| 1 |
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy |
| 5 |
> > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up |
| 6 |
> > > stabilization of a kernel |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is |
| 9 |
> > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days |
| 10 |
> > pretty solid IMHO for my uses. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i |
| 13 |
> dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well ati's stuff has gotten much better over the last year. But really |
| 16 |
IMHO from my experience. It's entirely about your xorg.conf. Wrong |
| 17 |
config or etc and it will totally blow. In that regard nVidia seems to |
| 18 |
be way more tolerant, and maybe detects stuff at runtime, ati requires |
| 19 |
to be configed in xorg.conf. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i |
| 22 |
> do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds |
| 23 |
> for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open |
| 26 |
source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work |
| 27 |
with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable |
| 28 |
tree? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their |
| 31 |
systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the |
| 32 |
new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our |
| 33 |
stable tree. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 37 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives