Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Whoops, X.Org Server 1.9 Gets Another RC Today

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Yeh, get rid of nVidia. That'll show 'em.

    Way to go, get rid of the Linux graphics solution with the best all-round functionality and performance. We don't need their kind round 'ere. Who needs working graphics anyway?
    Excuse me while I am trying to not shout out in caps what I feel like when I am talking to you:
    1. nVidia has working graphics? Cool, now how about that K-M-fscking-S for starters?
    2. Point me to a graphics card that is still in use that is not fully accelerating X.org due to driver difficiency.
    3. Point me to a driver that has slower 2D performance than nVidia's blob.

    So X.org should not care about that blob because it simply works with all cards. Period.

    What is needed than? Ow I get it: if you want to runs games than nVidia's blob is required and if you can't run X than you're screwed. So what's the problem? X? No it is Mesa. If nVidia would just only release a blob that can slide in place with the Noveau driver and add some (note: not IP/patent/copyright-ridden) FLOSS voltage controll and standby stuff to Noveau than problem solved!

    What are we even talking about here?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Excuse me while I am trying to not shout out in caps what I feel like when I am talking to you:
    So this is were you tell me I should be using ATI right?

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    1. nVidia has working graphics? Cool, now how about that K-M-fscking-S for starters?
    ATI has working graphics? Cool, now how about that tear free video for starters?

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    2. Point me to a graphics card that is still in use that is not fully accelerating X.org due to driver difficiency.
    Evergreen cards running on an nForce chipset for starters.

    If you're suggesting that on the whole fglrx is better than nVidia blob then we'll have to disagree.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    3. Point me to a driver that has slower 2D performance than nVidia's blob.
    Well now that fglrx 10.6 has addressed this then that's fine and dandy unless you need something that it wont do.

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    So X.org should not care about that blob because it simply works with all cards. Period.
    Rubbish.


    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    What is needed than? Ow I get it: if you want to runs games than nVidia's blob is required and if you can't run X than you're screwed. So what's the problem? X? No it is Mesa. If nVidia would just only release a blob that can slide in place with the Noveau driver and add some (note: not IP/patent/copyright-ridden) FLOSS voltage controll and standby stuff to Noveau than problem solved!

    What are we even talking about here?
    Stop being ridiculous.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Yeh, get rid of nVidia. That'll show 'em.

    Way to go, get rid of the Linux graphics solution with the best all-round functionality and performance. We don't need their kind round 'ere. Who needs working graphics anyway?
    The problem is why the hell X devs care about some damn blob? They don't care about compatibility with fglrx, but they care about freaking nvidia. It's nvidia which should care about compatibility and the Linux kernel devs understand this.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    The problem is why the hell X devs care about some damn blob? They don't care about compatibility with fglrx, but they care about freaking nvidia. It's nvidia which should care about compatibility and the Linux kernel devs understand this.
    Well you do have a point if the xorg devs have no interest in the health of fglrx but they do with nVidia because we need both companies as first class citizens.

    That's not to mention Intel, VIA, et. al.

    We need the most hardware support we can get.

    What indicates to you that the xorg guy's aren't into fglrx so much?

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mugginz View Post
    Well you do have a point if the xorg devs have no interest in the health of fglrx but they do with nVidia because we need both companies as first class citizens.

    That's not to mention Intel, VIA, et. al.

    We need the most hardware support we can get.
    This is true. However, I do believe nvidia would follow our rules if it wouldn't be treated like the first class citizen.

    What indicates to you that the xorg guy's aren't into fglrx so much?
    It seems they don't care if they break compatibility with the fglrx driver, because it happens all the time afaik, but they care when they brake compatibility with the nvidia blob in the rc X.org version by removing obsolete code which is used only by nvidia driver. If nvidia devs are so lazy I wouldn't care. Fglrx team has always to care about compatibility and nvidia probably has not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Given that it seems the xorg guys want to depreciate some code it'd be nice if nVidia put it into their plans going forward to remove their dependency on that code. When reading the xorg-devel list it doesn't seem like an urgent requirement to remove the code by any means though.

    One thing I don't support is any "hang 'em high" mentality that's for sure. I don't get why some people are so quick to reach for nVidia's throat.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    2. Point me to a graphics card that is still in use that is not fully accelerating X.org due to driver difficiency.
    Umm..
    http://www.x.org/wiki/ExaStatus

    Work in progress:

    tdfx

    s3virge (Copy only currently)

    r128 Joseph Garvin SoC

    No work started, but capable of Render acceleration:
    glide

    glint (supported in KAA), Coming soon (ShawnStarr)
    i740
    imstt
    newport
    impact
    rendition
    trident (supported in KAA)
    voodoo

    No work started, some chips might be capable of Render acceleration:
    apm (via the voodoo rush)
    cirrus (laguna?)
    neomagic (256XL+ was the only one with a 3D engine) (supported in KAA)
    cyrix/nsc (new GX2s have an alpha combiner)
    sun{ffb,leo}

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    This is true. However, I do believe nvidia would follow our rules if it wouldn't be treated like the first class citizen.

    It seems they don't care if they break compatibility with the fglrx driver, because it happens all the time afaik, but they care when they brake compatibility with the nvidia blob in the rc X.org version by removing obsolete code which is used only by nvidia driver. If nvidia devs are so lazy I wouldn't care. Fglrx team has always to care about compatibility and nvidia probably has not.

    Maybe because the NVIDIA driver is the real only working-feature-rich GPU driver for Linux. Tell me about another driver that works good, is stable, is feature rich, is performant, like NVIDIA.

    Maybe FGRLX? -> must be a joke
    Maybe Ati oss driver? -> that's another joke.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Wait.. since when is nvidia supposed be stable, feature rich and performant?

    I've had (and still have) enough driver related crashes, there are plenty of features nvidia will never have due to being closed source, 2d performance is still crappy in certain use cases and I never figured out why it'll sometimes take several seconds to maximize an xv window.


    Granted, nvidia is one of the better drivers around, and if it fits your needs, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not flawless, it's not the only driver that's usable, it's not even the best driver in all situation.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    Wait.. since when is nvidia supposed be stable, feature rich and performant?

    I've had (and still have) enough driver related crashes, there are plenty of features nvidia will never have due to being closed source, 2d performance is still crappy in certain use cases and I never figured out why it'll sometimes take several seconds to maximize an xv window.


    Granted, nvidia is one of the better drivers around, and if it fits your needs, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not flawless, it's not the only driver that's usable, it's not even the best driver in all situation.

    I'm not aware of a software that is "best" in all situation. However in a general case, NVIDIA blob is the best GPU driver for Linux. Xorg drivers can't kill something that works for most cases, do you guys realize this?

    I'm the first one to hate blob drivers, and that's why I only have AMD gpu cards combined to open source drivers but still, I understand why Xorg can't just kill compatibility with NVIDIA blob.

    They care about their users and are realistic. I can't say the same for a lot of you out there.

    Blind extremism is the thing I hate most in the GNU/Linux world, even more than a blob driver.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •