OK, I just upgrated to fedora 10. I've already filed some bug reports, but here's some feedback.
1) FC9 preupgrade didn't work. It left the /var off of the cache location. I had to fix it manually and reboot. 2) nv driver is broken with my card. Bug filed on that, so I won't go into too much further detail, except to say it doesn't detect ANY video ram. 3) One thing I would really, really like - and I'm half tempted to just write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora kernel and build a new one - with the options that *I* want. Building a new kernel is a pain in the kiester, and the lack of a good tool to do so (I'm not aware of one and a quick search on freshmeat doesn't turn one up) is kind of... surprising, considering that the kernel has been around for so many years. Is it that much of a black art? 4) KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to a lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Other than that fact that I can't get X to working properly either with the proprietary or free drivers, seems pretty cool. However, *that* is a showstopper.
--Russell
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
- KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to
a lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
From what I read, it's supposed to set the graphics mode properly on startup, so there's no flicker as X changes the mode.
Also from what I read, for almost everyone it's a step backwards, as only one card is supported, and it won't even be in the mainline kernel until 2.6.29.
Which basically means on this one, we're all highly experimental guinea pigs.
--Russell
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
- KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to
a lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
Read the release notes. You can use vga=ask or vga=0x380 for any system to get a framebuffer based progress bar. Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens. For more details on Plymouth, refer
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_plymouth&n... (video included) http://fedoramagazine.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/interview-fedora-10s-better-s...
Rahul
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:27:31 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens.
Unless, of course, the error causes the system to lock up, in which case it can't run the code to show the error, but with rhgb off, I can at least see what it was probably doing when it froze.
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:27:31 +0530 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens.
Unless, of course, the error causes the system to lock up, in which case it can't run the code to show the error, but with rhgb off, I can at least see what it was probably doing when it froze.
You probably can't even then in all cases especially when most of the time, you are not booting up your system but running a graphical desktop which won't show what's happening.
Rahul
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
- KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to a
lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
Read the release notes. You can use vga=ask or vga=0x380 for any system to get a framebuffer based progress bar. Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens. For more details on Plymouth, refer
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_plymouth&n... (video included) http://fedoramagazine.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/interview-fedora-10s-better-s...
I think you're missing the point. Not everyone wants Fedora to be a shiny happy Microsoft Windows clone. Not everyone wants X.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
- KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to a
lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
Read the release notes. You can use vga=ask or vga=0x380 for any system to get a framebuffer based progress bar. Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens. For more details on Plymouth, refer
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_plymouth&n... (video included) http://fedoramagazine.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/interview-fedora-10s-better-s...
I think you're missing the point. Not everyone wants Fedora to be a shiny happy Microsoft Windows clone. Not everyone wants X.
You didn't even read the references I guess.
Rahul
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:37:34 -0800 Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
- KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to
a lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Wait, is this the boot time "plymouth" stuff you are talking about? All I've ever seen on any system was a lame progress bar (3 colors, but still lame). I've really wondered what all the plymouth hoopla was about. It can sometimes do more than a progress bar? (Not that I care much, one of the first things I always do is remove the rhgb option so I can actually see information on the screen if something goes wrong).
Read the release notes. You can use vga=ask or vga=0x380 for any system to get a framebuffer based progress bar. Removing rhgb is unnecessary since it automatically shows any errors if and when it happens. For more details on Plymouth, refer
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_plymouth&n... (video included)
http://fedoramagazine.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/interview-fedora-10s-better-s...
I think you're missing the point. Not everyone wants Fedora to be a shiny happy Microsoft Windows clone. Not everyone wants X.
You didn't even read the references I guess.
You guessed wrong. They have nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want a GUI boot process.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
You guessed wrong. They have nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want a GUI boot process.
Well, now I conclusively no, you haven't read the information provided. Without plymouth, you won't even get a boot.log. Even if you remove rhgb from the boot line, plymouthd will still run. In other words, plymouth doesn't just provide a gui boot process.
Rahul
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
You guessed wrong. They have nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want a GUI boot process.
Well, now I conclusively no, you haven't read the information provided. Without plymouth, you won't even get a boot.log. Even if you remove rhgb from the boot line, plymouthd will still run. In other words, plymouth doesn't just provide a gui boot process.
Yes, you definitely conclusively "no"(sic), and you continue to miss the point.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
You guessed wrong. They have nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want a GUI boot process.
Well, now I conclusively no, you haven't read the information provided. Without plymouth, you won't even get a boot.log. Even if you remove rhgb from the boot line, plymouthd will still run. In other words, plymouth doesn't just provide a gui boot process.
Yes, you definitely conclusively "no"(sic), and you continue to miss the point.
Which is what exactly?
Rahul
Ps: Fix your mail client to not quote email addresses. I don't need more help to get spam. Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
You guessed wrong. They have nothing to do with the fact that some people don't want a GUI boot process.
Well, now I conclusively no, you haven't read the information provided. Without plymouth, you won't even get a boot.log. Even if you remove rhgb from the boot line, plymouthd will still run. In other words, plymouth doesn't just provide a gui boot process.
Yes, you definitely conclusively "no"(sic), and you continue to miss the point.
Which is what exactly?
I stated that in my original email, but you're so fixated on irrelevant blog posts & email client quoting styles that you've clearly missed it. Again: Not everyone wants a GUI boot process.
Rahul
Ps: Fix your mail client to not quote email addresses. I don't need more help to get spam. Thanks.
Not sending email will help as well.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
I stated that in my original email, but you're so fixated on irrelevant blog posts & email client quoting styles that you've clearly missed it. Again: Not everyone wants a GUI boot process.
So what? Just remove rhgb and be done with it. Plymouth doesn't change that. It is still a option as it was before. I was addressing the other points.
Ps: Fix your mail client to not quote email addresses. I don't need more help to get spam. Thanks.
Not sending email will help as well.
Fixing your silly email client to not quote email addresses is better.
Rahul
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
I stated that in my original email, but you're so fixated on irrelevant blog posts & email client quoting styles that you've clearly missed it. Again: Not everyone wants a GUI boot process.
So what? Just remove rhgb and be done with it. Plymouth doesn't change that. It is still a option as it was before. I was addressing the other points.
Precisely.
Ps: Fix your mail client to not quote email addresses. I don't need more help to get spam. Thanks.
Not sending email will help as well.
Fixing your silly email client to not quote email addresses is better.
Why would I change the behavior of my email client to suite you? If you don't want people using *your* email address, then stop sending email. Problem solved.
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:18 -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
Why would I change the behavior of my email client to suite you? If you don't want people using *your* email address, then stop sending email. Problem solved.
These list messages are archived publicly, and that any mail addresses in the message bodies, including yours if present, are therefore visible to spam harvesters. OTOH the addresses in the messages headers are obscured by the list archiving software to make this more difficult.
Rahul's request is completely reasonable.
poc
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: some feedback on fedora 10 From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: 12/01/2008 04:32 PM
These list messages are archived publicly, and that any mail addresses in the message bodies, including yours if present, are therefore visible to spam harvesters. OTOH the addresses in the messages headers are obscured by the list archiving software to make this more difficult.
Rahul's request is completely reasonable.
poc
The mail archive software automatically parses e-mail addresses and obfuscates them enough to be safe from spammers. See for yourself:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-December/msg00208.html
Or check this reply in the archives. Your email was used in my Thunderbird Quote add-on.
Is this thread not derailed enough already?
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 16:42:16 -0600, Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com wrote:
The mail archive software automatically parses e-mail addresses and obfuscates them enough to be safe from spammers. See for yourself:
Right. The stupid spammers couldn't possibly figure out how to decode those email addresses in the archives. Nor could they subscribe to the list and harvest email addresses with a bot.
And since it does an equally bad job with obfusicating email addresses in the body as well as in the from header, Rahul shouldn't be complaining about this.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: some feedback on fedora 10 From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: 12/01/2008 04:32 PM
These list messages are archived publicly, and that any mail addresses in the message bodies, including yours if present, are therefore visible to spam harvesters. OTOH the addresses in the messages headers are obscured by the list archiving software to make this more difficult.
Rahul's request is completely reasonable.
poc
The mail archive software automatically parses e-mail addresses and obfuscates them enough to be safe from spammers. See for yourself:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-December/msg00208.html
Or check this reply in the archives. Your email was used in my Thunderbird Quote add-on.
Exactly why I didn't give a hoot about Rahul's hurt feelings. The fact that a Fedora representive is unaware of this and/or wasting list bandwidth over it is both hillarious and pathetic.
Is this thread not derailed enough already?
Apparently not.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
Exactly why I didn't give a hoot about Rahul's hurt feelings.
Let's not overdramatize. It has nothing to do with feelings but good etiquette.
The
fact that a Fedora representive is unaware of this and/or wasting list bandwidth over it is both hillarious and pathetic.
I am not really a "Fedora representative" but I am well aware that Fedora mailing list works around bad quoting. However there are other mailing list gateways and archives which don't do that. It is generally bad practise to quote email address in a reply. As simple as that.
Rahul
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:42 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
The mail archive software automatically parses e-mail addresses and obfuscates them enough to be safe from spammers.
I sit corrected.
poc
Just ribbing you a little, I was very happy when Patrick came across with that fix on Firefox dns problems.
Jim
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 19:08 -0500, Jim wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:42 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
The mail archive software automatically parses e-mail addresses and obfuscates them enough to be safe from spammers.
I sit corrected.
poc
Just ribbing you a little, I was very happy when Patrick came across with that fix on Firefox dns problems.
You are confused. Read the thread again. I didn't suggest the fix, I simply made a comment on it.
poc
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
I stated that in my original email, but you're so fixated on irrelevant blog posts & email client quoting styles that you've clearly missed it. Again: Not everyone wants a GUI boot process.
So what? Just remove rhgb and be done with it. Plymouth doesn't change that. It is still a option as it was before. I was addressing the other points.
Precisely.
Huh? So while I was addressing the other points, you popped in between to say I was missing a point which I wasn't. Nice.
Why would I change the behavior of my email client to suite you?
Not just to suit me. You are just encouraging more spam for everyone you are replying to. It is bad netiquette to do that. I guess you don't care.
Rahul
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:05:17 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Not just to suit me. You are just encouraging more spam for everyone you are replying to. It is bad netiquette to do that. I guess you don't care.
Lonni Friedman is nothing but a fool. I don't think anyone who's been reading this mailing list for any significant period of time could possibly be unaware of that, so there's nothing more to be shown or proven in that regard.
Accordingly, why not just ignore his posts? He went away for a while after he was caught lying before hoping that everyone would forget, I suppose -- perhaps he'll go away for a longer period of time (permanently) if he's ignored.
You'll save your blood pressure and keep your stress level a lot lower that way.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:05:17 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Not just to suit me. You are just encouraging more spam for everyone you are replying to. It is bad netiquette to do that. I guess you don't care.
You'll save your blood pressure and keep your stress level a lot lower that way.
LOL....
I find it quite ironic that you've replied to an email about quoting email addresses in replies as "bad netiquette" and you've quoted an email address....
ROTFL....
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:05:37 +0800 Ed Greshko wrote:
I find it quite ironic that you've replied to an email about quoting email addresses in replies as "bad netiquette" and you've quoted an email address....
You know, that's something that I never actually noticed before. It is (was) the default setting for the Sylpheed email client and I've not changed that in, frankly, years.
I just fixed it. Thanks for drawing that to my attention.
Frank Cox wrote:
You know, that's something that I never actually noticed before. It is (was) the default setting for the Sylpheed email client and I've not changed that in, frankly, years.
I just fixed it. Thanks for drawing that to my attention.
No problem....
There are others on this list with the same "problem". This just happens to be the first time I recall anyone making a big fuss over it. I guess this will be another thing to gripe about along with html, top posting, and excessively long signatures.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I just upgrated to fedora 10. I've already filed some bug reports, but here's some feedback.
- nv driver is broken with my card. Bug filed on that, so I won't go into
too much further detail, except to say it doesn't detect ANY video ram.
Other than that fact that I can't get X to working properly either with the proprietary or free drivers, seems pretty cool. However, *that* is a showstopper.
Which card do you have, and how exactly is the nvidia driver not working?
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
Other than that fact that I can't get X to working properly either with the proprietary or free drivers, seems pretty cool. However, *that* is a showstopper.
Which card do you have, and how exactly is the nvidia driver not working?
geforce 6200.
The proprietary driver doesn't seem to interact well with the radeon driver (I have two cards, one ATI and one nvidia) and randomly freezes. I can move the mouse around and use the keyboard, but windows get corrupted and mouseclicks stop working. Truthfully, while I can't seem to get it working as it is, the radeon driver is probably to blame for this one.
The opensource driver won't even start, it doesn't detect the video ram.
--Russell
I've got a system here with a GeForce 6200 that is working perfectly with both the nv driver & the 177.82 nvidia driver in F10. Are you using 177.82 or something else?
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
Other than that fact that I can't get X to working properly either with the proprietary or free drivers, seems pretty cool. However, *that* is a showstopper.
Which card do you have, and how exactly is the nvidia driver not working?
geforce 6200.
The proprietary driver doesn't seem to interact well with the radeon driver (I have two cards, one ATI and one nvidia) and randomly freezes. I can move the mouse around and use the keyboard, but windows get corrupted and mouseclicks stop working. Truthfully, while I can't seem to get it working as it is, the radeon driver is probably to blame for this one.
The opensource driver won't even start, it doesn't detect the video ram.
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
I've got a system here with a GeForce 6200 that is working perfectly with both the nv driver & the 177.82 nvidia driver in F10. Are you using 177.82 or something else?
Yes, I'm running 177.82.
My suspicions are that the proprietary driver is fine, but the radeon driver is screwing with things (because once when it froze, I suddenly couldn't even mouse over to the nvidia monitor). Unfortunately, I can't use fglrx at the same time as nvidia... DRI gets screwed up.
--Russell
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:37:34PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
- One thing I would really, really like - and I'm half tempted to just
write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora kernel and build a new one - with the options that *I* want.
You should, if you think it should exist. How do you think things get done, other than by people scratching an itch?
OTOT, 99.99999% of people out there have no need for a custom kernel, and that other 0.00001% have strange ideas of why they think they *do*. More than likely, you have no need for one either. Whether you want one, is an entirely different thing.
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, Marc Wilson msw@cox.net wrote:
From: Marc Wilson msw@cox.net Subject: Re: some feedback on fedora 10 To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 5:56 AM On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:37:34PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
- One thing I would really, really like - and
I'm half tempted to just
write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora
kernel and build a
new one - with the options that *I* want.
You should, if you think it should exist. How do you think things get done, other than by people scratching an itch?
OTOT, 99.99999% of people out there have no need for a custom kernel, and that other 0.00001% have strange ideas of why they think they *do*. More than likely, you have no need for one either. Whether you want one, is an entirely different thing.
-- Marc Wilson | When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, msw@cox.net | it concentrates his mind wonderfully. -- Samuel | Johnson
--
The numbers might be different, but who cares, there are lies, damn lies and statistics :)
He wants a way to make a new kernel,
http://www.howtoforge.com/kernel_compilation_fedora
will give him instructions to create a new kernel, the fedora way(rpm) or even by compiling on page 2 which should work on most if not all distros.
There are some folks on the list that need to compile their own kernel(s) because the Fedora kernel as great as it is, does not support some of their hardware (eg, ndiswrapper, other drivers like Ethernet modules) which are not in the stock kernels. Other users want to stay as current as possible, and sometimes Fedora's kernels are a little bit behind(it took a great while for a 2.6.27 kernel to get to Fedora, official, not from Koji :) ), and the list might go on.
Most people do not have the need for a new kernel since the official Fedora ones do the job, but there might be special needs that the OP has, so he can go on and build his custom kernel.
Regards,
Antonio
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Most people do not have the need for a new kernel since the official Fedora ones do the job, but there might be special needs that the OP has, so he can go on and build his custom kernel.
In my limited experience, it is much easier and just as fruitful to compile the official kernel rather than the Fedora one. (I used to have to do this to get orinoco_usb working.) I never found anything in the Fedora changes to the official kernel that I seemed to require.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Most people do not have the need for a new kernel since the official Fedora ones do the job, but there might be special needs that the OP has, so he can go on and build his custom kernel.
In my limited experience, it is much easier and just as fruitful to compile the official kernel rather than the Fedora one. (I used to have to do this to get orinoco_usb working.) I never found anything in the Fedora changes to the official kernel that I seemed to require.
A well-written tool should work on either.
No, I don't *need* another kernel. But I'm not a n00b (hopefully that's not a pejorative, it's not meant as such), and I like to explore the kernel options and see what's out there. I'd like to have a way to just press a button and make it happen, after setting my options - and to know at a glance which options do what, which are dangerous, etc., etc. Just seems like one of the things that is perfectly suited to a nice graphical interface.
--Russell
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Russell Miller duskglow@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I just upgrated to fedora 10. I've already filed some bug reports, but here's some feedback.
- FC9 preupgrade didn't work. It left the /var off of the cache location.
I had to fix it manually and reboot. 2) nv driver is broken with my card. Bug filed on that, so I won't go into too much further detail, except to say it doesn't detect ANY video ram. 3) One thing I would really, really like - and I'm half tempted to just write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora kernel and build a new one - with the options that *I* want. Building a new kernel is a pain in the kiester, and the lack of a good tool to do so (I'm not aware of one and a quick search on freshmeat doesn't turn one up) is kind of... surprising, considering that the kernel has been around for so many years. Is it that much of a black art? 4) KMS seems cool, but it doesn't work on my card, so it falls back to a lame progress bar on the bottom of the screen. Can we be a little more informative than that? It didn't even tell me I could press escape, I had to figure that out on my own.
Other than that fact that I can't get X to working properly either with the proprietary or free drivers, seems pretty cool. However, *that* is a showstopper.
--Russell
Sorry for all the problems dude. Thanks for taking the time to report on them.
Wish I could help you myself, but these problems sound out of my league.
BTW, if you do make that tool, hope you do it in Python.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 05:37:34PM -0800, Russell Miller wrote:
- One thing I would really, really like - and I'm half tempted to just
write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora kernel and build a new one - with the options that *I* want. Building a new kernel is a pain in the kiester, and the lack of a good tool to do so (I'm not aware of one and a quick search on freshmeat doesn't turn one up) is kind of... surprising, considering that the kernel has been around for so many years. Is it that much of a black art?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel
That page may help you.
Russell Miller wrote:
- One thing I would really, really like - and I'm half tempted to just
write it myself - is a tool to take the stock fedora kernel and build a new one - with the options that *I* want. Building a new kernel is a pain in the kiester, and the lack of a good tool to do so (I'm not aware of one and a quick search on freshmeat doesn't turn one up) is kind of... surprising, considering that the kernel has been around for so many years. Is it that much of a black art?
It cannot be fully automatic unless you want to default lots of options, then you might as well just use the default kernel .config.
Here is a link to the kernel compile documentation for fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/CustomKernel?highlight=(kernel)%7C(source)
And another link good for cross referencing
http://www.howtoforge.com/kernel_compilation_fedora
But there is no reason there can't be a script that examines all the hardware present on the system, and creates a .config that reflects that. All those modules for sound cards, network cards, etc go away. Well no reason other than it would take a significant amount of work and require continuous updates for all new hardware. :-)
Then the user runs menuconfig to choose the options that they want.
-
Antonio Olivares -
Arthur Pemberton -
Bruno Wolff III -
Ed Greshko -
Frank Cox -
Jim -
Lonni J Friedman -
Marc Wilson -
Michael Cronenworth -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Russell Miller -
stan -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley