Re: virt-manager - libappindicator-gtk3 - remmina
by Kevin Kofler
poma wrote:
> Did I really missed something important in this respect, or in a parallel
> universe you guys use Unity on Fedora?
Indeed, you missed:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/196343.html
libappindicator is now (since Fedora 22) also REQUIRED for GTK+ system tray
applets to work under KDE Plasma. (Plasma 5 no longer supports the legacy
XEmbed-based system tray protocol that the builtin GTK+ classes implement.)
Please DO NOT REMOVE libappindicator support from your packages. Instead,
actually ADD it where upstream supports it and it is not yet enabled in
Fedora.
Kevin Kofler
8 years, 11 months
default btrfs partitioning setup
by Neal Becker
I have an older setup created by anaconda from 2013, and it looks like
UUID=7246327b-1905-4fe2-9b6b-b9376017264f / btrfs
subvolid=5,subvol=root00 0 0
UUID=2c04be93-34c1-4016-ba41-60fd9fd90616 /boot ext4
defaults 1 2
UUID=7246327b-1905-4fe2-9b6b-b9376017264f /home btrfs
subvol=home 0 0
So we have only 1 disk. There is 1 btrfs partition, but root and home are 2
different btrfs subvolumes. This is a good setup IMO, since I can reinstall
the OS without touching home.
I recently got a laptop and did F21 install using btrfs, and I believe I
used automatic partitioning. This time, I got just 1 btrfs subvol with home
as a subdir, which does not offer the flexibility.
I suggest the default for btrfs should be as shown above, with home on a
separate subvol.
--
Those who fail to understand recursion are doomed to repeat it
8 years, 11 months
Apology for being a troll ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
I don't know if I should waste the list's time any more than I have,
but I analyzed my responses in the two most previous threads on
nVidia, as well the software patent thread, and I have come to the
conclusion that regardless of what my initial posts might have been,
or what I had hoped to accomplish, I clearly broke down into more
of a "troll" in responding to a few individuals. I want to apologize
for those comments -- especially the latter posts.
Those who know me know I can clearly break down into almost a
self-defeating person in e-mail. I'm clearly much better at discussing
these details in person -- especially in a consulting or training
role, as well as in a formal, well-planned article or presentation.
For some reason the inpromptu rationale and choice of words
escapes me in e-mail, and I don't always handle responses the way
that would most effectively show my viewpoint. I showed some
greatly poor examples in the last few weeks.
So my apology. Again, I can honestly and with great humility admit
that well over half of my responses clearly fall into the "troll" type
of response, and I will be more attentive and objective will ensuring
any posts I make have more thought and to-the-point wit to them
in the future. Your forgiveness for my recent transgressions is
greatly appreciated, and I'll keep them at the forefront of my mind
when contemplating any future response.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: Fedora Core 5 Idea -- let's drop this ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
From: Sean <seanlkml(a)sympatico.ca>
> You're just wrong. The simple fact is that if you want to use open
> source drivers there are better options than those provided by nVidia.
And better than ATI, than Matrox, etc... I can play the game of
DRI/UtahGLX support for NV0x/NV1x (nVidia TNT-GeForce2) too.
I think people like yourself don't stop to realize they are applying
"double standards."
I can also "play the game" of nVidia's better MIT X11 "nv" support than
ATI's MIT X11 "radeon" support when it comes to 2D, especially
regarding video in/video out (VIVO) support.
So at what point do you actually stop to recognize that not many
vendors are really supporting "open source" other than maybe Intel
(possibly 3DLabs? I haven't checked) and that's _more_ than just
nVidia?
This is why _you_ are fixated on branding, _not_ me.
> No, the problem you've had is in failing to recognize that the brand
> doesn't matter.
Excuse me? That's _exactly_ what I have been saying and you have
not.
> All i'm saying is buy the best card you can that runs open source
> drivers.
> You haven't said once that nVidia open source drivers are superior to
> other offerings.
I have not made _any_ claims, other than the fact that demonizing anyone
who uses nVidia's Standardware (open standard, proprietary source) is
a double-standard compared to ATI, Matrox and other companies.
Especially companies like Matrox, who's DRI/UtahGLX drivers are for the
same generation as those for nVidia's DRI/UtahGLX support (circa 2000-
2001), and _not_ newer either.
ATI went a bit longer, through the R200 series (circa 2002-2003), before
closing up the specs. And as someone else pointed out, it wasn't ATI
who necessarily "supported" open source, other than releasing _some_
specifications.
Which leaves little more than Intel (I have not checked 3DLabs personally).
I'll not only applaud Intel, but I'll even buy their products when I just need
minimal GLX support. But the performance and features are very sub-par,
even on the i9xx series -- not enough to run many CAM/EDA application.
But I neither advocated, nor will ever advocate use nVidia over other
vendors for general usage. I stayed clear out of the threads _until_ it
reached a point where there were assumptions, half-truths and other
non-sense -- such as the junk you are throwing around. You do _not_
fight a marketing agenda with another marketing agenda, especially
one that is _not_ factual. That's has _always_ been my "problem."
> That's because cards from other vendors have _better_ open source
> drivers.
To what point? I have some NV0x/NV1x cards with UtahGLX that do
some things. I have some Intel cards. I even have a few ATI R200
series. On many I use the available, open source GLX. On many
others, I don't even bother with GLX, and just use the MIT 2D.
No issues/arguments there.
But when I have a CAM/EDA application that doesn't run on those
lesser GLX solutions, I'm left with 4 options -- each of which may
or may not be available:
1. Use ATI and/or nVidia's Standardware drivers
2. Use a 3rd party GLX product like X/Accelerated
3. Use a non-Linux POSIX/GLX platform like Irix, Solaris, etc...
4. Use the Win32/DirectX port if the vendor has one
According to you, I should be chastized for going with #1, along with
ATI and nVidia for supporting this marketing when they have absolutely
no legal way to do it with open source. That's _all_ I've ever said!
> Please try to understand this once and for all so we can stop this
> thread.
If you haven't noticed, you're keeping this thread going on right along
with me.
> What you want is the last word.
Oh, don't even try to be that hypocritical.
> You should have just let it die when Rahul asked it to die.
You're right, I should have. And maybe you should consider the same?
But no, you have repeatedly stated *1* company name based on your
assumptions and half-truths. *1* company over and over. You are
_no_better_ than the people who expect the Fedora Project to support
nVidia (let alone ATI, Matrox, etc...) Standardware drivers.
> Wrong again. I'm just dealing with the reality that the best open
> source supported cards don't come from nVidia today. I'd be just
> as happy as anyone else if that changed.
You are fixated on nVidia, get over it. You keep asserting things
that are _not_ true, that's my problem as an engineer.
> You've been decidedly intolerant of anyone who stands up and says,
> use open source solutions instead of binary only solutions.
This is what I'm talking about, you continue to demonize _anyone_ who
even sees a use for the Standardware drivers. All I _ever_ stated were
the reasons why people use the Standardware drivers, not that I
approve of them!
That's all! When are you going to stop and recognize what I really said,
and not what agenda you think I am spreading (and trying to counter
with your own)?
> All you hear is an attack on nVidia instead of a support for open
> source solutions. There are some very good graphic cards available
> today that are supported by open source. Unfortunately they don't
> come from your favorite supplier.
Any chance you're going to stop demonizing whatever I say to what
fits you?
All I have ever said is that nVidia was the company that offered a
solution for CAM/EDA applications on Linux when _no_one_else_
would -- that's all!
I would _love_ to see Freedomware (Open Standard, Open Source)
drivers be able to viably drive many CAM/EDA applications on Linux.
And when I don't need that capability, I don't use such a solution.
Why you continue to paint me as a nVidia "cheerleader," I don't
know. I guess you just want something to argue about. In fact,
that's _exactly_ why I started responding to you in the first place,
because you were going around chatizing people as bad as others
complaining about lack of Fedora support.
Again, damn me for trying to explain a "middle ground."
> That's because it is only nVidia cheerleaders who are constantly
> telling people (usually without reservation or caution) to embrace
> binary only drivers.
> If more of you would tone down your support for binary only
> solutions, you might get a different reaction.
Please point out where I have ... and let's be explicit ...
"constantly telling people (usually without reservation or caution)
to embrace binary only drivers"
That's the "bigotry" and other non-sense I'm talking about!
You demonize some of our statements for the sake of arguing!
> Well i'm glad to hear that;
If you'd stop and actually _read_ what I say, instead of demonizing
what I say for the sake of arguing, maybe, just maybe you'd realize
what we are actually saying!
> you should really spend more time telling people that open source
> solutions are preferable because you seem to spend way more
> energy justifying binary drivers.
I do! I have stated time and time again that people should not
only not expect the Fedora Project to support those Standardware
drivers, but that there is little reason to run with them for many
applications. I haven't had to do much of that on this board,
people like Alan, Rahul, etc... have done an excellent job.
But I alos do it _across_the_board_ on _all_vendors_, not just get
fixated on 1.
That's where your "bigotry" comes in, and then you "demonize"
anyone who doesn't agree with your "vendor list" -- which seems
to be everyone but nVidia. People ignore the previous XFree 3.3.x
releases, the UtahGLX work for NV0x/1x and the continued 2D
"nv" drivers.
Stop and listen to what I'm actually saying, not what you think I'm
saying or what agenda you think I'm pushing. I don't prefer nVidia's
products for many applications, and I typically just stick with Intel's
integrated i8xx/i9xx solutions for the majority of non-engineering
desktops.
But when it comes to many CAM/EDA solutions, I have the option
of these 4:
1. Use ATI and/or nVidia's Standardware drivers
2. Use a 3rd party GLX product like X/Accelerated
3. Use a non-Linux POSIX/GLX platform like Irix, Solaris, etc...
4. Use the Win32/DirectX port if the vendor has one
I don't see "open source" even listed there, so I can either choose
one of them, or just let a sale/integration go to another company
-- possibly with #3 or, quite often, #4.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
e: Fedora Core 5 Idea -- let's drop this ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
Sean wrote:
> Huh? You're reading something between the lines that just isn't there.
Dude, don't even go there. You have continually been making statements
like:
"We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop
spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia."
You have been doing it for _weeks_ now. You have singlehandedly made
it about *1* company, which is _just_as_bad_ as the original requestors.
That's been my _sole_point_.
Damn me for previously actually explaining why nVidia is the only
solution for _some_ people. I _never_ said there is "no alternative,"
and I am definitely _not_ a nVidia "cheerleader." But for some people,
they can and will use nVidia, as well as ATI's proprietary source drivers,
as well as Matrox's proprietary source drivers, etc...
You have continued to _demonize_ things, and in many cases, interject
_false_ technical information, along with a few, select others. This is
the problem with most "agendas," they tend to go past fact and into
false assumptions for political reasons, not technical reality.
That's the _only_ "problem" I've had.
> Anyway, let's do as Rahul asked before your first post on this thread,
> and let it go.
Actually, I was the one that use the phrase "let it go," shortly after
Rahul's. I futher refined that into coming up with a standard response
with Rahul most excellently delivered, and I think that does the job.
Now I don't have any "weight" here, and I don't assume to have any
either. But I've seen other people who aren't exactly "contributors"
throwing their weight, history and other credentials around, and
doing it a way that I would consider borderline "bigotry" (and
depending on how far people have been "explaining" things, some
might even qualify as "libel" but I doubt nVidia cares at this point)
on holding nVidia to one standard, but other companies to another.
And that would include yourself -- very much so -- because you have
singlehandedly associated "proprietary" with _only_ nVidia, and even
gone so far to stretch the notion to blame even ATI's moves on nVidia,
when the reasons were quite different. ATI closed up the specifications
for many reasons (several of my good colleagues that I used to work
with in the semiconductor industry are now at ATI).
I think Rahul hit-it-on-the-nose with his post:
> Would people stop discussing merits and demerits of particular
> brands of video cards and their drivers and market share in the
> Fedora development list. This is definitely off topic for this list.
> Kindly stop
Now at what point do you concede you are one of the biggest
hypocrites with regards to this response to me, given the context
I, Rahul and others have made?
Oh, nevermind, I forgot I was an nVidia cheerleader, so I might be
one of the people that are hurting open source.
Bigotry starts with labeling and intolerance driven by an agenda.
Again, I am so damn sorry I tried to explain things earlier from a
"middle ground," all while saying the Fedora Project should _never_
support proprietary source drivers, I have _never_ said otherwise.
You, however, seem to be solely fixated on nVidia. While you
might claim that is the issue, because of your frustration with
others who buy nVidia's product and use nVidia's drivers while
seeking support here, it does _not_ mean you can blame nVidia
for it all, and make statements that just are _not_ true. Be
objective, be considerate and stop the "reverse agenda," because
you too are making very vendor-blind statements. ;->
And don't assume we all use nVidia's drivers, or only buy nVidia
products. I only use their products+drivers if I absolutely need
them for an applpication today, and cannot wait 3-5 years. And
_no_, it is _not_ for gaming. Otherwise I typically go with Intel,
rewarding them for their efforts, or just use the MIT X11 "nv"
driver with the UtahGLX for older nVidia products that work well
enough.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver -- everything but open source is slavery?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> The last half of that second sentence is where I don't think you are
> going to find much support on this list for.
What, did Microsoft say it or something like it? ;-ppp
In hindsight, I probably should have phrased it differently.
In a nutshell, I think we agree to disagree between:
- People who think developers never want/need to register software
patents because there are no innovative ideas left or they shouldn't
be anything but disclosed freely (or some variation)
- People that think most software patents are common ideas, but
believe the answer is a much more strict process of granting patents
to those companies that are actually out money to develop new ideas
to remove the current "patent on a dime" non-sense. Ultimate the
most community-centric approach is to just try to get companies to
work together in a common patent pool, which removes the legislative
issues altogether.
Furthermore, I think I've made my other point that there is a difference
between:
- open standards
- proprietary standards
And that not all open standard, but proprietary source is necessarily
bad, although typically no where near idea as open soruce. But in
the end, we should all have the right to choose, based on what our
needs are which may or may not simply be "convenience" but other,
critical factors.
Lastly, there are the economical factors of not comparing flat
open licensing where everyone has the right to redistribute to
per-node costs which are not a license to redistribute.
> And do not be so arrogant as to assume that those of us who
> disagree with you on this point have not, in fact, looked at all sides
> of the argument.
If it's more than the simple 2 I've seen from some, then yes, I agree.
I will concede some people see some things my way, and that everything
else is just opinions upon opinions.
> We've just come to a different conclusion than you.
As long we agree that people can use the nVidia driver, as long as
they understand they are "on their own," then I think they can decide
the pros/cons for themselves. I would love to see many things GPL'd,
but the reality is that it's probably not going to happen for some time.
I just wanted to correct some false statements, I guess I took it too
far.
> You've posted your points, and I don't think continuing to reiterated
> them is going to win over many, if *any* people on this list.
> At the risk of being accused of trying to 'silence' you, I'm now
> politely asking that you take this discussion elsewhere...privately if
> anyone is willing to exchange email with you on the topic. We've wasted
> enough bandwidth on this already.
If anyone still disagrees with my summary above, please contact me off-list.
I won't post again on-list, even if someone else responds on-list.
Now, who's working on the init for FC5? I've started going through DBUS.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] (CORRECTION)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org>" <thebs413(a)earthlink.net>
> Hell, atop of all that, one thing that was a pleasant surprise is Sun Looking
> Glass. Once I hit the API, I realized how forward-thinking Sun is. E.g., even
> input is treated as a 3D via the "picker." Talk about realizing that we really
> need to end the days of 2D buffers upon buffers, independent, unintegrated
> layers upon layers, the sooner every system is GLX, the better. And best of all,
> Looking Glass it's GPL -- not any MPL-like license or even MIT advertising.
Just as a clarification, while I often refer to accelerated OpenGL (via libGL)
and OpenGL over X11 (GLX) interchangably, I do mean the former in most
cases -- where the latter is typically inherited for free.
I should make that distinction, because Looking Glass is not a GLX environment.
It is a completely different, but GPL Freedomware (Open Source, Open Standard)
environment with X11, GLX, etc... compatibility layers.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list]
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> Try enabling the Composite X.org extensions and KDE's transparency and
> shadow effects, then fire up glxgears and play a video with MPlayer.
> nVidia opensource drivers can't keep up with the work. However,
> propietary drivers can. And yes, I know most people don't need this,
> yet.
Eye candy aside, it _would_ be nice to get PC platforms out of the dark
ages of software-based and duplicate buffers and into the realm of
windows as GPU rendered planes. I'm not talking about X RENDER
where you merely use extra GPU framebuffer, but actually build the
desktop environment under the GPU's control.
Right now the _only_ platform that offers that well integrated is Apple
c/o QuartzExtreme. It's _not_ about eye candy, but _efficiency_. The concepts
of layer upon layer of overlapping, independent software buffers is rather
ludicrious. The problem is that GLX isn't standard, which means you can't
assume everyone has it.
Microsoft has already bumped the Windows Graphic Framework (WGF) 2.0,
fka DirectX 10, to post-NT6.0 Longhorn client release. Although
Avalon is still in for NT6.0 Longhorn client release, it is going to be in
the gutter, performance-wise, because the shipping WGF 1.0 is going to
be DirectX 9 based and largely still software buffers.
Now we've got innovative desktops like Xgl, and even the FreeDesktop
Cario implementations we're now starting to see in things like Enlightenment
DR17, as well as the next gen desktops. Without some good GLX solutions,
Linux/X is going to continue to be a plague of inefficiency.
Hell, atop of all that, one thing that was a pleasant surprise is Sun Looking
Glass. Once I hit the API, I realized how forward-thinking Sun is. E.g., even
input is treated as a 3D via the "picker." Talk about realizing that we really
need to end the days of 2D buffers upon buffers, independent, unintegrated
layers upon layers, the sooner every system is GLX, the better. And best of all,
Looking Glass it's GPL -- not any MPL-like license or even MIT advertising.
How we get GLX standard on the Linux desktop, I really don't care. It's all
GLX, and if that means that some vendors put us their first with Standardware
drivers, then don't knock them for putting forth the effort in the absence of
"clean room" endeavors. Hopefully GLX on most 3D hardware _will_ become
comodity, but at this point, it's quite the opposite.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list]
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
From: fedora-devel-list-request(a)redhat.com
> Actually you are tied to nVidia. Every time a significant kernel change
> comes out you have to rely on them to produce a new driver for you.
This has _yet_ to happen. At the most, there was a stack or other
configuration difference not in the stock kernel that required a quick
rebuild, nothing difficult to accommodate.
In fact, you complain about the "zealots" who blindly recommend
nVidia's drivers. Well, as someone who is not blind to _both_ sides,
I tell you I tire of "zealots" who _overstate_ the "quality" of Freedomware
DRI/GLX solutions versus nVidia.
Yes, I love a solution like an integrated GPU in a chipset that comes
ready-to-use, out-of-the-box. I love that Fedora Core 3 installed on my
i855GM system and immediately gave me GLX on first boot. I will
commend all parties involved on that.
But that solution is _not_ going to solve _real_ engineering needs.
Not now, and not likely in the future.
> If they tire of that exercise you are SOL or you'll have to go buy a
> different piece of hardware.
My mitigating factors are the reality that nVidia will not because of the
industry that deploys their solutions, and the continued, strong marketshare
as a result. This is a _far_better_case_ for risk mitigation that some
_blind_faith_ in ideals. Just because something is Freedomware does
_not_ guarantee it will be supported.
Many video cards and vendors have either gone by the way-side, or "closed
up." One only needs to look at the number of drivers that have gone
unmaintained in the 2.6 kernel.
REALITY #1: As long as open standards are adhered to, sometimes risk
is more about popularity when it comes to maintanence than philosophy.
And even if something goes unmaintained, by adhering to open standards,
it's a matter of changing the intermedia solution, such as hardware.
REALITY #2: As long as I stick to GLX applications, I have my _choice_ of
hardware with Freedomware or Standardware drivers.
BIGGEST REALITY: The cost and economies-of-scale of nVidia solutions
are the best "bang-for-the-buck" and if they are not supported some 1-2
years down the road, it will still cost me _less_ than buying an eccentric,
costly hardware solution, or relying on a poorly supported solution _today_.
I'm sorry, but in my industry, nVidia provides _excellent_ support. Yes,
the new 1.0-7xxx series drivers are flaky, but just like some of the other
series when they first came out. I've been sticking with the last revs of
the 1.0-6xxx drivers without issue, including supporting some of the latest
products.
And I've _never_ had a kernel incompatibility, sans only one case where
a rebuild of the kernel was required. But I've _never_ been without working
drivers.
> Why not just start out by buying a different piece of hardware that _is_
> supported by open source and reduce the risk?
Because the risk is _not_ reduced!
They their Linux drivers are often:
1) Less reliable
2) Far lower performing
3) Far less supported by the vendor
4) Often lag product release, heavily
> Sure, and there are open source solutions that accomplish the same thing.
> While nVidia may still enjoy a slight edge in performance and features
Okay, get off this. Sorry, this is a _bogus_ assumption.
I'm not talking about gaming here either!
> there are _very few_ situations that actually demand the extra capacity
> provided.
But those "very few" situations are a _major_ sustainment of nVidia's
Linux driver efforts. Not only for other companies, but do you know
how much of nVidia itself is Linux??? It's not just a majority, but a
massive and overwhelming majority. Linux drivers are a staple to
their own, internal IT need.
> So, if you want all the advantages provided by open source
> software the best choice is to avoid any solution like the one you're
> still promoting.
By "advantage," you are typically talking about "open" v. "proprietary"
in a blanket statement -- proprietary APIs, data in proprietary formats,
etc... The problem is that it isn't that simple because we are not talking
about "proprietary standards."
In the case of nVidia, the _only_ thing you are risking is that your hardware
investments will not be supported in the future. Given the cost of nVidia's
typical solution, it is chump change to lose compared to going with more
costly hardware and/or 3rd party drivers.
> No, that's a false analogy. There are _real_ risks when running binary
> only modules in kernel-mode. Those same risks don't come into play with
> binary only user applications. That's a big difference.
The reality is that that are real _needs_ to address issues at the kernel level
that cannot be done in a user-space driver, especially memory control. This
is not some "infestation" of user-space detail into the kernel, but things that
should probably be controlled by the kernel in the first place.
Now I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if nVidia GPL'd it. I would love to see
that. But I just know it's not legally possible at this time, at least not all
of it. I'm not "praising" nVidia for it, but understand that as long as people
are aware of the risks, then it's still using "open standards."
Unfortunately, you can't see to see the "other risk" we have in not deploying
nVidia as a solution. See #1-4 above.
> Not to mention there is a very real risk of you losing support for your
> beloved hardware.
But the _cost_ of using something else is _much_greater_! So what nVidia
provides me is _value_ in a Standardware product, that does _not_ expense
open standards, _today_. Not promises, not drivers for obsoleted products
with various product issues and quirks -- _real_, _working_ hardware.
Probably the biggest reality is the fact that nVidia is one of the _largest_
users of EDA on Linux, using their own GLX solution. They could _easily_
persuade the EDA industry to start supporting only their chipsets, but they
are dedicated to OpenGL. Maybe not as strict to the ARB that 3DLabs
wants, but fairly good.
So, once again, who is going to give me "less risk":
A) A Standardware vendor who is not only the producer of products and
drivers that adhere to open standards, but is also a _user_ in the same
industry as I?
B) Freedomware--er, excuse me--Commuware zealots that do not take
the time to understand the _real_ risks of going with _less_supported_
solutions.
There's quite a bit of "Hostageware hardware" out there now, because
no one's maintaining the hardware. With nVidia, I know that they are
going to continuing supporting Linux, at least in the near-term, because
they need it for themselves!
Especially for a product that is obsoleted in 12 months anyway, and
rarely used beyond 3-4 years.
> Again, a problem that doesn't exist in your analogy.
> Sorry, you are in that category if you fail to recognize that the vast
> majority of the time there are perfectly viable fully open source
> solutions. That's fine if you want to pursue them yourself, just don't
> come here and recommend the practice for others, it's bad advice.
I use nVu, and have since version 0.2. But I also use Macromedia
Dreamweaver. If I lay out the risks involved, and let others decide
for themselves, then I'm going to be damned on what I can and can't
say. Choice is the key.
Furthermore, I didn't even start this thread! My problem is that you
claim there are these "zealots" out there and what I'm telling you is
that you're doing the same, damn thing!
Especially given the fact that you are so oblivious to thing that no
"Proprietary" vendor could possibly reduce risk over an "Open" vendor.
Sorry, there's a good example in widespread use by doctors and law
firms for decades, Corel. And there are many others.
Risk is not about zealousy. It is about careful analysis of the risks
involved. But deploying nVidia, I not only solve my needs, but I
stick with POSIX/GLX applications on _Linux_. Without nVidia, many
solutions would have gone to Win32/DX, never to return. And even
if nVidia drops support -- which I've gone at length here to show
they will not for their own, internal sake -- then I merely switch to
another GLX solution. Given the increased cost of those solutions
in price/performance, I'm already getting the nVidia solution for
chump change, and benefit from their economies-of-scale.
> Supporting open source as a preferred platform is no more ideological
> than the arguments you're putting forth.
The problem is that "open source" is _not_ always the "preferred platform."
People take some concepts that work well against "proprietary standards"
and then assume they still have the same argument against "proprietary
source" but "open standards." The game changes there a bit. ;->
If a Standardware solution offers far greater feasibility and _reduced_
risk than a Freedomware solution, then it should be considered on those
merits, even if only limitedly or for specification applications where they
apply.
> Again, there are perfectly viable fully open source solutions today for
> the vast majority of uses.
Yes. And in many cases, I don't need GLX, so I use the "nv", "radeon"
or whatever, Freedomware MIT driver comes with XFree/Xorg.
And I have deployed UtahGLX, DRI and even Xi and other, partially
open/proprietary source solutions.
> There is nothing wrong with people promoting them over binary only
> solutions. Period.
Except when they introduce more risk.
> That's fine if you want to pursue them yourself, just don't
> come here and recommend the practice for others, it's bad advice.
That's the problem -- I did _no_such_thing_!
I merely tried to explain why so-called "zealots" aren't understood
by opposing "zealots" like yourself.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months
Re: OT: nVidia driver [was: Wish list] -- understanding the GPU market
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org>
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv(a)redhat.com>
> they actually work on it (well provide patches) so I don't buy this
> bit ;)
Okay, maybe their legal standing has changed since the last time
I looked at this (about 2+ years ago). Thanks for the heads-up.
>From everyone I know at nVidia, when they don't go GPL or MIT,
their hands are legally tied.
Kinda like Red Hat on the trademark proliferation issue that some
people don't stop to understand, and just want to demonize Red Hat
on. Companies have their legal reasons in many cases, and they
can't do much about it.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
8 years, 11 months