Hi all!
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their drivers only in binary format and so on. But my thoughts regarding that:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora. After the text based install I've never been able to get X to run. I always had to get the binary nvidia drivers to get X to run. While I don't think it's to bad to have to download them for 3d acceleration, I think it's bad if even 2d doesn't work with the nv-drivers.
There has to be some reolution for this. Anaconda recognises my graphic card and my monitor just before trying to start X. Then it fails and just tells me to reboot. :( The switch to fb-mode works btw. I thought that was a graphics mode as well. Wouldn't that be a possibility to allow graphical install?
Redistribution of the nvidia-driver is allowed. Wouldn't it be possible (perhaps as an extra ISO-image or whatever) to allow the use of the binary driver from installation on? I understand that RedHat cannot support that driver but as it's now fedora and that isn't supported anyway, support issues shouldn't be a concern, or am I wrong there?
Ok, that was something that was itching me since at least RedHat 8.0...
Niels Weber schrieb:
Hi all!
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their drivers only in binary format and so on.
I don't know who said that. Maybe this person should take into account, that Nvidia is not allowed to release the source for it includes third party code, even if they wanted to.
Christoph
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:21, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Niels Weber schrieb:
Hi all!
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their drivers only in binary format and so on.
I don't know who said that. Maybe this person should take into account, that Nvidia is not allowed to release the source for it includes third party code, even if they wanted to.
And, before someone points out that NVIDIA might just release the hardware specs, the hardware contains components and designs from third parties as well. Don't buy NVIDIA hardware if you don't like the situation. If they start loosing enough sales from this (*absurd laughter*) then they might start making hardware free of third-party components and released with open source drivers. Spouting "evil capitalistic corporation" stuff isn't going to get anyone very far. ;-)
Christoph
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Sean Middleditch um 19:27:
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:21, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Niels Weber schrieb:
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their drivers only in binary format and so on.
I don't know who said that. Maybe this person should take into account, that Nvidia is not allowed to release the source for it includes third party code, even if they wanted to.
And, before someone points out that NVIDIA might just release the hardware specs, the hardware contains components and designs from third parties as well. Don't buy NVIDIA hardware if you don't like the situation. If they start loosing enough sales from this (*absurd laughter*) then they might start making hardware free of third-party components and released with open source drivers. Spouting "evil capitalistic corporation" stuff isn't going to get anyone very far. ;-)
Ecactly my thoughts. I just didn't want to get a hundred replies along the lines of "don't buy nvidia, they're evil as their drivers aren't GPL". I like their hardware and I have no real prblems with the binary drivers. Better than no drivers at all I think. And the situation with ATI isn't really any better, so what choice is there?
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 05:56, Niels Weber wrote:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora.
This must be an issue with the video card / monitor frequencies.
I have been able to X installs on RH7.3, 8.0 and 9.0 with my GF2-MX400, GF4-MX420,MX440 and my TI4200. I have several Pcs and all these cards are in active use with a variety of monitors: Philips 105s and 107s, Viewsonic E70 and a Leo 17" of unknown model number.
Your experience is not one I have shared.
The only thing the downloaded drivers allow me to do that i could not otherwise do is play 3D games (which i do a fair amount of, so I always install the nVidia binaries).
I have bought only one ATI card (Radeon 9000) because, for a long time, ATI did not support the advanced 3D functionality on Linux for their video cards.....but nVidia's support has been very good, the cards fast and the game playing up to expectations. :-)
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Steve Withers um 21:04:
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 05:56, Niels Weber wrote:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora.
This must be an issue with the video card / monitor frequencies.
I have been able to X installs on RH7.3, 8.0 and 9.0 with my GF2-MX400, GF4-MX420,MX440 and my TI4200. I have several Pcs and all these cards are in active use with a variety of monitors: Philips 105s and 107s, Viewsonic E70 and a Leo 17" of unknown model number.
Ok, I just have one of the not working systems next to me. I boot from CD1, at the prompt just press enter, skip the mediacheck. After /sbin/loader, it switches to fb-mode (at least I think so because the letters look different then). Then: Running anaconda... Probing for video card: NVIDIA GeForce 2 MX 8generic) Probing for monitor type: MACROTRON Probing for mouse type: Generic - 2 Button Mouse (serial) Attempting to start native X server Waiting for X server to start...log located in /tmp/X.log 1...2...3...4...5.... X server started successfully.
(the screen goes black and i get the standard X-mouse cursor, after a second or so I fall back to text mode)
XIO: fatal IO error 104 (Connection reset by peer) on X server ":1.0" after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining. install exited abnormally
(then termination and kill signals, disabling swap, unmounting filesystems, you may safely reboot)
Anybody got a hint for me?
Niels Weber said:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora. After the text based install I've never been able to get X to run. I always had to get the binary nvidia drivers to get X to run.
Have you ever put these problems in bugzilla? [snip]
Redistribution of the nvidia-driver is allowed. Wouldn't it be possible (perhaps as an extra ISO-image or whatever) to allow the use of the binary driver from installation on? I understand that RedHat cannot support that driver but as it's now fedora and that isn't supported anyway, support issues shouldn't be a concern, or am I wrong there?
Distributing binary-only drivers is opposed to the goals of the Fedora Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html "Build the operating system exclusively from open source software."
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb William Hooper um 22:58:
Niels Weber said:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora. After the text based install I've never been able to get X to run. I always had to get the binary nvidia drivers to get X to run.
Have you ever put these problems in bugzilla?
No, I haven't so far. I have thought about it and searched for geforce related problems in bugzilla. There were quite a few but most seem to be answered along the lines of "yeah, we know but as nvidia is evil it's your fault you bought something from them". (Ok I know, the answers aren't linke that. I don't want to put down the good work of you guys at redhat.)
[snip]
Redistribution of the nvidia-driver is allowed. Wouldn't it be possible (perhaps as an extra ISO-image or whatever) to allow the use of the binary driver from installation on? I understand that RedHat cannot support that driver but as it's now fedora and that isn't supported anyway, support issues shouldn't be a concern, or am I wrong there?
Distributing binary-only drivers is opposed to the goals of the Fedora Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html "Build the operating system exclusively from open source software."
There are other programs in fedora with non OSI compliant licenses, what about them? I was talking about a different ISO image for a reason. It should be marked as a non official ISO that doesn't really belong to fedora and is just provided to make installation easier for some people.
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 22:30:
Ok, I just have one of the not working systems next to me. I boot from CD1, at the prompt just press enter, skip the mediacheck. After /sbin/loader, it switches to fb-mode
[snip] Anybody got a hint for me?
Have you tried booting with "nofb" parameter?
Christoph
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 23:27:
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 22:30:
Ok, I just have one of the not working systems next to me. I boot from CD1, at the prompt just press enter, skip the mediacheck. After /sbin/loader, it switches to fb-mode
[snip] Anybody got a hint for me?
Have you tried booting with "nofb" parameter?
I hadn't tried on that system. It seems to work when run with "linux nofb" on this one (Geforce 2 MX, MACROTRON monitor). Thanks for the help.
Still, on my other system (Geforce 4 ti 4200, Philips 150 P DFP it doesn't matter if I choose nofb or not).
Niels Weber said:
[snip] Distributing binary-only drivers is opposed to the goals of the Fedora Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html "Build the operating system exclusively from open source software."
There are other programs in fedora with non OSI compliant licenses, what about them?
Could you give some examples?
I was talking about a different ISO image for a reason. It should be marked as a non official ISO that doesn't really belong to fedora and is just provided to make installation easier for some people.
Any third party is welcome to do this. I don't expect Fedora to at all, because as I said above it is counter to their goals. I would expect any bugs causing problems with the Official ISOs AND reported to bugzilla to be checked out and fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers..
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 09:30, Niels Weber wrote:
Anybody got a hint for me?
Try a different monitor.
Older screens with newer cards are often the guilty party.
I used to have this problem all the time with Cirrus Logic video cards and my old Philips monitor. The default frequencies the card supported were not frequencies the monitor supported.....so the range of resolutions was always limited to the few that would work...and I had to determine manually what frequencies were common to both card and monitor among the defults for both.
To test it, try a diferent screen that supports more frequencies. Or just try a different screen. :-)
Hi Niels, hi all!
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 23:33:
Have you tried booting with "nofb" parameter?
I hadn't tried on that system. It seems to work when run with "linux nofb" on this one (Geforce 2 MX, MACROTRON monitor). Thanks for the help.
Still, on my other system (Geforce 4 ti 4200, Philips 150 P DFP it doesn't matter if I choose nofb or not).
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot. #wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32 #./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run # XFree -configure Edit the new XF86config for your needs. Be happy. :-)
I think the problem is your TFT, not the graphics card , but i cannot comment on this. I always had to do this old school way with RH 7.3 and my Nvidia card. I used xf86setup (there was a
Or, if possible, just change the monitors during install???
Christoph
At the end of the day ATi stuff breaks GLUT whilst Nvidia stuff doesn't.
ATi is 100% and better than nvidia if you use gentoo... otherwise nvidia amkes for a less stressful life.
I first used their drivers over a year ago for a machine that played dixv, mame and dvd's to my TV. I upgraded to ATi, but after having bought a nvidia laptop I'm massively impressed how good their current drivere install is.
closed it may be, but they are looking after us linux users..... please don't spoil it.
--- Sean Middleditch elanthis@awesomeplay.com wrote: > On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:21, Christoph Wickert
wrote:
Niels Weber schrieb:
Hi all!
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their
drivers only in binary
format and so on.
I don't know who said that. Maybe this person
should take into account,
that Nvidia is not allowed to release the source
for it includes third
party code, even if they wanted to.
And, before someone points out that NVIDIA might just release the hardware specs, the hardware contains components and designs from third parties as well. Don't buy NVIDIA hardware if you don't like the situation. If they start loosing enough sales from this (*absurd laughter*) then they might start making hardware free of third-party components and released with open source drivers. Spouting "evil capitalistic corporation" stuff isn't going to get anyone very far. ;-)
Christoph
-- Sean Middleditch elanthis@awesomeplay.com AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
I used xf86setup (there was a
Ahh... I wanted to say: I remember there was a question, if you use a TFT.
Christoph
Hi Christoph!
First I want to say thank you for th e advise to use "nofb". That machine now runs fedora without problems. Even X configured itself completly automatically - something I've never seen before.
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 23:33:
Still, on my other system (Geforce 4 ti 4200, Philips 150 P DFP it doesn't matter if I choose nofb or not).
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot.
Ok, the thing with text mode installation (at least on that machine): 1. It doesn't allow to choose packages individually. 2. It always crashed on the second disk.
What's the reason for using "fb" at the installation? Is it considered a bug (should I add it to bugzilla) if my system only installs with "nofb"?
#wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32 #./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run # XFree -configure Edit the new XF86config for your needs. Be happy. :-)
I think the problem is your TFT, not the graphics card , but i cannot
That's what I did on the other machine (with the DFP), not with fedora but back then with 8.0 or so. I upgraded that machine to fedora already by upgrading the packages by hand. The issue here seems to be that the "nv" driver doesn't work with the digital out (and as I understand bugzilla won't until nvidia gives the needed information to the XFree86 developers - so probably it will never work).
That was the reason for my question / proposal: That the binary nvidia-drivers should be available sometime during the installation.
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb William Hooper um 23:58:
Niels Weber said:
"Build the operating system exclusively from open source software."
There are other programs in fedora with non OSI compliant licenses, what about them?
Could you give some examples?
AFAIK the license of Xfig isn't OSI compliant.
I was talking about a different ISO image for a reason. It should be marked as a non official ISO that doesn't really belong to fedora and is just provided to make installation easier for some people.
Any third party is welcome to do this. I don't expect Fedora to at all, because as I said above it is counter to their goals. I would expect any bugs causing problems with the Official ISOs AND reported to bugzilla to be checked out and fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers..
They won't fix the problems because they can't (see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360 ).
I'd like to have fedora as easy to install as possible, so that everyone can install it who wants.
Hi Niels! Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 07:57:
Hi Christoph!
First I want to say thank you for th e advise to use "nofb". That machine now runs fedora without problems. Even X configured itself completly automatically - something I've never seen before.
Was not more than a wild guess :-)
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 23:33:
Still, on my other system (Geforce 4 ti 4200, Philips 150 P DFP it doesn't matter if I choose nofb or not).
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot.
Ok, the thing with text mode installation (at least on that machine):
- It doesn't allow to choose packages individually.
I thought that option is gone anyway in fedora. Is it back again in test 3??? (Would be great!) But you are right: Text install is not as good as graphical mode, e. g. configuration of the boot-manager.
- It always crashed on the second disk.
I'll try a text mode next time. Did the same disc 2 work with graphical install? Would be very strange.
What's the reason for using "fb" at the installation? Is it considered a bug (should I add it to bugzilla) if my system only installs with "nofb"?
I'm not sure about the use of fb. I don't think it's used or necessary unless you set higher vga modes(? --duck&cover--). By the way: I'm using an old Elsa Erazor TNT II Pro (Nvidia Riva 128 I think) and have no problems with the fb. Mayby you can try to boot with fb but disable it's use in X with
Option "UseFBDev" "false"
in the device section. Might be worth a try, but be sure to make a new entry for that in grub, so you can always go back if it doesn't work.
I think the problem is your TFT, not the graphics card , but i cannot
The issue here seems to be that the "nv" driver doesn't work with the digital out (and as I understand bugzilla won't until nvidia gives the needed information to the XFree86 developers - so probably it will never work).
Well, then you have to change the monitor or need to install the nvidia driver first. Should not be a problem, if the second disc did not crash.
That was the reason for my question / proposal: That the binary nvidia-drivers should be available sometime during the installation.
This will never happen, for it is proprietary code and fedora core is open source. Und das ist auch gut so;-)
Christoph
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 14:12:
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Niels Weber um 07:57:
Ok, the thing with text mode installation (at least on that machine):
- It doesn't allow to choose packages individually.
I thought that option is gone anyway in fedora. Is it back again in test 3??? (Would be great!) But you are right: Text install is not as good as graphical mode, e. g. configuration of the boot-manager.
In graphical mode, you can choose packages individually. In text mode you can't.
- It always crashed on the second disk.
I'll try a text mode next time. Did the same disc 2 work with graphical install? Would be very strange.
Yes it is. I ran the graphical install with the same disks without problems. with the text based install, it crashed always during the second disk but always at different packages.
What's the reason for using "fb" at the installation? Is it considered a bug (should I add it to bugzilla) if my system only installs with "nofb"?
I'm not sure about the use of fb. I don't think it's used or necessary unless you set higher vga modes(? --duck&cover--). By the way: I'm using an old Elsa Erazor TNT II Pro (Nvidia Riva 128 I think) and have no problems with the fb. Mayby you can try to boot with fb but disable it's use in X with
Option "UseFBDev" "false"
in the device section. Might be worth a try, but be sure to make a new entry for that in grub, so you can always go back if it doesn't work.
I'll have a look at that.
I think the problem is your TFT, not the graphics card , but i cannot
The issue here seems to be that the "nv" driver doesn't work with the digital out (and as I understand bugzilla won't until nvidia gives the needed information to the XFree86 developers - so probably it will never work).
Well, then you have to change the monitor or need to install the nvidia driver first. Should not be a problem, if the second disc did not crash.
But it's not really the best solution... :(
That was the reason for my question / proposal: That the binary nvidia-drivers should be available sometime during the installation.
This will never happen, for it is proprietary code and fedora core is open source. Und das ist auch gut so;-)
It sure is. I wasn't talking about including the binary drivers into fedora. I was talking about a way to make them available during install time somehow.
BTW: Is the trademarked artwork of redhat less proprietary than the nvidia-drivers?
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Niels Weber wrote:
I know that nvidia is evil with releasing their drivers only in binary format and so on. But my thoughts regarding that:
I have never ever been abe to install any redhat graphically with a geforce card (tried geforce 2 mx, geforce 2 go, geforce 4 ti 4200, different monitors, different computers, btw: a tnt2 worked without problems), neither 8.0 nor 9 nor fedora. After the text based install I've never been able to get X to run. I always had to get the binary nvidia drivers to get X to run. While I don't think it's to bad to have to download them for 3d acceleration, I think it's bad if even 2d doesn't work with the nv-drivers.
Well, for the record, Nvidia maintains both their proprietary video driver themselves (of course), and they hired Mark Vojkovich from XFree86.org a couple years ago, who is now the "nv" driver maintainer also. So *both* of the Nvidia drivers (nvidia, and nv) are officially maintained by Nvidia.
Nvidia doesn't release their technical specifications for their hardware to *anyone*, not even under NDA (non-disclosure agreements). One might be tempted to think "well you have the source code though right?", however the source code isn't enough. None of the video hardware registers are documented, instead they are programmed as a series of random "magic" numbers, so you have absolutely no idea what the purpose of a given register is, that is getting written seemingly random information into it in the driver. The driver is for all intents and purposes obfuscated unless you have the hardware documentation which turns numbers like 0x3432 into a useful name like NVIDIA_SUCH_AND_SUCH_REGISTER with documentation of WTH that register actually does.
That's the long story, the short story is, that even though the "nv" driver is open source, it is more or less supplied as-is and the only way it gets updated is if Nvidia updates it, because nobody outside Nvidia has the foggiest clue how their hardware works.
From a distribution maintenance standpoint, all I can do, is
monitor changes to the "nv" driver source code in XFree86 CVS, and backport patches and apply them to 4.3.0 occasionally, however if something breaks, without physically having the specific video card(s) sitting on my desk, and the PDF datasheets sitting beside them, there's not anything I can really do about the problems in the "nv" driver, nor can any other distribution vendor. Only Nvidia can fix bugs in either driver basically.
So if a card isn't supported, that's unfortunate. If 2D doesn't work, that's also unfortunate. By reporting bugs that occur in the "nv" driver to http://bugs.xfree86.org, the bug report will get assigned to Mark Vojkovich, who is the official driver maintainer, working at Nvidia, who has access to pretty much every Nvidia card ever made, and the technical specifications to go along with them. If he can't fix the bug, then more or less, nobody can. Not without getting hired by Nvidia to work on the 'nv' driver. ;o)
There has to be some reolution for this. Anaconda recognises my graphic card and my monitor just before trying to start X. Then it fails and just tells me to reboot. :( The switch to fb-mode works btw. I thought that was a graphics mode as well. Wouldn't that be a possibility to allow graphical install?
That sounds like a bug in anaconda perhaps. In order to diagnose real video driver problems, I can't really do much at installer time. An X server/driver debugging environment requires much more than what the installer provides. Much much more details would be needed to even know if it is a video driver problem, X problem, anaconda bug, rhgb, or something else.
Redistribution of the nvidia-driver is allowed. Wouldn't it be possible (perhaps as an extra ISO-image or whatever) to allow the use of the binary driver from installation on? I understand that RedHat cannot support that driver but as it's now fedora and that isn't supported anyway, support issues shouldn't be a concern, or am I wrong there?
Possible? It's possible in theory, but it's very unlikely it'll happen. We can't support that driver, and we have enough trouble telling people that as it is already. Shipping binary unsupported drivers with the OS, or with addons is just begging to have people tell us "The nvidia binary driver doesn't work when I do foo", us: "We don't support that at all in any way shape or form, please contact Nvidia" them:"HUH? Not only did you supply this to me, but your installer autoinstalled it too! YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS!"
We can't support it even if we wanted to. And we don't want to have to tell 1000000 people the same thing over and over on the telephone/email/etc. every time someone has a problem. People can easily download the Nvidia, ATI, and other drivers directly from the vendor's website in Linux, just as easily as they do so in Windows.
People are free to repackage any drivers out there however they see fit under the EULA of the vendor in question. They can then distribute them via yum/apt or whatever, and we don't get stuck in the middle being told by people using them that we supplied it to them so we have some obligation to support it.
Hope this makes things a bit easier to understand.
Take care, TTYL
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, [iso-8859-1] Duncan Morison wrote:
At the end of the day ATi stuff breaks GLUT whilst Nvidia stuff doesn't.
You're very wrong there. GLUT itself is what is broken. GLUT is not open source software with an OSI approved OSS compatible license. The GLUT source code license does not permit modification and redistribution, and as such, nobody can "legally" modify GLUT even to fix bugs in it, and then ship the resulting binaries. This causes a major problem, because the GLUT source code contains a large number of problems including security holes, and we are not able to fix them due to the license.
The other problem this causes, is that GLUT configures some things at compile time based on the features of the currently installed libGL. So, the GLUT that we shipped, has features built into it that are conditionaly enabled based on what OpenGL features Mesa libGL supports. If you replace your libGL with either ATI *or* Nvidia's libGL (or any other 3rd party libGL), if that libGL does not contain 100% of the functionality of Mesa libGL, then GLUT breaks. Nvidia's libGL does not implement some of the SGI extensions since they're rather obsolete nowadays, however Mesa libGL does. That causes GLUT to be unuseable. Most likely ATI's libGL is in the same boat, however I've never received bug reports about this problem from ATI users - only tonnes of reports from rather upset Nvidia users. It's possible that Nvidia's latest drivers may have added support for these older SGI extensions, or put dummy stub functions or some other workaround in place to get past the GLUT braindamage.
Taking the GLUT src.rpm and recompiling it after you install ATI or Nvidia's libGL is reported to make this problem go away, as the new GLUT reconfigures itself at compile time to the currently installed libGL. Since we have no way of dealing with GLUT in any sane fashion and can not legally modify it, we didn't have a heck of a lot of choice with what to do with GLUT.
The author of GLUT (under a huge coincidence, he works at Nvidia now) wont relicense GLUT under a sane OSS license, and he specifically does not want people modifying and redistributing it as he fears that people will add new features and other stuff to the code and he considers GLUT to be officially feature complete.
As such, glut was removed from Fedora Core, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and is no longer supported by Red Hat. I have added freeglut to Fedora Core, however the freeglut present is ancient and kindof klunky. A new version, freeglut-2.0.0 is out now which is supposed to be 100% glut replacement and totally true open source written from scratch, and licensed under the MIT (XFree86) license. This is not in rawhide/Fedora yet, but it will be in the future once I have time to properly package it and test it with a lot of GLUT software and work the kinks out. I might provide a freeglut 2.0.0 update for Fedora Core 1 later on, but if not, it'll be in Fedora Core 2.
So just to summarize: Any GLUT problems you experience with applications refusing to run or refusing to compile, are neither Nvidia nor ATI bugs/problems - they are really broken bugs in GLUT itself, and we are not able to legally fix them. This problem will go away in the near future when we replace glut with freeglut.
Hope this helps.
Niels Weber said:
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb William Hooper um 23:58:
Niels Weber said:
"Build the operating system exclusively from open source software."
There are other programs in fedora with non OSI compliant licenses,
what
about them?
Could you give some examples?
AFAIK the license of Xfig isn't OSI compliant.
Sounds open source to me:
<quote> Main Xfig copyright notice:
Any party obtaining a copy of these files is granted, free of charge, a full and unrestricted irrevocable, world-wide, paid up, royalty-free, nonexclusive right and license to deal in this software and documentation files (the "Software"), including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish and/or distribute copies of the Software, and to permit persons who receive copies from any such party to do so, with the only requirement being that this copyright notice remain intact. </quote>
I was talking about a different ISO image for a reason. It should be marked as a non official ISO that doesn't really belong to fedora and
is
just provided to make installation easier for some people.
Any third party is welcome to do this. I don't expect Fedora to at all, because as I said above it is counter to their goals. I would expect any bugs causing problems with the Official ISOs AND reported to bugzilla to be checked out and fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers..
They won't fix the problems because they can't (see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360 ).
I repeat "fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers". In this case it looks like it has been reported upstream, so the ball is in their court. Fedora project objectives shouldn't be ignored because they cause inconvenience.
-- William Hooper
Anyone able to get the NVidia quad-port card working with four monitors and SMP? Works fine under 7.3, it does not work under the newer versions in an SMP enabled box.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-admin@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of William Hooper Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:37 AM To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: nvidia thoughts
<snip>
I was talking about a different ISO image for a reason. It should be marked as a non official ISO that doesn't really belong to fedora and
is
just provided to make installation easier for some people.
Any third party is welcome to do this. I don't expect Fedora to at all, because as I said above it is counter to their goals. I would expect any bugs causing problems with the Official ISOs AND reported to bugzilla to be checked out and fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers..
They won't fix the problems because they can't (see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360 ).
I repeat "fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers". In this case it looks like it has been reported upstream, so the ball is in their court. Fedora project objectives shouldn't be ignored because they cause inconvenience.
-- William Hooper
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Note: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Wang Trading LLC and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them to be the views of any such entity.
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb William Hooper um 16:36:
Niels Weber said:
Am Do, den 23.10.2003 schrieb William Hooper um 23:58:
Niels Weber said:
There are other programs in fedora with non OSI compliant licenses, what about them?
Could you give some examples?
AFAIK the license of Xfig isn't OSI compliant.
Sounds open source to me:
Ok, perhaps they changed it or I remember wrong.
They won't fix the problems because they can't (see http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88360 ).
I repeat "fixed to the best of the ability of the maintainers". In this case it looks like it has been reported upstream, so the ball is in their court. Fedora project objectives shouldn't be ignored because they cause inconvenience.
It's the same for me in the end, the bug isn't fixed and won't be. I'm not talking about ignoring objectives just about a way to deal with problems.
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot. #wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32 #./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
It's slightly OT, but that doesn't seem to work for me. I still get the message that I'm using a different compiler than the one used for the kernel. did you really manage to compile it that way?
I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know if this has already been covered - but here's what I do:
IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
found the info in /var/log/nvidia-installer.log
Hope this Helps! e.
Niels Weber wrote:
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot. #wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32 #./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
It's slightly OT, but that doesn't seem to work for me. I still get the message that I'm using a different compiler than the one used for the kernel. did you really manage to compile it that way?
Am So, den 26.10.2003 schrieb Erik Williamson um 19:24:
I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know if this has already been covered - but here's what I do:
IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
found the info in /var/log/nvidia-installer.log
This was mentioned by someone. I tried itand could compile though the resulting driver didn't seem to work. (Unsurprisingly, it's more of a surprise if it works I guess.)
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 12:34, Niels Weber wrote:
Am So, den 26.10.2003 schrieb Erik Williamson um 19:24:
I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know if this has already been covered - but here's what I do:
IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
found the info in /var/log/nvidia-installer.log
This was mentioned by someone. I tried itand could compile though the resulting driver didn't seem to work. (Unsurprisingly, it's more of a surprise if it works I guess.)
Here is a sequence that I have found works every time:
# Remove this RPM if you want the GL screen savers # to work. Do this before the next steps. rpm -e --nodeps XFree86-Mesa-libGL
# Run this to create a custom version of the NVidia driver ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run --add-this-kernel
# The above will create a custom version for the kernel # So now run this as a final step ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2-custom.run
Don't forget to make the required changes in XF86Config.
HTH,
Marc Schwartz
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 05:14, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot. #wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32
I add
alias gcc=gcc32
#./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
It's slightly OT, but that doesn't seem to work for me. I still get the message that I'm using a different compiler than the one used for the kernel. did you really manage to compile it that way?
-k.
Am Son, 2003-10-26 um 22.16 schrieb Kevin O'Neill:
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 05:14, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Fr, den 24.10.2003 schrieb Christoph Wickert um 02:20:
You still can do the installation in text mode, skip the x configuration and reboot. #wget http://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-4496/NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4... # export CC=gcc32
I add
alias gcc=gcc32
#./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run
It's slightly OT, but that doesn't seem to work for me. I still get the message that I'm using a different compiler than the one used for the kernel. did you really manage to compile it that way?
-k.
try to rename /usr/bin/gcc32 to gcc and /usr/bin/gcc to gcc33 and install the driver (i have not tested it its just an idea)
Am So, den 26.10.2003 schrieb Marc Schwartz um 19:47:
Here is a sequence that I have found works every time:
# Remove this RPM if you want the GL screen savers # to work. Do this before the next steps. rpm -e --nodeps XFree86-Mesa-libGL
# Run this to create a custom version of the NVidia driver ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2.run --add-this-kernel
# The above will create a custom version for the kernel # So now run this as a final step ./NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-4496-pkg2-custom.run
Don't forget to make the required changes in XF86Config.
That's the only thing that seem to work for me. Thank you! Now everything (including UT2003) works again.
-
Christoph Wickert -
dragoran -
Duncan Morison -
Erik Williamson -
Jim Laverty -
Kevin O'Neill -
Marc Schwartz -
Mike A. Harris -
Niels Weber -
Sean Middleditch -
Steve Withers -
William Hooper