The nVidia card on my FC3 machine works fine, and other than building an new module and re-creating initrd to include the nvidia module after upgrading the kernel, I haven't had any issues for a while. On Mon, 2005-10-01 at 11:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:37:17 -0500, Paul Iadonisi <pri.rhl3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Take a deep breath, Jeff. ;-) Though I do think you are mostly > > right, you'll note that 'gslink@xxxxxxx' did, in fact, imply in his > > original post that it is nVidia that needs to provide an updated driver. > > Though I would be curious as to what the problem actually is, the > > implication didn't seem to be that the glibc update was the source of > > the problem, but rather that nVidia is lagging again. > > Scapegoating nVidia whenever an individual sees a video related > problem on their system, while fun to do, isn't particularly > constructive. Other than's gslink's naked claim that the problem is > widespread and everyone running nvidia drivers on the list should > avoid the glibc updates what evidence is there that there is a > widespread problem? Did gslink cite a discusion where nvidia > developers have ackownledged a problem? Did gslink cite an on-going > discussion among nvidia hardware owners where problems have been > cross-checked and confirmed on multiple systems? There isn't much > supporting evidence to suggest this is a problem with the nvidia > libraries or kernel drivers or even a problem associated with the > glibc update. There could be a number of problems that gslink is > misintepreting as being something inside the nvidia drivers. I think > gslink's initial post is classic FUD, and i strongly challenge the > call for avoiding the glibc update that gslink made, without more > supporting evidence beyond gslink's personal experience. His comment > about rpm saying files are missing.. speaks of deeper issues wholely > unrelated to how the nvidia drivers and libraries actually operate. > More likely than not he used nvidia's installer instead of the nvidia > rpms and forced the removal of the xorg-Mesa-libGL which provides > libGL.so.1 thus breaking the rpm dependancy chain for ANY application > that requires libGL.so.1. Sadly gslink hasn't provided us with any > specifics as to the exact errors he's seeing, so I can't be sure thats > the problem. We can't be sure of anything really other thank gslink > feels that avoiding the glibc update is the correct course of action. > > If avoiding the glibc update is something nvidia developers have > stated as a work-around to a widespread problem i demand the citation > to such an annoucement. Telling other users to avoid updating glibc is > pretty extreme in my opinion, and I want confirmation from multiple > sources that avoiding the glibc update is the prefered workaround... > otherwise this is at best unconstructive and at worst dangerous > advice. Luckily that glibc update wasn't marked as a security update , > if it were, I'd actually be angry at the suggestion that people > shouldn't update it. As it stands, im just slightly annoyed. > > -jef"There is a vast difference between asking for others to confirm a > problem that you are seeing and making a bold proclamation of a > solution to a widespread problem which you assume exists."spaleta > -- Guy Fraser Network Administrator The Internet Centre 1-888-450-6787 (780)450-6787