Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem

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 <<<

[Antonio M]

2007/5/28, V@ly <valy.tgv(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  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(a)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???
-- 
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

[Jim Cornette]

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

-- 
When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

>  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 Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

[sizo nsibande]

>  > 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>


-- 
Communication is not just english grammaer and literature, but a well
established database between people that have come to know each other!

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

[Ric Moore]

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

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

[Jim Cornette]

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 Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.

[sizo nsibande]

> 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(a)insight.rr.com&gt; 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(a)redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>


-- 
Communication is not just english grammaer and literature, but a well
established database between people that have come to know each other!

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.)

[Jim Cornette]

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 Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.)

[Sebastian]

Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects?
Ie could one install say Beryl ?


On 5/30/07, Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com&gt; 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(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.)

[Jim Cornette]

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 Core 6 HUGE problem (NVidia and blank screen during install.)

[Sebastian]

Ok, understood.
thanks
- Seb

On 5/30/07, Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com&gt; 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(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
"V@ly" <valy.tgv(a)gmail.com&gt; 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)

[Les Mikesell]

Alan Cox wrote:
>  On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
>  "V@ly" <valy.tgv(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com

[Rahul Sundaram]

Les Mikesell wrote:
>  Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
> > "V@ly" <valy.tgv(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

[Mikkel]

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
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Frank Cox]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:22 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Ian Malone]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>  
>  Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's 
>  drivers - which is what the majority do.
>   
?

-- 
imalone

[Jim Cornette]

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

-- 
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.

[Ian Malone]

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.)

-- 
imalone

[Frank Cox]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:32:41 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.)


-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Tim]

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.

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

[Ed Greshko]

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.

[Genes MailLists]

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.

[Tim]

On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 23:12 -0400, Mail List wrote:
>      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. 
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.

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

[Frank Cox]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:08:06 +0930
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au&gt; 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.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

[Ric Moore]

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
   
--

[Les Mikesell]

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."?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Chris Jones]

>  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(a)gmail.com 


-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Chris R Jones         work   : [phone]         |
| HEP Group  (rm 882)      fax    : [phone]         |
| Cavendish Laboratory,    home   : [phone]         |
| Madingley Road,          mobile : [phone]         |
| Cambridge, CB3 0HE       email  : jonesc(a)hep.phy.cam.ac.uk   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+

[Matej Cepl]

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

[Robin Laing]

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.  :)

-- 
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
    anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing

[Andreas Bernauer]

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.

-- 
http://www.lysium.de/blog

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Ric Moore]

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

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 21:58:17 +0100,
  Chris Jones <jonesc(a)hep.phy.cam.ac.uk&gt; 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.

[Les Mikesell]

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).

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

[Alan Cox]

>  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).

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
  Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

[Ed Greshko]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
>    Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

-- 
Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
		-- Socrates

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:22:41 +0800,
  Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com&gt; wrote:
>  Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
>  >   Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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).

[Anne Wilson]

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

[Kam Leo]

On 5/28/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com&gt; 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.

installing with a video card overriding built-in video [was Re: Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem]

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo(a)gmail.com&gt;

| 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?

installing with a video card overriding built-in video [was Re: Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem]

[Anne Wilson]

On Monday 28 May 2007 22:54:22 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>  | From: Kam Leo <kam.leo(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  |
>  | 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

installing with a video card overriding built-in video [was Re: Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem]

[Kam Leo]

On 5/29/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Monday 28 May 2007 22:54:22 D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>  > | From: Kam Leo <kam.leo(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  > |
>  > | 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.

[Anne Wilson]

On Monday 28 May 2007 22:18:11 Kam Leo wrote:
>  On 5/28/07, Anne Wilson <cannewilson(a)googlemail.com&gt; 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

[Alan Cox]

>  Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is
> broken, it is 
>  the one included in the distribution. 
Which is from Nvidia...

[Aaron Konstam]

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?

-- 
Aaron Konstam tel: [phone] akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Gilboa Davara]

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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Les Mikesell]

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)
>  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. 
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:
>  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. 
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(a)gmail.com

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500,
  Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Phil Meyer]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500,
>    Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 5/29/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Tim]

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.

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 22:58:36 -0500,
  Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Robin Laing]

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.  :)


-- 
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
    anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Les Mikesell]

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?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 5/30/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com
>
>  --
>  fedora-list mailing list
>  fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>  

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud

Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem - Binary drivers.

[Gilboa Davara]

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

[Anne Wilson]

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

CentOS for newbie's desktop? [Was: Re: Fedora Core ... problem]

[Matej Cepl]

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

CentOS for newbie's desktop? [Was: Re: Fedora Core ... problem]

[Rick Stevens]

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(a)internap.com -
- VitalStream, Inc.                       http://www.vitalstream.com -
-                                                                    -
-             To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.               -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CentOS for newbie's desktop? [Was: Re: Fedora Core ... problem]

[Les Mikesell]

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

CentOS for newbie's desktop? [Was: Re: Fedora Core ... problem]

[Styma, Robert E (Robert)]

>  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.

CentOS for newbie's desktop? [Was: Re: Fedora Core ... problem]

[Tim]

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.

-- 
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.