? Hardware which was new less than four years ago no longer has the same functionality it did.
Maybe Fedora can have a legacy-drivers package which people can use?
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM, suvayu ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2010 09:39, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
It is a commentary that computers which ran using Fedora drivers in FC6 thru FC9 now must use vendor drivers or run in VESA mode. Was that not clear in the above quoted 1st paragraph? Hardware which was new less than four years ago no longer has the same functionality it did.
Maybe Fedora can have a legacy-drivers package which people can use?
Well, that would have to be RPM Fusion, and you might suggest that to them. Fedora still wouldn't be able to distribute the drivers because, despite being old, they are still proprietary.
On 29 July 2010 11:48, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM, suvayu ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2010 09:39, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
It is a commentary that computers which ran using Fedora drivers in FC6 thru FC9 now must use vendor drivers or run in VESA mode. Was that not clear in the above quoted 1st paragraph? Hardware which was new less than four years ago no longer has the same functionality it did.
Maybe Fedora can have a legacy-drivers package which people can use?
Well, that would have to be RPM Fusion, and you might suggest that to them. Fedora still wouldn't be able to distribute the drivers because, despite being old, they are still proprietary.
I think legacy proprietary driver packages exist on RPMFusion. I was referring to some of the complaints about older FOSS drivers working better on older cards.
-- Chris
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:03:34 -0700 suvayu ali wrote:
I think legacy proprietary driver packages exist on RPMFusion.
A legacy driver won't do any good, you'd need a legacy X as well since the drivers changed to accommodate the changed requirements of X itself (which is why pretty much all video is busted now except for the handful of cards the X developers use :-).
It has definitely been mostly improving (I have one antique ATI card that got worse with fedora 13, all the others got better).
What I'm looking forward to is RHEL 6 being based on this new X. I can't wait till large paying corporate customers find all their video busted. (That's when you'll find the quality of the drivers suddenly improving at an accelerated pace :-).
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm looking forward to is RHEL 6 being based on this new X. I can't wait till large paying corporate customers find all their video busted. (That's when you'll find the quality of the drivers suddenly improving at an accelerated pace :-).
I hope that you're right but I have yet to work anywhere with Linux on the desktop in spite of having to manage in my last five jobs 1,000 to 4,000 RHEL boxes.
On 7/29/10 7:56 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 23:48:57 -0400, Paul Allen Newellpnewell@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
If doing a "black-box" only job of "reverse engineering" requires one to load memory with a trademark, how does this fall into the realm of acceptable?
There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase for access control purposes.
That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might have gone differently.
Bruno:
Thank you for the additional background ... especially the "long time ago" qualification.
Paul
James McKenzie wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
And WHY should AMD/ATI support old hardware? They ain't selling anymore.
I guess because they want customers to be happy and disposed to buy new. In any case, the vendor driver works and the open source doesn't, so I would suppose that since it was working they just didn't bother to break it.
ATI support is, mostly, on a paid basis and funded for current AMD/ATI products.
The current version of the Catalyst drivers does not and should not support my 10 year old laptop with an ATI Rage Mobility 3 2xAGP adaptor. Nor do I expect them to do so.
The vendor driver supports my three year old Radeon chip, the current Fedora driver offers text mode and some VESA capabilities.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
Again, if I worked as a developer for a company that was paying my bills, I would do what they tell me.
I think you are missing the point, the vendor drivers seem to work, the open source don't.
This is true for nVidia, AMD/ATI and Intel. What makes them money is what they will support. Ever check the difference in Windows versus Linux support? Linux lags severely in several functions across the board. Windows gamer users are a major source of their money and sales in high end video cards. Linux users are not.
Them's the facts folks. You cannot short the developers on FOSS projects, you have to look at the manufacturers as well.
BTW, this applies to ANY of the 'non-Windows' operating systems that rely on developers to create drivers for the device.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 23:48:57 -0400, Paul Allen Newell pnewell@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
If doing a "black-box" only job of "reverse engineering" requires one to load memory with a trademark, how does this fall into the realm of acceptable?
There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase for access control purposes.
That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might have gone differently.
Judging from the Apple jail breaking case a few days ago, I'm guessing no vendor is eager to see how much they can restrict people from using hardware they bought. Just my read, I am not a lawyer.
On 07/30/2010 01:03 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
What I'm looking forward to is RHEL 6 being based on this new X. I can't wait till large paying corporate customers find all their video busted. (That's when you'll find the quality of the drivers suddenly improving at an accelerated pace :-).
For various reasons, this simply won't happen. Large customers don't just install RHEL on random systems and find their video busted. They install it on supported systems only and test it before deploying it. Fedora gets deployed on random systems a lot more.
Rahul
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 06:56 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase for access control purposes.
That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might have gone differently.
Now, and long ago, buying something gave you the thing to use. It never made it legal/right for you to blatantly rip off the design.
i.e. Copyright and patents have been around for decades.
You've always been liable for a whole mess of legal trouble if you ripped off someone else's product. It's not a new problem.
Even if you do manage to get away with reverse engineering something that's not covered by a patent, or you find some loophole, you still stand the chance of getting your just deserts from the original manufacturer, when they, with their years of R&D into their product that they have, and you don't, trump your attempt with a new and better, or deliberately incompatible, model.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 22:54:54 +0930, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 06:56 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
There was a court case where a company was using a copyrighted phrase for access control. A competitor won when they also used the same phrase for access control purposes.
That was a long time ago and people seemed to feel that when a customer bought something, they owned it. In today's environment that case might have gone differently.
Now, and long ago, buying something gave you the thing to use. It never made it legal/right for you to blatantly rip off the design.
While I disagree with your views on reverse engineering, the above was really referring to interoperability. Things like being able to buy spare parts from other than the manufacturer and being able to use add ons not sanctioned by the manufacturer of a device.
On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 08:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While I disagree with your views on reverse engineering, the above was really referring to interoperability. Things like being able to buy spare parts from other than the manufacturer and being able to use add ons not sanctioned by the manufacturer of a device.
Though that's still the same thing, but different people. Rather than you making free with another's product, it's a third party doing the same thing (/them/ infringing).
Of course we'd all like to avoid having to buy overpriced special spanners, special connectors, or spare parts. While I do see both sides of that equation, I've no sympathy for manufacturers that overprice and restrict access.
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM, suvayu ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2010 09:39, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
It is a commentary that computers which ran using Fedora drivers in FC6 thru FC9 now must use vendor drivers or run in VESA mode. Was that not clear in the above quoted 1st paragraph? Hardware which was new less than four years ago no longer has the same functionality it did.
Maybe Fedora can have a legacy-drivers package which people can use?
Well, that would have to be RPM Fusion, and you might suggest that to them. Fedora still wouldn't be able to distribute the drivers because, despite being old, they are still proprietary.
Let me try to be polite about that, the drivers in FC6 thru FC9 are proprietary? Really? Sounds like FUD to me!
I booted an FC9 on my Acer laptop and the Radeon driver worked fine, didn't lock up, didn't limit glxgears to the refresh rate/2, would show video rather than a 3 fps slide show, etc. So this is lost functionality, would be a regression if a developer had the laptop and didn't feel "go buy something which works with the drivers today" was a viable solution.
Anyway, my complaint was with people who flame using vendor drivers, as traitors to the open source way. Vendor developers will continue to support, because they figure you will like them for that when you buy again (I do), and unpaid open source developers will work on new features, because their "compensation" is from either using what they write or impressing other developers with it.
Unfortunately open source fanatics will continue to post as if license purity is more import than working computers. I've worn out my urge to warn users.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
James McKenzie wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
And WHY should AMD/ATI support old hardware? They ain't selling anymore.
I guess because they want customers to be happy and disposed to buy new. In any case, the vendor driver works and the open source doesn't, so I would suppose that since it was working they just didn't bother to break it.
After thinking about that, I'm wrong. When X changed the drivers had to be actively modified to keep the old hardware working. So the vendor developer supported what they sold three years ago (and maybe kept some big laptop vendors happy), while the FOSS developers support what they use, which I suspect is new, expensive, top-end desktop stuff, not the Radeon HP and Acer business laptop of 3-4 years ago.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:00:33 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Let me try to be polite about that, the drivers in FC6 thru FC9 are proprietary? Really? Sounds like FUD to me!
But they probably aren't going to work with recent kernels. So that makes them not very useful for using them on recent Fedora.
figure you will like them for that when you buy again (I do), and unpaid open source developers will work on new features, because their "compensation" is from either using what they write or impressing other developers with it.
Also the ones that are paid to develop graphics drivers have 3D support low on the their list of things to work on. Airlie covers some of this in: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
Unfortunately open source fanatics will continue to post as if license purity is more import than working computers. I've worn out my urge to warn users.
The topic is more nuanced than that. Part of it is RPMFusion users getting support here instead of RPMFusion. Part of it is that Fedora's stated principals are such that it attracts people who care more about free software than say Ubuntu. Part of it is if you want to change corporations' behaviors you need to affect their bottom line. That is why some people here will advocate not buying nVidia hardware even when it is cheaper for the performance when using the binary drivers. Part of it is people using nVidia's driver stuff directly which changes your system in ways that may be hard to undo later and may introduce security problems that are hard to fix unless nVidia issues an update.
Their drivers (at least the versions packaged by RPMFusion) also don't work for live images. They check the version of the video hardware at install and that won't work for live images.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:00:33 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Let me try to be polite about that, the drivers in FC6 thru FC9 are proprietary? Really? Sounds like FUD to me!
But they probably aren't going to work with recent kernels. So that makes them not very useful for using them on recent Fedora.
figure you will like them for that when you buy again (I do), and unpaid open source developers will work on new features, because their "compensation" is from either using what they write or impressing other developers with it.
Also the ones that are paid to develop graphics drivers have 3D support low on the their list of things to work on. Airlie covers some of this in: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
Unfortunately open source fanatics will continue to post as if license purity is more import than working computers. I've worn out my urge to warn users.
The topic is more nuanced than that. Part of it is RPMFusion users getting support here instead of RPMFusion. Part of it is that Fedora's stated principals are such that it attracts people who care more about free software than say Ubuntu. Part of it is if you want to change corporations' behaviors you need to affect their bottom line. That is why some people here will advocate not buying nVidia hardware even when it is cheaper for the performance when using the binary drivers. Part of it is people using nVidia's driver stuff directly which changes your system in ways that may be hard to undo later and may introduce security problems that are hard to fix unless nVidia issues an update.
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. :-(
On 7/31/2010 3:00 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:00:33 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
But they probably aren't going to work with recent kernels. So that makes them not very useful for using them on recent Fedora.
Also the ones that are paid to develop graphics drivers have 3D support low on the their list of things to work on. Airlie covers some of this in: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
The topic is more nuanced than that. Part of it is RPMFusion users getting support here instead of RPMFusion. Part of it is that Fedora's stated principals are such that it attracts people who care more about free software than say Ubuntu. Part of it is if you want to change corporations' behaviors you need to affect their bottom line. That is why some people here will advocate not buying nVidia hardware even when it is cheaper for the performance when using the binary drivers. Part of it is people using nVidia's driver stuff directly which changes your system in ways that may be hard to undo later and may introduce security problems that are hard to fix unless nVidia issues an update.
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. :-(
Your last paragraph has me confused. The part about "paid extra". Paid extra for what exactly?
I ask because I have never done that. I have stayed away from obvious conflicting things like Win-Modems and Lexmark printers but I have never paid more for Linux support.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 15:00:39 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. :-(
Regressions suck. If avoiding them was my highest priority I wouldn't be running Fedora. 3D using open source drivers has never really been good. (And using proprietary drivers has always had its own kind of suck.)
More developers doing graphics driver work are neeeded. Despite that things do seem to be improving in general. There is also a long way to go before all of the features of modern chips are supported by the open source drivers and usable by applications (e.g. better OpenGL support).
