FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-03-2010, 01:12 AM
Roger
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

<snip>
Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported
only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers
which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become
unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD
about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated
or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true.
</snip>

Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?

For the reasons expounded in
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
I personally have no reason to go past Fedora 11 and nvidia for Blender
I could not get radeon to work well at all so swapped for an nvidia
GT8600, now years old but works very well.

However I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning that if Gnome and a
few other 2D apps work then things are good. A strange notion which
simply doesn't hold water.

If 3D was not an absolute necessity then I'm certain that nvidia and
the other video card designers would not waste time and money developing
it and trying to eliminate competition (linux).

My simplistic notion #1 --Get 3d working first and 2d apps shouldn't be
a problem. They're basically a single layer in a 3d environment.
The next step would be to have other 2D app GUIs running in the layers
above or below the visible layer. Then users can switch between layers
to use a chosen app. Except when using Blender.

<snip>
The current focus is on making graphics work for as many ppl as possible
first, then 3D is always further down the list, this is just common
sense.
</ship>

Open source will never be all things to all people so I cannot agree
with the above contention.
The priority to make graphics work on a very small variety of the most
widely available fairly modern cards seems to be a way to move forward.
The problem is that no cards work well in Open source3D.
Like with printers and scanners, many of which are crappy in Linux,
couldn't the open source gurus focus on a very small range (say 2 or 3)
of well known mid capability video card, get them firing on all 3D
cylinders then promote those as the Linux / Open Source approved cards.
It won't suit the 3D games people, high end power users but can help
toward a solution for we who need to use Blender, and there are, I
believe, thousands of us.

<snip>
Current priorities are:

0) you aren't running a binary driver - if so no priority for you.

a) Can you see stuff on the screen at install/boot?
b) can you run GNOME desktop in reasonably useful manner? i.e. firefox
runs okay, no glitches, major slowdowns etc.
c) can you suspend/resume?
d) can you run compiz/gnome-shell?
e) can you run non-Gnome desktops at reasonable speed? (yes we have to
prioritise gnome over KDE, it sucks but thats life)
f) does misc 3D application run?
</snip>

Pardon me but it's got to be a joke, can't be serious.
(a) was priority 30 years ago
(b,c,d) priority10-15 years ago
(e) 6-10 years ago
As for (0) I haven't a clue what that means or how it should affect 3D
modelling and animation.

My simplistic notion #2.
Video card design is well known and pretty standard, so why can't an
Open source electronics genius assemble a competent 3D video card for
global Linux 3D power users? Yep it's only a few hundred thousand
cards, maybe a couple of million but has anyone researched the
possibilities?
If so what was the outcome?
What are the barriers?
Could it be used to raise funds for further development?
Does anyone care?

Questioning whether Open source people are genuine because they are
forced into untidy concessions doesn't help. We are.

my 2c worth
Roger






--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Tim
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:12 +1000, Roger wrote:
> Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?

Because they wanted to run Linux, and given the choices of hardware
available to them, only the more expensive options were compatible.

I faced that when I bought my laptop. The cheap ones all used an
unsupported graphics chipset, only the expensive ones had graphics
chipsets that we had drivers for.

And with all due disrespect to the one person on this list who kept on
saying that eventually they would have support, there was no way for us
to know whether that would really happen, and we aren't going to buy an
unusable computer and leave it on the shelf for two years, in the
meantime. Nor forgo buying a new computer for two years, waiting for
the time it was feasible.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

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



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Joonas Sarajärvi
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

2010/8/3, Roger <arelem@bigpond.com>:
> <snip>
> Given the reality, that users bought computers which Linux supported
> only a few years ago, and in some cases paid extra to get computers
> which ran Linux, it really sends a message to have that hardware become
> unsupported two years later. Thanks guys. Hand MSFT a big bag of FUD
> about "will Linux even run on your computer by the time it's depreciated
> or paid for?" Sadly, for once it's true.
> </snip>
>
> Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
Because many people want to run something Linux based, or just
something that is free software.


> For the reasons expounded in
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-November/042327.html
> I personally have no reason to go past Fedora 11 and nvidia for Blender
> I could not get radeon to work well at all so swapped for an nvidia
> GT8600, now years old but works very well.
>
> However I'm at a loss to understand the reasoning that if Gnome and a
> few other 2D apps work then things are good. A strange notion which
> simply doesn't hold water.
2D-only support is better than no support.

> If 3D was not an absolute necessity then I'm certain that nvidia and
> the other video card designers would not waste time and money developing
> it and trying to eliminate competition (linux).
If they can sell it, they will build it. There unquestionably is a big
market for graphics processors.

> My simplistic notion #1 --Get 3d working first and 2d apps shouldn't be
> a problem. They're basically a single layer in a 3d environment.
> The next step would be to have other 2D app GUIs running in the layers
> above or below the visible layer. Then users can switch between layers
> to use a chosen app. Except when using Blender.

My understanding of graphics driver development is quite limited, but
I believe it is many orders of magnitude less work to have the basic
2D stuff work, when compared to writing a complete OpenGL
implementation.

When there is a working OpenGL available, it often makes sense to use
it for 2D graphics, too. On the other hand, one would first need to
have such an implementation available.

> <snip>
> The current focus is on making graphics work for as many ppl as possible
> first, then 3D is always further down the list, this is just common
> sense.
> </ship>
>
> Open source will never be all things to all people so I cannot agree
> with the above contention.
> The priority to make graphics work on a very small variety of the most
> widely available fairly modern cards seems to be a way to move forward.
There mostly are only few different graphics processors available. At
least my impression is that all the modern ATI GPUs are very similar
from the perspective of a driver developer. I believe the situation is
quite similar on Nvidia side, too. At least the nouveau driver support
has been quite similar for a very wide range of different Nvidia GPUs.

> The problem is that no cards work well in Open source3D.
> Like with printers and scanners, many of which are crappy in Linux,
> couldn't the open source gurus focus on a very small range (say 2 or 3)
> of well known mid capability video card, get them firing on all 3D
> cylinders then promote those as the Linux / Open Source approved cards.
> It won't suit the 3D games people, high end power users but can help
> toward a solution for we who need to use Blender, and there are, I
> believe, thousands of us.
For the reasons I wrote above, I believe this is actually not a very
sustainable way forward. It seems the existing support we have is
easier to port to new devices than it is to write a complete high
performance OpenGL implementation. On the other hand, spending effort
on supporting a wide range of hardware where possible still allows
many more people take advantage of free software. Work on higher end
features seems also take place, but I guess the progress there is a
lot less visible due to the vastness of effort required.


> <snip>
> Current priorities are:
>
> 0) you aren't running a binary driver - if so no priority for you.
>
> a) Can you see stuff on the screen at install/boot?
> b) can you run GNOME desktop in reasonably useful manner? i.e. firefox
> runs okay, no glitches, major slowdowns etc.
> c) can you suspend/resume?
> d) can you run compiz/gnome-shell?
> e) can you run non-Gnome desktops at reasonable speed? (yes we have to
> prioritise gnome over KDE, it sucks but thats life)
> f) does misc 3D application run?
> </snip>
>
> Pardon me but it's got to be a joke, can't be serious.
> (a) was priority 30 years ago
> (b,c,d) priority10-15 years ago
> (e) 6-10 years ago
> As for (0) I haven't a clue what that means or how it should affect 3D
> modelling and animation.
>
> My simplistic notion #2.
> Video card design is well known and pretty standard, so why can't an
> Open source electronics genius assemble a competent 3D video card for
> global Linux 3D power users? Yep it's only a few hundred thousand
> cards, maybe a couple of million but has anyone researched the
> possibilities?
> If so what was the outcome?
> What are the barriers?
> Could it be used to raise funds for further development?
> Does anyone care?
There exists the Open Graphics Project:
http://wiki.opengraphics.org/tiki-index.php. They are developing a
completely open graphics hardware design. I have not followed them
lately, but at least the site seems still quite active.


--
Joonas Sarajärvi
muepsj@gmail.com
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-11-2010, 09:02 PM
Bill Davidsen
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 11:12 +1000, Roger wrote:
>> Why in the world would someone pay more for computer to run Linux?
>
> Because they wanted to run Linux, and given the choices of hardware
> available to them, only the more expensive options were compatible.
>
I would have said that the least expensive options weren't supported, but we
agree completely. The cheap models used video or network which wasn't supported.

> I faced that when I bought my laptop. The cheap ones all used an
> unsupported graphics chipset, only the expensive ones had graphics
> chipsets that we had drivers for.
>
> And with all due disrespect to the one person on this list who kept on
> saying that eventually they would have support, there was no way for us
> to know whether that would really happen, and we aren't going to buy an
> unusable computer and leave it on the shelf for two years, in the
> meantime. Nor forgo buying a new computer for two years, waiting for
> the time it was feasible.
>
Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying hardware
in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day
one.

The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine
on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer
supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a
graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.

Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly.
Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-11-2010, 11:37 PM
Roger
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying
hardware
> in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day
> one.
>
> The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine
> on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer
> supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a
> graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
>
> Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly.
> Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.
>
>
We are running ubuntu on fairly basic equipment, but I do agree, forget
Fedora past ver 11 for older equipment.
With respect to cutting edge and the necessity thereof, much of the
world still uses neolithic windows versions. Fedora 10 and 11 are light
years ahead of those, is there any reason they too could not be
acceptable on low end systems?
The questions could be, what apps 'need' to be run?
Can you get away with openoffice, gimp, inkscape, audacity and so many
other early version apps.
Do you need compatibility with late version apps?
What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years old?
Roger
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-12-2010, 02:35 AM
Tim
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 09:37 +1000, Roger wrote:
> What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years
> old?

The internet software being out-of-date, not supporting current
features, not having bug fixes, not fixing security holes. And, if you
want to add new software, it not being available for an older release.

But if you're isolated, e.g. a computer that's nothing more than a word
processor and printer, then it doesn't need updating if it already does
what you want it to do, reliably.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

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



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-12-2010, 02:39 AM
Tim
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:02 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which
> worked fine on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any
> more, but FC13 no longer supports the hardware. By support I mean a
> default install will display a graphical login screen a opposed to
> locking up so hard the battery must come out.

An educated guess would be that the underlying system (e.g. Xorg, the
compiler, or even most of the OS) changed over time, and nobody in the
development side of things was using any of the hardware that (now)
fails, to be able to notice that it failed.

For people without that specific hardware, probably the only failure
that they're going to notice would be a compilation error.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

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



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:18 PM
Bill Davidsen
 
Default was: Still no kmod for new nvidia- now: so Move On

Roger wrote:
> Yes, we have a problem with the financial model which includes buying
> hardware
>> in hopes that it will be useful before it's obsolete. That means it works on day
>> one.
>>
>> The one thing I can't accept is breaking support for systems which worked fine
>> on older releases. I don't want people running FC9 any more, but FC13 no longer
>> supports the hardware. By support I mean a default install will display a
>> graphical login screen a opposed to locking up so hard the battery must come out.
>>
>> Several people point out that Win7 runs on these systems nicely. Daily. Loudly.
>> Insist on putting "Linux upgrade problems" on agendas. Those people, the MS fanbois.
>>
>>
> We are running ubuntu on fairly basic equipment, but I do agree, forget
> Fedora past ver 11 for older equipment.
> With respect to cutting edge and the necessity thereof, much of the
> world still uses neolithic windows versions. Fedora 10 and 11 are light
> years ahead of those, is there any reason they too could not be
> acceptable on low end systems?

The only issue is security. Capability isn't an issue.

> The questions could be, what apps 'need' to be run?

Clearly the latest versions of browsers and media players.

> Can you get away with openoffice, gimp, inkscape, audacity and so many
> other early version apps.
> Do you need compatibility with late version apps?
> What are the fears/problems with running an OS that is only 1-2 years old?

Unfortunately the world is filled with evil. :-(

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org