On Friday 28 July 2006 12:28, Harry Smith wrote: > The "full speed" groups seems to be of the opinion that NV and ATI > will solve the problem if Fedora adopts the Xorg 7.1. Frankly, I > think this is a bit naive. ATI & NV have need incentive to move > forward for Fedora. If RH did the upgrade that broke the NV and ATI > drivers something would happen. (BTW when is RH planning to move to > Xorg 7.1, I have no idea how to find that out.) RHEL5. I'm assuming your "RH" refers to Red Hat Enterprise Server. We don't do major version upgrades in RHEL, that's part of it being Enterprise themed (: > But the "full speed" has done this before and FC survived. Look at > the problems when FC 5 first deployed and the less experienced users > could not add packages if they were not attached to the Internet > until they learned how to fake out yum. If this is the final path, > I hope that people on the forum will be more understanding than when > FC 5 first deployed. > > I would like to remind the "full speed" group of another clause in > the objectives for Fedora; > > Emphasize usability and a "just works" philosophy in selecting > default configuration and designing features provided by Fedora. > > This seems to be broken with the deployment of Xorg in FC5. Incorrect. FC5 will continue to "just work" if you use the included driver set. You've gone beyond the default configuration to install binary drivers. You lose the "just works" with every kernel update. That's the fate you have to deal with when using binary out of kernel drivers. When FC5 first came out I could have sworn nvidia drivers didn't work for it for a period of time. Whoops. Should we have held up the release of FC5 until Nvidia caught up? I think not. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpn1PzWPiVNm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