Other OS's have issues with supporting old hardware on newer versions of the OS. Even where there is backward compatibility, there are limits to that and venders don't have an interest in updating drivers for equipment they no longer make. If you want to run newer software on old hardware, you'll probably have more luck using open source.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 15:00:39 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. :-(
Regressions suck. If avoiding them was my highest priority I wouldn't be running Fedora. 3D using open source drivers has never really been good. (And using proprietary drivers has always had its own kind of suck.)
I'm not talking 3D, I'm talking using a gnome-terminal, viewing a few 640x480 15fps security files from the motion sensing camera, etc.Worked in FC9. Not interesting, not sexy, etc. You worry about 3D being good, I worry about X working. At all.
David wrote:
On 7/31/2010 3:00 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:00:33 -0400, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
But they probably aren't going to work with recent kernels. So that makes them not very useful for using them on recent Fedora.
Also the ones that are paid to develop graphics drivers have 3D support low on the their list of things to work on. Airlie covers some of this in: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
The topic is more nuanced than that. Part of it is RPMFusion users getting support here instead of RPMFusion. Part of it is that Fedora's stated principals are such that it attracts people who care more about free software than say Ubuntu. Part of it is if you want to change corporations' behaviors you need to affect their bottom line. That is why some people here will advocate not buying nVidia hardware even when it is cheaper for the performance when using the binary drivers. Part of it is people using nVidia's driver stuff directly which changes your system in ways that may be hard to undo later and may introduce security problems that are hard to fix unless nVidia issues an update.
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. :-(
Your last paragraph has me confused. The part about "paid extra". Paid extra for what exactly?
I ask because I have never done that. I have stayed away from obvious conflicting things like Win-Modems and Lexmark printers but I have never paid more for Linux support.
I'm glad you never had to buy a more expensive system, particularly laptops, to get hardware which is supported. Many others have, definitely including me.
On 8/2/2010 5:19 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
David wrote: I'm glad you never had to buy a more expensive system, particularly laptops, to get hardware which is supported. Many others have, definitely including me.
Well... I don't know exactly what it is that you do with these laptops. What your needs are but here, and on other lists, I am seeing many users running Linux on very inexpensive laptops. Netbooks even. Older hardware too.
You must have some really intensive projects.
I don't use a laptop myself. I don't really even like them. I selected the hardware pieces and assembled my desktop for somewhere around $2500. Other hardware was separate.
<snip> Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. </snip>
Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
For the reasons expounded in http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html I personally have no reason to go past Fedora 11 and nvidia for Blender I could not get radeon to work well at all so swapped for an nvidia GT8600, now years old but works very well.
However I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning that if Gnome and a few other 2D apps work then things are good. A strange notion which simply doesn't hold water.
If 3D was not an absolute necessity then I'm certain that nvidia and the other video card designers would not waste time and money developing it and trying to eliminate competition (linux).
My simplistic notion #1 --Get 3d working first and 2d apps shouldn't be a problem. They're basically a single layer in a 3d environment. The next step would be to have other 2D app GUIs running in the layers above or below the visible layer. Then users can switch between layers to use a chosen app. Except when using Blender.
<snip> The current focus is on making graphics work for as many ppl as possible first, then 3D is always further down the list, this is just common sense. </ship>
Open source will never be all things to all people so I cannot agree with the above contention. The priority to make graphics work on a very small variety of the most widely available fairly modern cards seems to be a way to move forward. The problem is that no cards work well in Open source3D. Like with printers and scanners, many of which are crappy in Linux, couldn't the open source gurus focus on a very small range (say 2 or 3) of well known mid capability video card, get them firing on all 3D cylinders then promote those as the Linux / Open Source approved cards. It won't suit the 3D games people, high end power users but can help toward a solution for we who need to use Blender, and there are, I believe, thousands of us.
<snip> Current priorities are:
0) you aren't running a binary driver - if so no priority for you.
a) Can you see stuff on the screen at install/boot? b) can you run GNOME desktop in reasonably useful manner? i.e. firefox runs okay, no glitches, major slowdowns etc. c) can you suspend/resume? d) can you run compiz/gnome-shell? e) can you run non-Gnome desktops at reasonable speed? (yes we have to prioritise gnome over KDE, it sucks but thats life) f) does misc 3D application run? </snip>
Pardon me but it's got to be a joke, can't be serious. (a) was priority 30 years ago (b,c,d) priority10-15 years ago (e) 6-10 years ago As for (0) I haven't a clue what that means or how it should affect 3D modelling and animation.
My simplistic notion #2. Video card design is well known and pretty standard, so why can't an Open source electronics genius assemble a competent 3D video card for global Linux 3D power users? Yep it's only a few hundred thousand cards, maybe a couple of million but has anyone researched the possibilities? If so what was the outcome? What are the barriers? Could it be used to raise funds for further development? Does anyone care?
Questioning whether Open source people are genuine because they are forced into untidy concessions doesn't help. We are.
my 2c worth Roger
I ask because I have never done that. I have stayed
away from obvious
conflicting things like Win-Modems and Lexmark
printers but I have never
paid more for Linux support.
I'm glad you never had to buy a more expensive system, particularly laptops, to get hardware which is supported. Many others have, definitely including me.
--
I have had the opposite experience. I have had great success with the so called WinModems :) The LinModems folks have been very kind and supportful[1]. Since about 2001-? to the present, I have had great success with Intel 536 EP modem, Smartlink Modems, LT Modem, and/or pctel Modems. I have a little space on the net dedicated to getting these WinModems going on several versions of Linux. I have one page dedicated to Smartlink Modems on Fedora[3].
Candidate PCI devices with modem chips are: 00:09.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 536EP Data Fax Modem 00:0c.0 Communication controller: Agere Systems Lucent V.92 Data/Fax Modem 00:0d.0 Modem: Smart Link Ltd. SmartLink SmartPCI562 56K Modem (rev 04) 00:0e.0 Communication controller: Agere Systems LT WinModem (rev 02)
For candidate card in slot 00:0e.0, firmware information and bootup diagnostics are: PCI slot PCI ID SubsystemID Name ---------- --------- --------- -------------- 00:0e.0 11c1:044e 1235:044e Communication controller: Agere Systems LT WinModem
For candidate card in slot 00:0d.0, firmware information and bootup diagnostics are: PCI slot PCI ID SubsystemID Name ---------- --------- --------- -------------- 00:0d.0 163c:3052 163c:3052 Modem: Smart Link Ltd. SmartLink SmartPCI562 56K Modem
For candidate card in slot 00:0c.0, firmware information and bootup diagnostics are: PCI slot PCI ID SubsystemID Name ---------- --------- --------- -------------- 00:0c.0 11c1:0620 11c1:0620 Communication controller: Agere Systems Lucent V.92 Data/Fax Modem
For candidate card in slot 00:09.0, firmware information and bootup diagnostics are: PCI slot PCI ID SubsystemID Name ---------- --------- --------- -------------- 00:09.0 8086:1040 8086:1000 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 536EP Data Fax Modem
All these modems are functional and working beautifully either with Fedora/Slax/Slackware which I use on my home systems.
About the LexMark printers, I *do* stay away from those as those are difficult to deal with, but with some patience and help they might work^{YMMV}
Regards,
Antonio
[1] http://linmodems.technion.ac.il/ [2] http://modemhelplinux.741.com/ [3] http://modemhelplinux.741.com/slmodemd-setup-1.html
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:12 +1000, Roger wrote:
Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
Because they wanted to run Linux, and given the choices of hardware available to them, only the more expensive options were compatible.
I faced that when I bought my laptop. The cheap ones all used an unsupported graphics chipset, only the expensive ones had graphics chipsets that we had drivers for.
And with all due disrespect to the one person on this list who kept on saying that eventually they would have support, there was no way for us to know whether that would really happen, and we aren't going to buy an unusable computer and leave it on the shelf for two years, in the meantime. Nor forgo buying a new computer for two years, waiting for the time it was feasible.
2010/8/3, Roger arelem@bigpond.com:
<snip> Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true. </snip>
Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
Because many people want to run something Linux based, or just something that is free software.
For the reasons expounded in http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html I personally have no reason to go past Fedora 11 and nvidia for Blender I could not get radeon to work well at all so swapped for an nvidia GT8600, now years old but works very well.
However I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning that if Gnome and a few other 2D apps work then things are good. A strange notion which simply doesn't hold water.
2D-only support is better than no support.
If 3D was not an absolute necessity then I'm certain that nvidia and the other video card designers would not waste time and money developing it and trying to eliminate competition (linux).
If they can sell it, they will build it. There unquestionably is a big market for graphics processors.
My simplistic notion #1 --Get 3d working first and 2d apps shouldn't be a problem. They're basically a single layer in a 3d environment. The next step would be to have other 2D app GUIs running in the layers above or below the visible layer. Then users can switch between layers to use a chosen app. Except when using Blender.
My understanding of graphics driver development is quite limited, but I believe it is many orders of magnitude less work to have the basic 2D stuff work, when compared to writing a complete OpenGL implementation.
When there is a working OpenGL available, it often makes sense to use it for 2D graphics, too. On the other hand, one would first need to have such an implementation available.
<snip> The current focus is on making graphics work for as many ppl as possible first, then 3D is always further down the list, this is just common sense. </ship>
Open source will never be all things to all people so I cannot agree with the above contention. The priority to make graphics work on a very small variety of the most widely available fairly modern cards seems to be a way to move forward.
There mostly are only few different graphics processors available. At least my impression is that all the modern ATI GPUs are very similar from the perspective of a driver developer. I believe the situation is quite similar on Nvidia side, too. At least the nouveau driver support has been quite similar for a very wide range of different Nvidia GPUs.
The problem is that no cards work well in Open source3D. Like with printers and scanners, many of which are crappy in Linux, couldn't the open source gurus focus on a very small range (say 2 or 3) of well known mid capability video card, get them firing on all 3D cylinders then promote those as the Linux / Open Source approved cards. It won't suit the 3D games people, high end power users but can help toward a solution for we who need to use Blender, and there are, I believe, thousands of us.
For the reasons I wrote above, I believe this is actually not a very sustainable way forward. It seems the existing support we have is easier to port to new devices than it is to write a complete high performance OpenGL implementation. On the other hand, spending effort on supporting a wide range of hardware where possible still allows many more people take advantage of free software. Work on higher end features seems also take place, but I guess the progress there is a lot less visible due to the vastness of effort required.
<snip> Current priorities are:
- you aren't running a binary driver - if so no priority for you.
a) Can you see stuff on the screen at install/boot? b) can you run GNOME desktop in reasonably useful manner? i.e. firefox runs okay, no glitches, major slowdowns etc. c) can you suspend/resume? d) can you run compiz/gnome-shell? e) can you run non-Gnome desktops at reasonable speed? (yes we have to prioritise gnome over KDE, it sucks but thats life) f) does misc 3D application run?
</snip>
Pardon me but it's got to be a joke, can't be serious. (a) was priority 30 years ago (b,c,d) priority10-15 years ago (e) 6-10 years ago As for (0) I haven't a clue what that means or how it should affect 3D modelling and animation.
My simplistic notion #2. Video card design is well known and pretty standard, so why can't an Open source electronics genius assemble a competent 3D video card for global Linux 3D power users? Yep it's only a few hundred thousand cards, maybe a couple of million but has anyone researched the possibilities? If so what was the outcome? What are the barriers? Could it be used to raise funds for further development? Does anyone care?
There exists the Open Graphics Project: http://wiki.opengraphics.org/tiki-index.php. They are developing a completely open graphics hardware design. I have not followed them lately, but at least the site seems still quite active.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
James McKenzie wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
And if you run Radeon chipsets which worked with FC6 and FC9, should you expect that the developers would spend time on gamer features like 3D and compiz while long time users run in text mode or VESA mode at best? Not everyone can throw away what was a pretty decent laptop when it gets to be three years old.
And WHY should AMD/ATI support old hardware? They ain't selling anymore.
I guess because they want customers to be happy and disposed to buy new. In any case, the vendor driver works and the open source doesn't, so I would suppose that since it was working they just didn't bother to break it.
ATI support is, mostly, on a paid basis and funded for current AMD/ATI products.
The current version of the Catalyst drivers does not and should not support my 10 year old laptop with an ATI Rage Mobility 3 2xAGP adaptor. Nor do I expect them to do so.
The vendor driver supports my three year old Radeon chip, the current Fedora driver offers text mode and some VESA capabilities.
Lately it feels as if developers are not adding features but breaking or removing support as well, as though there were some limit on the number of chipsets which can work.
Again, if I worked as a developer for a company that was paying my bills, I would do what they tell me.
I think you are missing the point, the vendor drivers seem to work, the open source don't.
Ah, thank you for explaining this. Maybe they still support the old Rage chip in my Thinkpad then?
And sometimes Open Source is not the way to go. They may not have all of the 'facts' that the vendor is holding back on. I'm very well aware that ATI did, at one time, publish their card specifications but also put out a 'blob' and documented that very well. Some Open Source folks did not like this, but it was way better than waiting for ATI to build drivers.
However, each user has to select what they want to use and if there is broken or reduced functionality, they will have to be aware and be able to 'deal with it.'
Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:12 +1000, Roger wrote:
Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
Because they wanted to run Linux, and given the choices of hardware available to them, only the more expensive options were compatible.
I would have said that the least expensive options weren't supported, but we agree completely. The cheap models used video or network which wasn't supported.
I faced that when I bought my laptop. The cheap ones all used an unsupported graphics chipset, only the expensive ones had graphics chipsets that we had drivers for.
And with all due disrespect to the one person on this list who kept on saying that eventually they would have support, there was no way for us to know whether that would really happen, and we aren't going to buy an unusable computer and leave it on the shelf for two years, in the meantime. Nor forgo buying a new computer for two years, waiting for the time it was feasible.
Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying hardware in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day one.
The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly. Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.
Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying hardware
in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day one.
The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly. Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.
We are running ubuntu on fairly basic equipment, but I do agree, forget Fedora past ver 11 for older equipment. With respect to cutting edge and the necessity thereof, much of the world still uses neolithic windows versions. Fedora 10 and 11 are light years ahead of those, is there any reason they too could not be acceptable on low end systems? The questions could be, what apps 'need' to be run? Can you get away with openoffice, gimp, inkscape, audacity and so many other early version apps. Do you need compatibility with late version apps? What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years old? Roger
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 09:37 +1000, Roger wrote:
What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years old?
The internet software being out-of-date, not supporting current features, not having bug fixes, not fixing security holes. And, if you want to add new software, it not being available for an older release.
But if you're isolated, e.g. a computer that's nothing more than a word processor and printer, then it doesn't need updating if it already does what you want it to do, reliably.
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:02 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
An educated guess would be that the underlying system (e.g. Xorg, the compiler, or even most of the OS) changed over time, and nobody in the development side of things was using any of the hardware that (now) fails, to be able to notice that it failed.
For people without that specific hardware, probably the only failure that they're going to notice would be a compilation error.
Roger wrote:
Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying hardware
in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day one.
The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly. Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.
We are running ubuntu on fairly basic equipment, but I do agree, forget Fedora past ver 11 for older equipment. With respect to cutting edge and the necessity thereof, much of the world still uses neolithic windows versions. Fedora 10 and 11 are light years ahead of those, is there any reason they too could not be acceptable on low end systems?
The only issue is security. Capability isn't an issue.
The questions could be, what apps 'need' to be run?
Clearly the latest versions of browsers and media players.
Can you get away with openoffice, gimp, inkscape, audacity and so many other early version apps. Do you need compatibility with late version apps? What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years old?
Unfortunately the world is filled with evil. :-(
-
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Bruno Wolff III -
Charles Zeitler -
Chris Rouch -
Christofer C. Bell -
David -
James McKenzie -
Joonas Sarajärvi -
Michael Miles -
Paul Allen Newell -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rick Stevens -
Roger -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim -
Tom H -
Tom Horsley