| |||||||||||||||||||
Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train?
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 19:19 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > In the real world, you're asking Fedora to do something to enable > > binary drivers which goes against it's goals. And then you're whining > > about it when we say no. > > Oh yea, to have one developer spend one day to provide a compatibility > route for a large number of Fedora users is just *way* too much to > ask...sheesh... > > I'm not asking for someone to spend a year full time on this, it would > only take about one day's worth of effort as far as I can see. That's so adorably misguided. Let's see. Compat packages for the X server and every driver. That's about sixty new packages, all of which have to go through new package review. Even if they're all perfect, you're looking at a good 30 minutes apiece just to get the things into CVS, then another hour or so until everything manages to bubble out of koji. Except, of course, that they won't be perfect, since they'll file-conflict with the non-compat drivers. So you'll have to add explicit Conflicts to each of now ~120 packages. Okay, more like an hour for each package now, since we're having to test packaging behaviour. Ooh, and now we're picking up an additional set of packages to apply stability fixes to. So, uh. ?A week and a half of doing _nothing_ _else_, when I'm already clearly overscheduled. A good solid sixty hours of work, plus a continuing time investment of essentially a whole new current distro to support, ?a level of time investment that I wouldn't sign up for for RHEL for less than seven figures of revenue. All to continue to make some binary driver work. How's no sound? Is no good for you? No's great for me. Let me put this as politely as possible: compatibility X server packages are out of the fucking question. I've refused them in paid supported products for strong technical and support reasons, and I'm not about to start doing them for free just to get my jollies preserving interoperability with someone's binary blob. - ajax -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list (Log in to post comments)
Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train? Posted May 22, 2008 19:20 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Well put. Whiners should whine to NVidia if they've fallen for the siren-call of Blobby H.W. Binary.
Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train? Posted May 23, 2008 10:19 UTC (Fri) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link] Whilst I agree with fedora's stance on the matter, I don't see why they would need to provide compat packages for every driver. Since this was proposed for nvidia users, you wouldn't need any other compat video driver packages, just input devices.
Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train? Posted Jul 6, 2008 15:20 UTC (Sun) by ajamison (guest, #52794) [Link] Wow you know I am not a developer but I agree with you here. My view is this when NVidia decides it is time for an updated driver to work with the current Xorg version then they will. Generaly speaking between the two power house Graphics card vendors (ATI and Nvidia) Nvidia has allways been quicker to realease new drivers and generaly been more supportive of open source developers.
Re: Xorg 1.5 missed the train? Posted Jul 6, 2008 16:07 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] ... if you ignore ATI hiring open source developers to work on open source drivers and opening their docs, sure. Nvidia has been supportive of people who want to use their cards on Linux systems and don't care if the driver is free or not, but that's as far as it goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||