Todd Zullinger wrote:

Christopher Stone wrote:

Why the H.E. double hockey sticks do people think proving
compatibility packages for nVidia users will somehow hold the
desktop hostage for everyone else?

I do not understand why ajax could not provide compatibility rpms
for nVidia users? Is he not paid by redhat? I mean just how
difficult can it be to provide F8 xorg rpms on F9 for nVidia users??


I wouldn't be surprised if ajax came after you with a few hockey
sticks for suggesting that he do all that extra work just to support
some binary drivers.


After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to
contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version
release that other vendors can support.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Les Mikesell wrote:

After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to
contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version
release that other vendors can support.


It doesn't since people can easily move to free rebuilds of RHEL. The
value of RHEL is in support subscriptions. The robustness of Fedora does
not dither that value at all.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:


After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version release that other vendors can support.

See, now you're finally starting to get it. If you want API stability, use RHEL/CentOS or GTFO.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christopher Stone
> <chris.stone@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okay, this is good news. I'll post on the nVidia forums to make sure
>> they know. I still think it's a bit uncalled for to say nVidia should
>> get their act together when the ABI was only declared stable last
>> week.
>
> Dude that thread is super long...and I was quoting an nvidia dev from
> the thread.
> Trust me... they know. Post #42 is a really good read concerning the
> recent history of the ABI. There is absolutely nothing new here.

There seems to be some internal debate within nvidia about when the new
version(s) get released. They know the abi is stable, but there seems to
be someone within nvidia who is waiting for the official 1.5 release.

Any idea when the x.org 1.5 release will actually occur? The web site is
less than helpful. (The schedule has a note that says "this is not a
schedule".)

>> As I stated in my original post "just how hard can it be to provide
>> compatibility packages?" From what I understand, you could just drop
>> in the F8 packages right into F9 and that's all that is required.
>> Then nVidia users could use the f8 version of xorg while everyone else
>> could use the f9 version. Why is it not that simple?
>
> You replace the f9 versions with the f8 versions. Making that work
> seemlessly is the trick.
> And if you read the nvnews thread I just dug up...people have been
> able to recompile the driver that is available and get it to work.
> This is a storm in a teacup. It will blow itself out soon enough.

I am just hoping it is soon. I know what I can do to make it work, but I
am not the average user. The user who started with F7 or F8 and is moving
to F9 are the ones who will feel the pain. Backreving the X drivers is
not an easy task for the novice.

I will be waiting for the "official" release. (Unless I get impatient,
which could happen.)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to
>> contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version
>> release that other vendors can support.
>
> It doesn't since people can easily move to free rebuilds of RHEL. The
> value of RHEL is in support subscriptions. The robustness of Fedora does
> not dither that value at all.

Besides... Someone has to push these things out first. If no one pushed
out new versions before the release date, they would not get much in the
way of testing. Getting xorg 1.5 into the F9 betas gave it more testing
than if it was just confined to the people who compile their version of X
from the source code repository. Yes it causes pain for some users, but
it makes for a much more stable version for the rest of us once the
initial bugs get worked out.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Jason Tang <jtang@magma.ca> wrote:
> I just don't think neglecting 2/3 of the user base makes sense. The fact
> is, many people use nvidia hardware. It would have seemed that pushing Xorg
> 1.4.99 to the development repo would have made more sense from a stability
> perspective. After all, it is a 'pre-release'.

2/3 of the userbase? Are you relying on smolt stats for that?

Please read the
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107725&page=3 thread
comment #42 for what is probably a very accurate picture of the timeline here.

The whole thread is actually a valuable read. There was more than
enough time for Nvidia to release beta drivers against the stable ABI
if they desired to do so.

Look at it this way... what if we did all our open driver development
like nvidia does. What if the open video drivers were not ported until
xserver 1.5 was officially released? Would there be any value at all
in doing open video driver development that way? The changes that the
nvidia driver need are surely on par with the changes the open drivers
needed and they could have been done in the same timescale. The real
question is why isn't NVidia syncing their driver development with the
upstream process? And we aren't going to answer that here.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Alan <alan@clueserver.org> wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to
>>> contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version
>>> release that other vendors can support.
>>
>> It doesn't since people can easily move to free rebuilds of RHEL. The
>> value of RHEL is in support subscriptions. The robustness of Fedora does
>> not dither that value at all.
>
> Besides... Someone has to push these things out first. If no one pushed
> out new versions before the release date, they would not get much in the
> way of testing. Getting xorg 1.5 into the F9 betas gave it more testing
> than if it was just confined to the people who compile their version of X
> from the source code repository. Yes it causes pain for some users, but
> it makes for a much more stable version for the rest of us once the
> initial bugs get worked out.

I can tell you right now, evdev still needs more work... ;-)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Alan wrote:

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christopher Stone
<chris.stone@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, this is good news. I'll post on the nVidia forums to make sure
they know. I still think it's a bit uncalled for to say nVidia should
get their act together when the ABI was only declared stable last
week.

Dude that thread is super long...and I was quoting an nvidia dev from
the thread.
Trust me... they know. Post #42 is a really good read concerning the
recent history of the ABI. There is absolutely nothing new here.


There seems to be some internal debate within nvidia about when the new
version(s) get released. They know the abi is stable, but there seems to
be someone within nvidia who is waiting for the official 1.5 release.


It's about people covering their collective asses. All the nvidia guys have
is the release managers assurance that no further ABI changes will happen.
This is not a 100% guarantee though and so they take the safest route
possible and wait until 1.5 is released. That way they can be *absolutely*
sure that their driver will work and nobody at nvidia has to take even the
slightest risk.


It's stubborn bureaucratic policy at work.

Regards,
Dennis

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:51:08 -0700
"Christopher Stone" <chris.stone@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/5/20 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>:
> > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 14:40 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Two xservers is just insanity. Those on nvidia can choose between using
> > the nv driver in F9, or continuing to use F8 until Nvidia gets their act
> > together. The price you pay...
>
> Until nVidia gets their act together?? What the H.E. double hockey
> sticks are you talking about? nVidia can't do anything until xorg's
> ABI is *stable*. They cannot keep chasing a moving target. If xorg

Sure they can. They can open source their driver and play nice.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Callum Lerwick wrote:


After all, it increases the apparent value of the stable RHEL to
contrast it with fedora pushing things out before a stable version
release that other vendors can support.


See, now you're finally starting to get it. If you want API stability,
use RHEL/CentOS or GTFO.


I do. I just find it unfortunate that I can't use any of the newer
things in fedora because they are intertwined with things that break
interfaces - including many applications that would probably work just
fine on a more stable OS.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list