Posted Dec 15, 2009 20:50 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
The real point being that, while said work has held things up in the past, it was not blocking the merge for 2.6.33.
Posted Dec 15, 2009 20:56 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
All I am suggestion is that if you are going to quote Linus verbatim you should be be quoting Dave's rebuttal in an effort to show some balance... because the truth of the situation is tied up in the communication between those two people. If you aren't making an effort represent the dialog between the two of them..then you are misrepresenting the truth.
Posted Dec 15, 2009 21:30 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
Now, it could have been about the technical history of Nouveau, though LWN has covered that before. It could also have been about the legitimacy of Fedora shipping a driver that it had no intention of merging, but that didn't seem interesting. I wanted to talk about this week's events and the future.
If I have badly misrepresented things, I apologize.
Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:01 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
You could have just focused on the posts in the thread that talked to the current legal problems concerning signing off on the binary blob as part of a merge. Both of the Dave Arlie references I gave above include some discussion about the sign-off issue which you could have selectively quoted from. There's something significantly important there I think in the premise that Red Hat legal review has a higher bar to meet on sign-off into the upstream kernel than what is required to include in Fedora.
And if you wanted to be overly sensational there's the short lived Alan/Linus sidebar discussion concerning what the agreed on rules concerning sign-off and merge actually are such as the following:
Posted Dec 15, 2009 23:00 UTC (Tue) by jwboyer (guest, #23296)
Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:13 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
The links are there
Posted Dec 16, 2009 12:21 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355)
In this case I agree with Jon, the focus of the article was fine.
Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:01 UTC (Tue) by Tracey (guest, #30515)
As much as I wanted to be able to use the nouveau driver I couldn't; it just wasn't ready(tearing, crashing. etc).
When time is permitting, I like to test out new things, and I've been trying to stay on top of fedora's nouveau drivers(usually getting the rawhide versions): but I still haven't been able to get the newest nouveau drivers from fedora to work.
For fedora users there are two ways to get decent 3d graphics to run on newer(past 3-4 years) nvidia cards. The first one is to go to nvidia's site and download nvidia's drivers, which I have avoided for a few years now. The second way is to use the rpm-fusion repository and install the nvidia drivers in a way that(I find) is less intrusive to the system.
I can understand red hat's position on this: That binary blob belongs to nvidia. The red hat / fedora developers have their hands tied on this. Unless Linus has some personal assurance from nvidia that nvidia won't be it's usual jerky self; distributing nvidia's property is not a good thing.
Posted Dec 15, 2009 22:47 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
In any event the Nouveau team appears to be well on their way to creating their own replacement, which should make the uncertain legal status of the captured blob irrelevant.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds