The "Ubuntu 8.10, Fedora in general, fglrx" thread for people who are sick of whining

[downhillgames]

First and foremost, I'm not crapping in all these "woe is me" threads, so those of you facing your self-generated problems, don't crap in this thread. Show some respect for opinions.

Look, I'm going to be completely honest with you guys, but I'll try not to come off as a smug, pompous ass. I find this whole fglrx/X-Server 1.5/Kernel 2.6.uber situation laughable, especially having been through it myself back on Fedora 6 (IIRC) when the X.org dudes decided to revise their version numbering (Hey! That sounds familiar! (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Njc5MQ)) and broke the official nvidia driver for us. No, it wasn't nVidia's fault. Sure, I was hoping they'd fix it soon, but I didn't start a thread or two in every major forum bashing them for it, but plenty of other people did; Just search nvnews.net to see.

Things happen, and if the incident was important, the fixes usually follow very quickly.

That said, Ubuntu 8.10 is coming out in 13 days from writing and everyone is all in a hubbub over X-Server 1.5 support. The truth is, a lot of people are "still" "back" on Ubuntu 7.10 & Ubuntu 8.04 (like me) and their video cards should be working one way or the other. We're worried about all these regressions, though. Ubuntu 8.04 isn't going away anytime soon. 3 years is a very long time in "technology years." You know that. Enter you guys running developement releases. You're worried about the future of Linux, about getting support now, about the view [FOSS] people will hold on AMD if they don't get this support out pronto. The thing you guys need to realize is this, Linux (the platform) is an extremely fast-placed moving target, and they (AMD) still have a bunch of regressions and unimplemented (AMD/ATi) features to worry about. (Not to mention get all their chips working with this re-written driver)

On the one hand, you'll see people calling AMD a waste of time, a poor choice, a disappointment, etc. In the opposite corner of the ring, you'll find those who don't update to the latest Kernel 2.6.uber, X.org version, etc and whose installs are relatively stable and working. Those are the people who generally enjoy using their computers (and OSes), not the ones who are infatuated with compiler flags, etc. In yet another light you have the people still on Windows or Mac who are looking to check Linux out. The reasons vary from one person to another, and that's a different topic, but one thing they will look for: Driver support. Either it's there or it isn't. Again, Ubuntu 8.04 is fairly nice and it's not going away for years. Read: It's dependable if the support exists.

If you take a step back and look at what AMD is doing overall, you'll see a company that is hurting, but still cares enough about the little people to keep working on their driver, publish documentation for those who insist on an open-source-only install/driver (which I don't think I'll ever understand completely).

This is the same attitude found with EPIC Games and Unreal Tournament 3. A long-time friend of mine (no names) didn't even know who EPIC Games was, but his first reaction to the name was, "The only thing EPIC is their EPIC failure." For years and years they've supplied Linux binaries for a lot of their big-name games when they didn't have to. They're not making much money off Linux gamers compared to Windows users, and like any company, their goal is to sell a product. So, they even offer the opportunity to the little guys, then it gets tossed back in their face, but they keep giving that opportunity. Who is the bigger man here?

AMD doesn't have to support their desktop video cards on Linux to sustain a working business model. But they do anyway. And they release documentation on their hardware!

I wish X Server 1.5 was supported too, but it takes more than a wish to make it happen, it takes a lot of resources. Monetary resources. Monetary resources earned from selling a product, not from giving it away.

All I really want to ask is this: Please cut them some slack.

[thacrazze]

I can't see your problem

Catalyst 8.10 is the fastest Catalyst ever, I have a better 2D and 3D Performance - Compiz running better, too

And the Ubuntu-Catalyst 8.10 supports X-Server 1.5 which is e.g. already in Arch Linux ,Testing repo (catalyst-8.11-0.1-i686)

And keep in mind that AMD is nearly insolvent.

[janl]

I can understand you're point to a degree. But you could also make the argument that if they had tracked and provided support for Fedora then they would already be able to support Ubuntu.

It would make a lot more sense (to me at least) to support a bleeding edge distro. That way by the time the other distros catch up, the support is already there, and some/most of the bugs shaken out by the distro that came before.

[deanjo]

It would make a lot more sense (to me at least) to support a bleeding edge distro.

Problem with that is that your often trying to debug 2 or more bleeding edge products at the same time that's why a stable base is preferred to bleeding edge. It would be like troubleshooting a computer with a no video symptom with out any "known good" parts to test against.

[downhillgames]

Problem with that is that your often trying to debug 2 or more bleeding edge products at the same time that's why a stable base is preferred to bleeding edge. It would be like troubleshooting a computer with a no video symptom with out any "known good" parts to test against.
Besides their userbase, that's probably one of the biggest reasons Windows gets support so quickly. Have you ever installed an old Rage 128 card or somethin' on XP when your main one is giving you problems? The XP Rage 128 drivers released in 2001 (IIRC) still work as good as the day they were released, and I'm talking about on SP3 and everything, no "rolling back." I tried to get my Rage 128 working (with 3D) on Linux and it couldn't be done. I was told, "It's too old to hack on." Well, there weren't any updates needed to make it work on XP, it's just that Linux changes so much that the old driver couldn't function anymore.

A stable development platform is definitely advantageous to a(n arguably) "bleeding-edge" development platform.
I can't see your problem

Catalyst 8.10 is the fastest Catalyst ever, I have a better 2D and 3D Performance - Compiz running better, too

And the Ubuntu-Catalyst 8.10 supports X-Server 1.5 which is e.g. already in Arch Linux ,Testing repo (catalyst-8.11-0.1-i686)

And keep in mind that AMD is nearly insolvent.
That isn't 8.10 in the repos, that's a beta of 8.11. You're missing my point entirely, yes.

[Maxei]

I am amazed at the frantic pace at which Linux (kernel, OS desktops, applications) is changing. We deal with constant updates, new versions, new releases, so linux really looks like a messy construction site, only that it is never completed and also is a never ending story: new bugs are introduced because of precisely those changes in code, on top of older bugs.
It looks indeed like a race against time. The efforts are also indeed amazingly awesome. However, I feel that this frantic pace is firing back to users. All problems related to updates so frequently lead to broken systems and of course, users become upset, frustrated!
Look, we can compare this with Windows and Mccintosh models: They provide simple updates (security issues basically) from time to time, which DO NOT brake the system. Actually, ONE version stays for many years (example: Windows XP). However, with Linux, there is this crazy idea that if you dont upgrade to the nex version you are using obsolete software. Therefore, Windows XP and MacOs are then utterly obsolete? non-sense. Try to do updates or upgrades in linux and you will start having problems, like broken packages, loss of drivers' function, etc.Briefly: Problems all the time, instability issues; lack of proper support for new hardware. This is the price we have to pay for "life on the fast lane".
To top it up, the interaction between companies and Linux is not good. Yes, more and more companies are supporting their harware in linux, but unfortunately, they consider us as marginal users.
I propose to slow down in development. Stop those fancy projects that introduce bugs, conflicts, from draining resources. Concentrate in stability, focus on hardware support to make drivers that really do work. Look guys, that idea that Ubuntu should outperform macOS can ONLY succeed with OUTSTANDING hardware support, which is not just there, and not with fancy eye kandy and decorations! Lets realize this: if you like macOS, then use macOS! Why in the heck Ubuntu has to be like macOS? Hell, for one, I just want it to be a final product, rock solid and usable for years (like windows xp or macOS) and able to do everything I need at home and at work, and don't want to be bothered/forced about installing a f*cking new version every six months or so because some packages were spoiled during updates. It is a vicious circle that I hope one day shall be broken.
Maxei DeVraie

[downhillgames]

I am amazed at the frantic pace at which Linux (kernel, OS desktops, applications) is changing. We deal with constant updates, new versions, new releases, so linux really looks like a messy construction site, only that it is never completed and also is a never ending story: new bugs are introduced because of precisely those changes in code, on top of older bugs.
It looks indeed like a race against time. The efforts are also indeed amazingly awesome. However, I feel that this frantic pace is firing back to users. All problems related to updates so frequently lead to broken systems and of course, users become upset, frustrated!
Look, we can compare this with Windows and Mccintosh models: They provide simple updates (security issues basically) from time to time, which DO NOT brake the system. Actually, ONE version stays for many years (example: Windows XP). However, with Linux, there is this crazy idea that if you dont upgrade to the nex version you are using obsolete software. Therefore, Windows XP and MacOs are then utterly obsolete? non-sense. Try to do updates or upgrades in linux and you will start having problems, like broken packages, loss of drivers' function, etc.Briefly: Problems all the time, instability issues; lack of proper support for new hardware. This is the price we have to pay for "life on the fast lane".
To top it up, the interaction between companies and Linux is not good. Yes, more and more companies are supporting their harware in linux, but unfortunately, they consider us as marginal users.
I propose to slow down in development. Stop those fancy projects that introduce bugs, conflicts, from draining resources. Concentrate in stability, focus on hardware support to make drivers that really do work. Look guys, that idea that Ubuntu should outperform macOS can ONLY succeed with OUTSTANDING hardware support, which is not just there, and not with fancy eye kandy and decorations! Lets realize this: if you like macOS, then use macOS! Why in the heck Ubuntu has to be like macOS? Hell, for one, I just want it to be a final product, rock solid and usable for years (like windows xp or macOS) and able to do everything I need at home and at work, and don't want to be bothered/forced about installing a f*cking new version every six months or so because some packages were spoiled during updates. It is a vicious circle that I hope one day shall be broken.
Maxei DeVraie

QFT. Looks like someone caught the subtle hint ;) But this is of course the evil cooporations' faults. Not the community at large.

Was it the "still on Ubuntu 8.04" part that gave it away?

[Dandel]

I actually don't think it's too much of a hassle, actually what one must remember is that the fglrx driver included in Ubuntu 8.10 is early, and buggy Beta at best, given i'd classify the monthly release as beta. So that said, i don't think that it's that bad that the driver does not work right this minute, and i know it'll be much better next month, and most likely the repository will give you an automated update within a few days of the fglrx 8.11 driver release.

[highlandsun]

Unlike Microsoft, which stops distributing its old OS releases (so that they don't compete for sales with their current OS releases), nobody is stopping you from booting a circa 2001 Linux image onto your machine if you really want to test some old hardware.

The pace of development is fast, but you don't need to keep up with it if the system you have today is working the way you want. In most aspects, my machines work the way I want. My current laptop is on Ubuntu 8.10beta, but I've only owned it for a month or two and I needed to install something new in order to get a working driver for the wifi. My old laptop still works fine on the last OpenSUSE distro I installed on it 2+ years ago, and likewise for my desktop machine from 3+ years ago.

Don't blame your problems on the Linux development model. In my experience the Linux development pattern still solves more problems than it creates. The kernel changes because the hardware environment changes, and it takes a lot of effort to keep up. (And IMO it's only barely; slowing down the pace would make things even more unbearable if you're frequently buying new systems.) But if your hardware hasn't changed in 3 years and the system is running the way you want, there's no compelling reason to keep tweaking the software. You only need to update the software when you know that there's a problem in your current code, or there's a new feature that you want.

Once you make the decision that you want some new feature, you have to pay the price. New = change = instability.

And yes, AMD *does* have to release a decent driver for Linux. It doesn't have to release one with all the bells and whistles that the gaming community demands, but there's a large market of professional/HPC work running Linux on AMD hardware, and they would lose an important market if they ignored Linux completely.

[Nille]

That isn't 8.10 in the repos, that's a beta of 8.11. You're missing my point entirely, yes.

Nope the Version in Intrepid is the 8.10 with a Hotfix for xserver 1.5 and not the 8.11

[downhillgames]

Unlike Microsoft, which stops distributing its old OS releases (so that they don't compete for sales with their current OS releases), nobody is stopping you from booting a circa 2001 Linux image onto your machine if you really want to test some old hardware.

The pace of development is fast, but you don't need to keep up with it if the system you have today is working the way you want. In most aspects, my machines work the way I want. My current laptop is on Ubuntu 8.10beta, but I've only owned it for a month or two and I needed to install something new in order to get a working driver for the wifi. My old laptop still works fine on the last OpenSUSE distro I installed on it 2+ years ago, and likewise for my desktop machine from 3+ years ago.

Don't blame your problems on the Linux development model. In my experience the Linux development pattern still solves more problems than it creates. The kernel changes because the hardware environment changes, and it takes a lot of effort to keep up. (And IMO it's only barely; slowing down the pace would make things even more unbearable if you're frequently buying new systems.) But if your hardware hasn't changed in 3 years and the system is running the way you want, there's no compelling reason to keep tweaking the software. You only need to update the software when you know that there's a problem in your current code, or there's a new feature that you want.

Once you make the decision that you want some new feature, you have to pay the price. New = change = instability.

And yes, AMD *does* have to release a decent driver for Linux. It doesn't have to release one with all the bells and whistles that the gaming community demands, but there's a large market of professional/HPC work running Linux on AMD hardware, and they would lose an important market if they ignored Linux completely.
You seem to of taken the inverse of what I said and tried to give it as a counter-argument. Are you actually suggesting that old hardware should only work on old distros? So, as time passes and you keep that extra video card or whatever around -- the one that you paid money to own -- "just in case," then that "case" just happens to come along and kick you in the proverbial nads, it's your fault for updating to a distro that's actually supported now days, versus the old one, but doesn't have support for your old card? And this is all on the basis that a stable development platform with, say yearly point releases can't keep up with new hardware...

Test old hardware? No, not testing, using old hardware. Why should I have to install an ancient, unsupported distro just to allow some hardware to work? Because the Linux development model says so. That's the only roadblock here. Let me give you an example:

Your grandma's video card goes out and all you have is that extra Rage 128 (or whatever) laying around, and you tell her she's going to have to go back to a super-old distro that doesn't have nearly the same feature set as what she's used to, has known security vulnerabilities, and that she'll have to apply her own patches, (re)compile a bunch of stuff from source, etc. to keep using it ...that's totally her fault, not the Linux development model, right? Good luck selling that in a box at Best Buy. I can hear the screams to put her back on "that new-fangled Windows XP thing that worked fine before" already.

Also, the driver's stability and features should come before adding support for some X-Server revision that the update-infatuated Linux users insist on using. A lot of Linux users will stick on 8.04 for a year or so yet; considering how small of a number of Linux users there are in the world, I don't think any of this really matters anyway. Did you ever stop to think that most consumers in general bought their desktop cards to play games on Windows XP/Vista, and NOT to hope to use it on a feature-lacking Linux install? Anyone who's sane will want to stick with their working Ubuntu 8.04 install that has support for more than the next year (so even if they don't want Ubuntu 9.04...). My question is merely, "Why can't my old hardware work on Ubuntu 8.04, too?" The answer is because: A) Nobody can/wants to update the old r128 FOSS driver, and B) The platform has changed so much in the last few years that the old driver can't even load anymore.

You argue that a fast-paced development platform creates more benefits than problems, apparently the market agrees with you. Oh, wait... nevermind.

Think I've said all I'm going to say :D

[highlandsun]

You seem to of taken the inverse of what I said and tried to give it as a counter-argument. Are you actually suggesting that old hardware should only work on old distros?

Of course not. I'm saying that when something doesn't work on a current disto, you still have the ability to go back to an older distro if you need it. Having a choice here is better than having no
choice.


Also, the driver's stability and features should come before adding support for some X-Server revision that the update-infatuated Linux users insist on using. A lot of Linux users will stick on 8.04 for a year or so yet; considering how small of a number of Linux users there are in the world, I don't think any of this really matters anyway. Did you ever stop to think that most consumers in general bought their desktop cards to play games on Windows XP/Vista, and NOT to hope to use it on a feature-lacking Linux install?

What does that have to do with anything? You seem to have lost the point of your own thread... Any consumers who bought their systems for the purpose of running Windows obviously don't care one way or the other what Linux or any other OS does.


Anyone who's sane will want to stick with their working Ubuntu 8.04 install that has support for more than the next year (so even if they don't want Ubuntu 9.04...). My question is merely, "Why can't my old hardware work on Ubuntu 8.04, too?" The answer is because: A) Nobody can/wants to update the old r128 FOSS driver, and B) The platform has changed so much in the last few years that the old driver can't even load anymore.

You argue that a fast-paced development platform creates more benefits than problems, apparently the market agrees with you. Oh, wait... nevermind.

Think I've said all I'm going to say :D

The Linux development model doesn't force old drivers to break and stay broken. Anyone who wants to can pick up the old code and fix it. The fact that nobody has wanted to fix the R128 driver so far isn't the fault of the development model. If you really need it urgently, and you can't fix it yourself, you can easily hire someone to do it for you. With a closed-source platform, you can't do anything, you're just SOL.

I still have a couple of Sony Minidisc data drives here; the last OS that Sony/Microsoft provided drivers for was Windows95. I was able to hack it to load under Windows98, but after W2K and WXP came around it was totally dead. Still, I was able to write a driver for Linux (I originally wrote it back in 1999) and I can still use these drives under Linux today. You seem to believe that Windows is perfect in always supporting old hardware, but obviously that's false. You seem to believe that the Linux development model forces old hardware to become unsupported and again, that's obviously false.

[downhillgames]

Quit spamming the thread now with off-topic crap.

@ your last post, yeah, 'cuz nobody dual-boots. And my point was that you don't have to compromise right now in XP to use old hardware, but you do in Linux. Without writing any code or doing any extra work; just install the driver and go.

Go find another thread to misunderstand. shoo.