hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS. i hope you'll fix this problem.
2007/5/28, V@ly valy.tgv@gmail.com:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS. i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V@ly <<<
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I would try "linux text": have you checked your emdia by linux mediacheck???
V@ly wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS. i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V@ly <<<
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic support for video) using linux xdriver=vesa until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.
There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed source binaries.
Jim
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic support for video) using linux xdriver=vesa until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.
There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed source binaries.
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release.
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6 supports it just fine.
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of Nvidia cards.
On 30/05/07, V@ly valy.tgv@gmail.com wrote:
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic support for video) using linux xdriver=vesa until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.
There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed source binaries.
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release.
--
V@ly <<<
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 09:51 +0200, sizo nsibande wrote:
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6 supports it just fine.
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of Nvidia cards.
Didn't Staton Finley report an FC5 issue with SELinux and nVidia drivers? The OP might want to visit his howto site http://www.stanton-finley.net/ and check out the suggestions. Ric
sizo nsibande wrote:
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6 supports it just fine.
Thanks for the info. He should be fine after the initial installation then. The statement regarding FC4 installed in GUI mode fine makes the newer hardware possibility less likely.
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of Nvidia cards.
So the GUI installation mode did not work for you either?
I would suggest using the graphics installer since the text installer has been neglected in features compared to the GUI installer. I used to use the text installer until I noted such a difference between the two installers.
xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics installer available vs. the text installer mode.
Jim
Didn't Staton Finley report an FC5 issue with SELinux and nVidia drivers? The OP might want to visit his howto site
As much as Staton Finley might have pointed this out and have been right about it, I thought we were talking about FC6 not FC5...
xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics installer available vs. the text installer mode.
I will certainly keep this point to remembrance although one might ague that the features left out from the text mode install can easily be added after the basic install when you have your gnome or kde working and power management issues sorted.
On 30/05/07, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
sizo nsibande wrote:
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6 supports it just fine.
Thanks for the info. He should be fine after the initial installation then. The statement regarding FC4 installed in GUI mode fine makes the newer hardware possibility less likely.
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of Nvidia cards.
So the GUI installation mode did not work for you either?
I would suggest using the graphics installer since the text installer has been neglected in features compared to the GUI installer. I used to use the text installer until I noted such a difference between the two installers.
xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics installer available vs. the text installer mode.
Jim
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
V@ly wrote:
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release. --
V@ly <<<
If the graphical installer worked fine when installing FC4 but fails when trying to install FC6, I do not know what caused the regression.
The regression might be caused by the reduced xorg.conf file not having adequate information for the installer to get things right for the GUI installer. The FC4 xorg.conf was more elaborate than the one used for FC6 and F7. The driver or the hardware is probably not the direct cause of the blank screen with the newer installer.
linux xdriver=vesa should work if xdriver=nv does not work.
Jim
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects? Ie could one install say Beryl ?
On 5/30/07, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
V@ly wrote:
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release. --
V@ly <<<
If the graphical installer worked fine when installing FC4 but fails when trying to install FC6, I do not know what caused the regression.
The regression might be caused by the reduced xorg.conf file not having adequate information for the installer to get things right for the GUI installer. The FC4 xorg.conf was more elaborate than the one used for FC6 and F7. The driver or the hardware is probably not the direct cause of the blank screen with the newer installer.
linux xdriver=vesa should work if xdriver=nv does not work.
Jim
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Sebastian Gurovich wrote:
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects? Ie could one install say Beryl ?
The vesa driver usage is just to get the system installed in graphics mode. The driver is 2D only as far as I know.
After getting items installed with the installer using the vesa driver, reconfiguring X for a better driver is a better option. If you want 3D like beryl, this is a must to use a better driver choice.
Jim
Ok, understood. thanks - Seb
On 5/30/07, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
Sebastian Gurovich wrote:
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects? Ie could one install say Beryl ?
The vesa driver usage is just to get the system installed in graphics mode. The driver is 2D only as far as I know.
After getting items installed with the installer using the vesa driver, reconfiguring X for a better driver is a better option. If you want 3D like beryl, this is a must to use a better driver choice.
Jim
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300 "V@ly" valy.tgv@gmail.com wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits secret.
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS. i hope you'll fix this problem.
If you boot the installer with the "text" option it will get you to a point you have a non graphical system installed. From there you can pull any updates and other packages which may help get your graphics working (as well as try any configuration changes people suggest)
Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300 "V@ly" valy.tgv@gmail.com wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300 "V@ly" valy.tgv@gmail.com wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
That's not the "party line". Problems occur in all drivers. If the code is open it can be fixed by other people besides the vendor.
Rahul
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Now, if Nvidia was willing to supply RedHat with the source code for their driver, and pay them to support it, then you might have a valid argument. Then again, it would be better if Nvidia were to supply Xorg with the information and money, as they are really the people that should do the video support. But until Nvidia is willing to supply the information, things will probably stay the way they are now.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:22 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times before.
A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I get asked several times every week.)
I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.
Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue to do so. Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his money on the counter, whose fault is that?
"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be. The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.
"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!" Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a supported card. If you have a special wrench for a Chev you won't expect to continue to use it if you get a new Ford. If it will kind-of-fit on the odd-shaped nut, then fine. But if not, you have to get a new wrench to go with the new vehicle.
My humble opinion. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But I and many others will continue to recommend supported video cards and steer folks away from Nvidia and ATI as much as possible. You are welcome to do so as well.
Frank Cox wrote:
it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I get asked several times every week.)
I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.
Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue to do so.
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his money on the counter, whose fault is that?
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be. The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.
"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!" Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a supported card.
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's drivers - which is what the majority do.
Ian Malone wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
Including binary only for some aspects of support where there is no working open source solution would allow less computer savvy individuals to install Linux. It would give excuse to more vendors to keep their source code and specs for hardware closed though.
Including binary only packages related to programs used to be part of RHL installs back during RHL 5.2 with realaudio and WordPerfect trial editions. There are no binary only packages now which I know of for Fedora.
Regarding "other OSes" respecting their users. I found many installations for XP that I did which left the network card not recognized and the video card at 16 colors and 800 x 600. For Linux installations using the same hardware, the installations all recognized the video, sound and Ethernet cards without the need to pull in the drivers from external and post installation sources.
The vendors that do not provide open source drivers should include media with Linux capable drivers provided. My hardware lot "just works" with Fedora but not with XP without post-install configuration and luck.
Jim
Jim Cornette wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
<snip>
Regarding "other OSes" respecting their users. I found many installations for XP that I did which left the network card not recognized and the video card at 16 colors and 800 x 600. For Linux installations using the same hardware, the installations all recognized the video, sound and Ethernet cards without the need to pull in the drivers from external and post installation sources.
Hence '?'; if you define the majority of OSs to be MS Windows (interesting definition) then they don't include the vendors drivers, see also Alan Cox's post.
(Neither will the drivers included in the box be the most current and bug free.)
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:32:41 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
Sure you have. Out-of-the-box support for video cards on Fedora is not as good for Nvidia and ATI.
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
I don't want to sound too harsh, but now may be a good time to start keeping up if you intend to continue to use Fedora Linux? If you intend to move off onto another Linux distribution (or a BSD or Solaris or MS Windows or what-have-you) then you may wish to investigate their hardware and driver requirements.
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think that will be done either.
Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI) deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions. Personally, I choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.
My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches on.
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends on the aims of the one making the decision.
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that they require a separate download.)
Frank Cox wrote:
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think that will be done either.
Section 2.1.2 of http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html would seem to imply otherwise.
Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI) deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions.
No, fedora has their own policy.
Personally, I choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.
I deal with it by interacting with fedora mostly through a remote freenx connection instead of fighting with the way it handles video directly.
My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches on.
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make it usable enough on popular hardware.
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends on the aims of the one making the decision.
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested. Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a central place to find them. If you install replacement parts that different or newer than your original purchase you might have to grab a driver directly from the part vendor.
An unattributed author:
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Frank Cox:
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think that will be done either.
Les Mikesell:
Section 2.1.2 of http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html would seem to imply otherwise.
This part (from the above link) would appear to be a problem:
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that), neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not binary, others would argue its all binary.
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make it usable enough on popular hardware.
I think it's always going to be chicken and egg when you try to meld obsessively controlling commercial interests with FOSS.
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested.
I'd say *badly* tested. Prebuilt systems that I've had to deal with have had poor performance, or hard to repeat kludgy work-arounds.
Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a central place to find them.
Some might, but I've had a hell of a time trying to rebuild some Windows systems where the sound or video card needs special drivers that just aren't available anywhere other than the long-since-lost original install discs. Some Creative sound cards seem the worst at that.
Tim wrote:
This part (from the above link) would appear to be a problem:
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that), neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not binary, others would argue its all binary.
I don't see the problem. Even if one may try to make the argument that the install script is binary (rather silly) the license does *not* require that you use nVidia's install script.
Nothing stops the distributor from taking the tarball from nVidia, unpacking it and developing their own install script.
On Monday 28 May 2007 10:28:34 pm Tim wrote:
This part (from the above link) would appear to be a problem:
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files)." ... You may argue that an install script is not binary, others would argue its all binary.
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seems fine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to assist further.
I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 23:12 -0400, Mail List wrote:
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seemsfine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to assist further.
I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
It's really pointless arguing along those lines, anyway. We have Livna that already does it for us (provides a modified installation).
NVidia's own driver is not FOSS, and it doesn't look like it'll ever be, that's the only thing worth us trying to communicate to NVidia. And that alone (being non-FOSS) is going to preclude it from inclusion in Fedora.
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:08:06 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I agree completely.
Putting Nvidia and ATI proprietary drivers in Fedora will, as my grandmother used to say, only encourage them.
Linux is a small but growing market. Companies who wish to participate in that market must play by the rules of that market, just as companies who wish to market their products in any given country must abide by the local laws and customs if they plan to actually sell any product.
One of the current principles of the market in regard to Fedora is no closed-source drivers. Other distributions and other operating systems see it differently and as such may be more suited to the needs of people who require closed-source drivers. I really have no problem with that at all. The right tool for the job and all that.
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 13:08 +0930, Tim wrote:
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I do have to applaud Fedora for one thing... they drew the line in the sand and they have stuck to their guns with regards to FOSS since he beginning. You can depend on that.
So, I have maintained Java, Firefox, gspca and nVidia source tarball installs in /opt from their respective sites for a long time, with nary a burp in the barrel. It Just Works. (tm) To be running Firefox 1.5 is just pure anathema to me. Nor do I have to get into the politics of it all. Of course some may regard this as a case of my own situational morality, <g> but there it is... it works. Ric
Ric Moore wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 13:08 +0930, Tim wrote:
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I do have to applaud Fedora for one thing... they drew the line in the sand and they have stuck to their guns with regards to FOSS since he beginning. You can depend on that.
So, I have maintained Java, Firefox, gspca and nVidia source tarball installs in /opt from their respective sites for a long time, with nary a burp in the barrel. It Just Works. (tm) To be running Firefox 1.5 is just pure anathema to me. Nor do I have to get into the politics of it all. Of course some may regard this as a case of my own situational morality, <g> but there it is... it works. Ric
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
I guess it is a matter of "each to their own".
For what it is worth though, I agree with you. After many years experience with linux the one peace of advice I would give people now, when setting up a system, would be to ONLY install packages from properly maintained and compatible sources. I have time and again run into problems due to my installing packages from source, such that now I only do it if a) the package is ABSOLUTELY essential. In the case of Fedora this means RPM packages and to get them via yum(or apt, smart) from one of the various repos available.
To take some the the examples given by Ric,
nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries. Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.
The one issue people often quote with this is when a new kernel is released, you might get that kernel as an update before livna/atrpms has provided the rpm for your new kernel. Luckily, both sites provide yum plugins to protect against this (just run 'yum search yum' to find them).
firefox : I currently use the remi repo (http://remi.collet.free.fr/) which providesFF2 rpms. Been running these for some time now with ZERO problems.
java. http://www.jpackage.org/ provides rpms for java.
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
Chris
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
On 2007-05-29, 20:58 GMT, Chris Jones wrote:
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
And then they should package it themselves and push it into Fedora Extras (err, what used to be Fedora Extras), get proper package review, and then they have a lot of fun on the top of properly packaged software ;-).
Matej
Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2007-05-29, 20:58 GMT, Chris Jones wrote:
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
And then they should package it themselves and push it into Fedora Extras (err, what used to be Fedora Extras), get proper package review, and then they have a lot of fun on the top of properly packaged software ;-).
Matej
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my list of things to learn. :)
Robin Laing wrote on Wed, May 30 2007 at 09:47 (-0600):
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my list of things to learn. :)
In case you were not aware of checkinstall:
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
./configure make checkinstall # creates RPM from calling 'make install'
Andreas.
Andreas Bernauer wrote:
Robin Laing wrote on Wed, May 30 2007 at 09:47 (-0600):
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my list of things to learn. :)
In case you were not aware of checkinstall:
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
./configure make checkinstall # creates RPM from calling 'make install'
This is a quick hack that might be appropriate for local installations. If you are going to maintain packages for Fedora, you need to follow a more detailed process.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
Rahul
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 21:58 +0100, Chris Jones wrote:
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
I guess it is a matter of "each to their own".
For what it is worth though, I agree with you. After many years experience with linux the one peace of advice I would give people now, when setting up a system, would be to ONLY install packages from properly maintained and compatible sources. I have time and again run into problems due to my installing packages from source, such that now I only do it if a) the package is ABSOLUTELY essential. In the case of Fedora this means RPM packages and to get them via yum(or apt, smart) from one of the various repos available.
To take some the the examples given by Ric,
nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries. Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.
URRRP! Sorry! I beat my brains out for MONTHS trying to get the heavily openGL intensive 3D environment Croquet to work. Many MONTHS wasted, of what should have been devel time, down the crapolla as the problem was immediately fixed by installing the nVidia driver. Burn me once, but not twice. Oh hell nah. I go with what works for me.
The one issue people often quote with this is when a new kernel is released, you might get that kernel as an update before livna/atrpms has provided the rpm for your new kernel. Luckily, both sites provide yum plugins to protect against this (just run 'yum search yum' to find them).
firefox : I currently use the remi repo (http://remi.collet.free.fr/) which providesFF2 rpms. Been running these for some time now with ZERO problems.
It took about a year for Remi to offer it after 2.0 was released, too. I was already running 2.0 for ages and even have the Beta 3.0 installed now... with ZERO problems.
java. http://www.jpackage.org/ provides rpms for java.
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
Call it a mantra if you wish, I have my reasons. Number One is my sanity. :) Ric
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 21:58:17 +0100, Chris Jones jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries. Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.
Use rpm -Va to finc out what is out of sync, rpm -q --whatprovides to find out which package owns those out of sync files and rpm --force -U to reinstall them.
I have been playing with this after an FC5 to F7 upgrade to clean things up. I had some extras and livna stuff installed and that probably didn't help the upgrade process.
Tim wrote:
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested.
I'd say *badly* tested. Prebuilt systems that I've had to deal with have had poor performance, or hard to repeat kludgy work-arounds.
That's the sort of thing that usually makes people choose a different vendor next time.
Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a central place to find them.
Some might, but I've had a hell of a time trying to rebuild some Windows systems where the sound or video card needs special drivers that just aren't available anywhere other than the long-since-lost original install discs. Some Creative sound cards seem the worst at that.
Perhaps I've been lucky, but I've always been able to find these for Dell and IBM systems and their components. I'm not sure how old the boxes are but the Dell support site still has bios updates for their pentium II era optiplex GX1's that I've grabbed to fix PXE booting (they still make nifty thin clients).
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that they require a separate download.)
You are correct.
Out of the box windows will try and use a matching driver if it has one (the hardware is old enough or generic enough), or things like VESA bios support (which is also what Fedora uses as the X fallback).
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the update was delayed due to other considerations.)
People that want that option have Ubuntu and probably Linspire.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the update was delayed due to other considerations.)
Except there are methods that, upon booting into a new kernel, will rebuild the drivers as part of the boot process. Thus, making it a trivial task.
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:22:41 +0800, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the update was delayed due to other considerations.)
Except there are methods that, upon booting into a new kernel, will rebuild the drivers as part of the boot process. Thus, making it a trivial task.
That depends on what changed. Some changes are going to break the drivers in way that can't be fixed like that. In fact it is a virtual certainty if you continue to run the hardware long enough while continuing to update the kernels (and xorg).
On Monday 28 May 2007 21:33:22 Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
On 5/28/07, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 21:33:22 Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters. Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
| From: Kam Leo kam.leo@gmail.com
| The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the | graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters. | Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled | embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and | run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video interface not the add-in card.
I've noticed this on my Dell GX115 boxes when I add in ATI or nVidia PCI video cards. The quick workaround is to install without the card and then add it in later. But have sshd running so you can perform surgery on xorg.conf from another machine. If I remember correctly, just removing the bogus BusID line fixes the problem.
Does anyone know if this is in the xorg bugzilla?
On Monday 28 May 2007 22:54:22 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| From: Kam Leo kam.leo@gmail.com | | The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the | graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters. | Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled | embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and | run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video interface not the add-in card.
That sounds as thought the 'built-in' video is not disabled in BIOS.
Anne
On 5/29/07, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 22:54:22 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| From: Kam Leo kam.leo@gmail.com | | The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the | graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters. | Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled | embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and | run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video interface not the add-in card.
That sounds as thought the 'built-in' video is not disabled in BIOS.
Anne
The built-in uses a jumper on the motherboard for enabling/disabling the interface. "lspci -v" shows that the built-in is disabled; yet, quite a few distributions mess up when configuring the xserver.
On Monday 28 May 2007 22:18:11 Kam Leo wrote:
On 5/28/07, Anne Wilson cannewilson@googlemail.com wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 21:33:22 Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters. Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
Exactly what both Antonio and I told him to do, yesterday moening.
Anne
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:33 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver. Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for that to be such a controversial topic.
I have not dealt with this for a while. But aren't nvidia drivers available from Nvidia?
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 14:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300 "V@ly" valy.tgv@gmail.com wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Oh come-on! Not that argument again! Ignoring for the second the GPL problem (so called party-line), which is the basis on which... err... Linux is built:
Please solve the following problems:
Case 1: (Happens once every 6 months or so) 1. nVidia tends to release their driver on a 4 month - 1 month schedule. (Major each 4 months, with a minor bug fix after a one month) 2. Fedora kernel people are pushing a new upstream kernel that is incompatible with the current nVidia release - while nVidia is during the their major-update-wait. ... Which in turn: A. Fedora should not push a new kernel update because nVidia has yet to support it. B. Fedora should push a new kernel update, getting hammered by users that have broken system on their hands.
Case 2: 1. Fedora is about to release new major release (Fx) which uses a kernel which is completely incompatible with the current nVidia driver. 2. nVidia, due to Vista driver development problems, decides to spend less resources on Linux driver development. ... Which in turn: A. Fedora should use the old Fedora Fx-1 kernel just to maintain compatibility with nVidia - until nVidia releases a new driver. (If and when) B. Fedora should release the new kernel with Fx, breaking support for the nVidia driver. (Which is officially supported - following your advice)
Both Case 0 and Case 1 happened before. (8K stacks, X.org 7.x, 2.5.x kernels, a couple of 2.6.xx releases, Xen, etc)
While I use the nVidia driver on a daily basis on a number of i386/x86_64 machines (and I have the utmost respect for nVidia's driver development team for producing close-to-rock-solid-drivers *), Fedora should not officially support, nor for that matter should they even care about breaking my setup when it's time to push a new update. (Kernel, X.org, etc) It's my choice to use binary-only out-of-the-tree drivers and it's not Fedora's problem if things break because of it.
- Gilboa
Gilboa Davara wrote:
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Oh come-on! Not that argument again! Ignoring for the second the GPL problem (so called party-line), which is the basis on which... err... Linux is built:
Please solve the following problems:
It is more a question of _who_ should deal with the problems created by the inability or refusal of the kernel developers to define a driver interface. In the 'enterprise' release the distro packagers handle it and the users win. In fedora the users lose.
Case 1: (Happens once every 6 months or so)
- nVidia tends to release their driver on a 4 month - 1 month schedule.
(Major each 4 months, with a minor bug fix after a one month) 2. Fedora kernel people are pushing a new upstream kernel that is incompatible with the current nVidia release - while nVidia is during the their major-update-wait. ... Which in turn: A. Fedora should not push a new kernel update because nVidia has yet to support it. B. Fedora should push a new kernel update, getting hammered by users that have broken system on their hands.
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does anyone who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that question, then the next one becomes how to make yum understand kernel module dependencies and schedule kernel updates only after all needed modules (i.e. currently loaded in your kernel) are available in the repositories so you at least have fewer unpleasant surprises.
Case 2:
- Fedora is about to release new major release (Fx) which uses a kernel
which is completely incompatible with the current nVidia driver. 2. nVidia, due to Vista driver development problems, decides to spend less resources on Linux driver development.
Or, perhaps being snubbed and excluded by popular Linux distros is what makes them decide to reallocate those resources...
... Which in turn: A. Fedora should use the old Fedora Fx-1 kernel just to maintain compatibility with nVidia - until nVidia releases a new driver. (If and when) B. Fedora should release the new kernel with Fx, breaking support for the nVidia driver. (Which is officially supported - following your advice)
Both Case 0 and Case 1 happened before. (8K stacks, X.org 7.x, 2.5.x kernels, a couple of 2.6.xx releases, Xen, etc)
Again, proper dependencies in the packaging system should permit such changes to propagate at the speed that the slowest needed component becomes available.
While I use the nVidia driver on a daily basis on a number of i386/x86_64 machines (and I have the utmost respect for nVidia's driver development team for producing close-to-rock-solid-drivers *), Fedora should not officially support, nor for that matter should they even care about breaking my setup when it's time to push a new update. (Kernel, X.org, etc) It's my choice to use binary-only out-of-the-tree drivers and it's not Fedora's problem if things break because of it.
Perhaps - but things are different now that users have other choices. I think it's fedora's - and eventually RH's problem if users are forced to a distro that uses different packaging and admin techniques to get a usable desktop. Fedora tends to be usable in this respect at or near the end of its life cycle, but then quickly becomes unusable due to the ending of security updates.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
It is more a question of _who_ should deal with the problems created by the inability or refusal of the kernel developers to define a driver interface. In the 'enterprise' release the distro packagers handle it and the users win. In fedora the users lose.
I am going to lose either way, but prefer Fedora's way where I know what the deal is up front, rather than getting burnt down the road.
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does anyone who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt getting write barrier support back.
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release. That isn't necessary going to be the case.
question, then the next one becomes how to make yum understand kernel module dependencies and schedule kernel updates only after all needed modules (i.e. currently loaded in your kernel) are available in the repositories so you at least have fewer unpleasant surprises.
Getting this to work better is an admirable goal, but the dependencies will probably need to be from the third party kernel modules on a specific kernel version.
Perhaps - but things are different now that users have other choices. I think it's fedora's - and eventually RH's problem if users are forced to a distro that uses different packaging and admin techniques to get a usable desktop. Fedora tends to be usable in this respect at or near the end of its life cycle, but then quickly becomes unusable due to the ending of security updates.
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though. For people admining their own system that want something that just works, Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though. For people admining their own system that want something that just works, Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
I just might add, that the case with AMD/ATI drivers is even worse.
There is NO distro that supports R500 and R600 cards, period! Ububtu or whatever, is no help there.
The official AMD/ATI drivers do not recognize the new numbering scheme for Xorg (1.3 vs 7.X) and simply will not work. They are not expected to get corrected until the June release, and even then, there is no reason to expect them to support Composite natively. We can hope, but ...
Form Xorg.0.log ---- (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so (II) Module fglrx: vendor="FireGL - ATI Technologies Inc." compiled for 7.1.0, module version = 8.36.5 Module class: X.Org Video Driver ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 1.0 [atiddxSetup] X version mismatch - detected X.org 1.3.0.0, required X.org 7.1.0.0 (II) UnloadModule: "fglrx" (II) Unloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so ----
At least Nvidia owners have an option. The nv drivers just work.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does
anyone
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt getting write barrier support back.
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release. That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release. You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though. For people admining their own system that want something that just works, Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
On 5/29/07, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does
anyone
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt getting write barrier support back.
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release. That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release. You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent entities. Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though. For people admining their own system that want something that just works, Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally
looking
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt getting write barrier support back.
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next
Fedora release.
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release. You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent entities.
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an interface for drivers.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Arthur Pemberton:
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Les Mikesell:
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an interface for drivers.
Shouldn't this really be an Xorg stability issue, rather than the kernel? I've never really held with the idea of bunging everything into the kernel.
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 22:58:36 -0500, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Also recent (post 2288) kernels for FC5 have had a problem where processes start hanging after a while. On a machine where this was happening about everyday I stayed with 2288 to avoid problems. On another machine where it happened about every 7 days I stuck with the latest kernels to try to help locate the problem so that it could be fixed. That machine is now on F7 and I'll get to see if the regression is also in F7 kernels.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am
personally looking
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and
dmcrypt
getting write barrier support back.
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next
Fedora release.
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release. You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent entities.
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control. I read the Evolution list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
Robin Laing wrote:
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Agreed, but I can't say that I blame ATI for avoiding work that would not be embraced by the distributions anyway.
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Yes, it was understandable back when Linus was an inexperienced college student since he could claim not to know what might be needed. It's a little late in the game to still be making that claim. And it might still be understandable at major kernel revision number releases several years apart as new technology is invented. It doesn't make much sense to think that if the interface design was flawed in every version up to x.x.19 that the change in x.x.20 is finally going to be perfect even though it breaks all the existing drivers in the middle of a distribution life cycle. Or, the distributions could just refuse to ship the wildly experimental stuff like they did when it was identified with an odd minor number.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control.
How so, when they have shipped a working version, then push out updates that break it?
I read the Evolution list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
So they broke it on purpose? What about firewire?
On 5/30/07, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Agreed, but I can't say that I blame ATI for avoiding work that would not be embraced by the distributions anyway.
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Yes, it was understandable back when Linus was an inexperienced college student since he could claim not to know what might be needed. It's a little late in the game to still be making that claim. And it might still be understandable at major kernel revision number releases several years apart as new technology is invented. It doesn't make much sense to think that if the interface design was flawed in every version up to x.x.19 that the change in x.x.20 is finally going to be perfect even though it breaks all the existing drivers in the middle of a distribution life cycle. Or, the distributions could just refuse to ship the wildly experimental stuff like they did when it was identified with an odd minor number.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control.
How so, when they have shipped a working version, then push out updates that break it?
It seems that the fact that Fedora doesn't not distribute Nvidia's drivers makes this entire thread moot.
I read the Evolution list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
So they broke it on purpose? What about firewire?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 22:26 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release. You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent entities. Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
I'd wager my next pay-check that most nVidia Linux devs would have been more-then-willing to GPL their source-code. People tend to forget that back in XFree86 3.x days nVidia did open their source code. AFAIK, it was Intel+Microsoft (with a number of cease and desist letters) that got them closing their driver. [1]
- Gilboa [1] http://marc.info/?l=dri-devel&m=114981283225530&w=2
On Monday 28 May 2007 11:46:26 V@ly wrote:
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS. i hope you'll fix this problem.
