Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Having problems w/ fglrx? Try Ubuntu

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Having problems w/ fglrx? Try Ubuntu

    I've used debian sid on my laptop for years. The fglrx driver would NOT cooperate. Minimized windows would take about a second to unminimize while using compiz (even with the open source radeon driver), and I couldn't log out of my session (be it gnome, openbox, w/e) without freezing my computer. Not to mention that installing it was a bitch (for 64 bit) - had to extract installer contents, make sym link for some library, and repackage. 64 bit flash didn't work, it just sucked.

    Recently I tried ubuntu 8.10 - and it's like night and day. They basically held my hand when I installed it (using the AMD installer), the 2d/compiz performance has no issues whatsoever. Plus, I can log out of my f***ing system.

    Just thought I would share this with people who are frustrated with AMD's fglrx. Try ubuntu.

  • #2
    What a good idea Ubuntu 8.10 patched the Xserver for compiz, which leads to problems with KDE4 - try Kubuntu 8.10 and you see artefacts before the actual menus or whatever are drawn.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      What a good idea Ubuntu 8.10 patched the Xserver for compiz, which leads to problems with KDE4 - try Kubuntu 8.10 and you see artefacts before the actual menus or whatever are drawn.
      Yeah I guess it is a pretty obvious thing to try... but I targeted that towards people who had problems regardless of what desktop or wm they were using (like me) and just wanted to be able to log out of their flippin' computer.

      Comment


      • #4
        I use fglrx on my laptop running Kubuntu 8.10. No problems whatsoever. Even resizing is bearable (same speed as with radeon really). Yeah, Ubuntu is one of the easier distros to work with when it comes to fglrx.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, Ubuntu is definitely better, but has issues of its own. If you need HW support that only a newer kernel gives you that can be problematic as Ubuntu has a specific kernel build process. Although it can be done, building a new kernel from a tarball is not routine. To make life easier one should grab the kernel source via an official Ubuntu .deb if it is available. For example, I needed 2.6.28 under Intrepid and ended up building it from the 2.6.28 Jaunty .deb. At first I tried building from a kernel.org tarball, but quickly learned the error of my ways. Doctor, it hurts when I do that....

          Comment


          • #6
            Well the current jaunty build needs hotfixes because it needs a wifi package which is not available in intrepid. But you can hack that out Or just use my builds *g*.

            Comment


            • #7
              Kano brings up a good point. It's another Ubuntu annoyance. Ubuntu tries to be all things to all people. So a bewildering list of unneccessary modules is loaded by default. 90% of them are not needed by most users and of the remaining 10% half can be safely compiled into the kernel.

              Comment


              • #8
                A loaded module is never unnessarary. But the 2.6.28 kernel is much more static than any other kernel before. It can be booted without initrd if needed on most systems when you don't use root=UUID=...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nbi1 View Post
                  At first I tried building from a kernel.org tarball, but quickly learned the error of my ways. Doctor, it hurts when I do that....
                  Interesting, back in my Debian days (on this laptop) I would use a ubuntu .config on a kernel.org tarball. Worked fine, but my GPU still blew. Is what you are talking about only for 2.6.28? I think i used either 26 or 27

                  EDIT: Nevermind - got my logic mixed up. But once I did compile a kernel from kernel.org remotely on a friend's computer. But regardless I still want to know more about this kernel build process. Sounds kinda lame...
                  Last edited by oaul; 02-17-2009, 03:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Building kernels is never lame .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Melcar View Post
                      Building kernels is never lame .
                      Oh I agree - I meant to say I only build from UBUNTU once and there were no problems. I think at the time it was 7.04 and 2.6.20's. I just want to know more about what makes Ubuntu different. And if it is different, then that's lame. Otherwise, it's awesome.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nbi1 View Post
                        Yes, Ubuntu is definitely better, but has issues of its own. If you need HW support that only a newer kernel gives you that can be problematic as Ubuntu has a specific kernel build process. Although it can be done, building a new kernel from a tarball is not routine. To make life easier one should grab the kernel source via an official Ubuntu .deb if it is available. For example, I needed 2.6.28 under Intrepid and ended up building it from the 2.6.28 Jaunty .deb. At first I tried building from a kernel.org tarball, but quickly learned the error of my ways. Doctor, it hurts when I do that....
                        Well, I always build my kernel from the official tarball, there's no special method or source package, just the usual:

                        tar xjf linux-xxxx.tar.bz2
                        make menuconfig, make && make modules && make install && make modules_install
                        update-initrd -c -k x.x.x

                        and finally update /boot/grub/menu.lst.

                        For this you need build-essential, ncurses-term and libncurses5-dev.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X