For any problem like this, the first stop is Google. If you use the search term 'linux 6200 A-LE', the first entry takes you to a list of cards known to work with linux. Your card is there, and said to work with the nv driver.
That means that you don't have a driver problem, and your problem is probably relevant only to the install. Try a text install, as Antonio suggests. You will be able to configure your graphics card and monitor after the install.
Anne
On 2007-05-29, 18:55 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer geek; sorry, I digress).
Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course, they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing them CentOS as a desktop.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
Thanks,
Matej
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 22:57 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2007-05-29, 18:55 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer geek; sorry, I digress).
Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course, they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing them CentOS as a desktop.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice for many folk and the desktop variants (kubuntu, etc.) are quite popular.
We use CentOS a lot (mostly for servers--in fact we use it to manage our storage arrays at 70+TB of content), but the desktop stuff works fine as well. I've no complaints.
Since CentOS has a similar life span to RHEL, it's a reasonably safe bet for "regular folk" use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com - - - - To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2007-05-29, 18:55 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer geek; sorry, I digress).
Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course, they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing them CentOS as a desktop.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
Today, Centos5 would be a very reasonable desktop choice since it was just released and is almost exactly that end-of-life FC6 but with continued updates that I said earlier that I wanted. But, a year and a half from now - or whenever faster-moving distros have shipped a newer Evolution, Firefox, OO, etc., it may start to look old and stale because the apps don't get new-feature updates within the release lifetime. The nature of the fedora/RHEL split is that if you want new app features you have to accept the experimental kernels and device drivers that come bundled with them in fedora. There is also some odd issue with Sun java vs. the packaged java items in the Centos5 base repository that might or might not be a problem for you. I think this is inherited from RHEL5 and has something to do with rebuilding jars during package installs.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
I converted several non-technical users from Windows to Red Hat based Linux. My skating coach currently runs FC6 (upgraded from FC2 and FC4). I put CentOS on my wife's desktop. In both cases they like the fact that it does not crash and also the increased resistance to virus attacks and adware.
I wrote up the experience with the coach and posted it at http://www.styma.org/LinuxForTheMasses.shtml
In synopsis, you will probably end up being sysadmin for them. In my case, only I know the root password. I set up /etc/hosts.allow and port forwarding on the DSL router so that I can ssh in from either my box at work or my box at home. Nothing else gets a login prompt. I also set up the VNC module so that when they call for help, I can bring up their screen. This works less well under FC6 than FC4 (munges up the desktop as you go along).
The biggest drawback is multimedia. People mail wmv files and mp3's and other stuff to each other. It takes a bit of effort to get this working under Linux. There are still a lot of sites which do not work correctly under Linux that I have not found a way to access. This probably bothers me more than the user as I do not like Windows to work better than Linux in any way.
Hope this helps.
Bob S. Phoenix AZ.
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 08:30 -0500, Styma, Robert E (Robert) wrote:
The biggest drawback is multimedia. People mail wmv files and mp3's and other stuff to each other. It takes a bit of effort to get this working under Linux. There are still a lot of sites which do not work correctly under Linux that I have not found a way to access.
In recent times, using mplayer, and the mplayerplug-in for the webbrowser, *I've* found Linux actually working with more sites than Windows did. There's always some that won't work with Linux, but I've found the same sites are often broken with Windows, too.
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alan Cox -
Andreas Bernauer -
Anne Wilson -
Antonio M -
Arthur Pemberton -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Jones -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Ed Greshko -
Frank Cox -
Genes MailLists -
Gilboa Davara -
Ian Malone -
Jim Cornette -
Kam Leo -
Les Mikesell -
Matej Cepl -
Mikkel -
Phil Meyer -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ric Moore -
Rick Stevens -
Robin Laing -
Sebastian -
sizo nsibande -
Styma, Robert E (Robert) -
Tim -
V＠ly