Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whoops, X.Org Server 1.9 Gets Another RC Today

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

  • Whoops, X.Org Server 1.9 Gets Another RC Today

    Phoronix: Whoops, X.Org Server 1.9 Gets Another RC Today

    The second X.Org Server 1.9 release candidate was released earlier today after the first RC making it out just last week, but already the third release candidate is available to interested parties...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODM1Nw

  • #2
    Now I wish Nvidia will maintain the cruft they forced back in X... right?

    Comment


    • #3
      "X.Org Server 1.9 that dropped mioverlay support on the basis of it being "unused", but the NVIDIA binary driver happens to use the mioverlay support (the open-source drivers no longer do), so this 2,000 lines of code was added back into the X Server for NVIDIA's benefit."

      LOL no! don't support nvidia!

      Comment


      • #4
        So ATi constantly needs to catch up with X.org, but nVidia can just keep their legacy code? OK - What da fsck?!

        Let those muthafsckers work around it or som'?

        Comment


        • #5
          it's sad to see xorg strive to maintain compatibility with nvidia blob.

          i guess that explains what driver are most xserver devs running.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't see why you're complaining. Compared to NViDIA, ATI has just abandoned us. What good is releasing documents doing for us? Its great that we have acceptable opensource drivers, but not more than that. It seems they're only doing it to release pressure. Do you see anyone complaining about NViDIA drivers the way we see complaining about ATI drivers?

            Comment


            • #7
              BTW there are FLOSS drivers for every graphics card out there so why does X still cares about the nVidia blob? X.org already has Noveau for HW accel =S

              Leave the gaming performance to Mesa...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                So ATi constantly needs to catch up with X.org, but nVidia can just keep their legacy code? OK - What da fsck?!

                Let those muthafsckers work around it or som'?
                Exactly. It's just a joke! Ban this crap. It seems only Linux devs have balls to play with nvidia their way.

                @MiUX

                Do you see anyone complaining about NViDIA drivers the way we see complaining about ATI drivers?
                There are many people doing this, but in the different places like nvforums and nvidia nearly doesn't care about Linux users. AMD at least released documentation and works on Open Source drivers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why do they care? It's a bleeding edge RC server, do people actually expect to run blobs on that?

                  Anyway, 2000 lines just for nvidia..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeh, get rid of nVidia. That'll show 'em.

                    Way to go, get rid of the Linux graphics solution with the best all-round functionality and performance. We don't need their kind round 'ere. Who needs working graphics anyway?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                      Yeh, get rid of nVidia. That'll show 'em.

                      Way to go, get rid of the Linux graphics solution with the best all-round functionality and performance. We don't need their kind round 'ere. Who needs working graphics anyway?
                      Excuse me while I am trying to not shout out in caps what I feel like when I am talking to you:
                      1. nVidia has working graphics? Cool, now how about that K-M-fscking-S for starters?
                      2. Point me to a graphics card that is still in use that is not fully accelerating X.org due to driver difficiency.
                      3. Point me to a driver that has slower 2D performance than nVidia's blob.

                      So X.org should not care about that blob because it simply works with all cards. Period.

                      What is needed than? Ow I get it: if you want to runs games than nVidia's blob is required and if you can't run X than you're screwed. So what's the problem? X? No it is Mesa. If nVidia would just only release a blob that can slide in place with the Noveau driver and add some (note: not IP/patent/copyright-ridden) FLOSS voltage controll and standby stuff to Noveau than problem solved!

                      What are we even talking about here?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        Excuse me while I am trying to not shout out in caps what I feel like when I am talking to you:
                        So this is were you tell me I should be using ATI right?

                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        1. nVidia has working graphics? Cool, now how about that K-M-fscking-S for starters?
                        ATI has working graphics? Cool, now how about that tear free video for starters?

                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        2. Point me to a graphics card that is still in use that is not fully accelerating X.org due to driver difficiency.
                        Evergreen cards running on an nForce chipset for starters.

                        If you're suggesting that on the whole fglrx is better than nVidia blob then we'll have to disagree.


                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        3. Point me to a driver that has slower 2D performance than nVidia's blob.
                        Well now that fglrx 10.6 has addressed this then that's fine and dandy unless you need something that it wont do.

                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        So X.org should not care about that blob because it simply works with all cards. Period.
                        Rubbish.


                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        What is needed than? Ow I get it: if you want to runs games than nVidia's blob is required and if you can't run X than you're screwed. So what's the problem? X? No it is Mesa. If nVidia would just only release a blob that can slide in place with the Noveau driver and add some (note: not IP/patent/copyright-ridden) FLOSS voltage controll and standby stuff to Noveau than problem solved!

                        What are we even talking about here?
                        Stop being ridiculous.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                          Yeh, get rid of nVidia. That'll show 'em.

                          Way to go, get rid of the Linux graphics solution with the best all-round functionality and performance. We don't need their kind round 'ere. Who needs working graphics anyway?
                          The problem is why the hell X devs care about some damn blob? They don't care about compatibility with fglrx, but they care about freaking nvidia. It's nvidia which should care about compatibility and the Linux kernel devs understand this.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            The problem is why the hell X devs care about some damn blob? They don't care about compatibility with fglrx, but they care about freaking nvidia. It's nvidia which should care about compatibility and the Linux kernel devs understand this.
                            Well you do have a point if the xorg devs have no interest in the health of fglrx but they do with nVidia because we need both companies as first class citizens.

                            That's not to mention Intel, VIA, et. al.

                            We need the most hardware support we can get.

                            What indicates to you that the xorg guy's aren't into fglrx so much?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mugginz View Post
                              Well you do have a point if the xorg devs have no interest in the health of fglrx but they do with nVidia because we need both companies as first class citizens.

                              That's not to mention Intel, VIA, et. al.

                              We need the most hardware support we can get.
                              This is true. However, I do believe nvidia would follow our rules if it wouldn't be treated like the first class citizen.

                              What indicates to you that the xorg guy's aren't into fglrx so much?
                              It seems they don't care if they break compatibility with the fglrx driver, because it happens all the time afaik, but they care when they brake compatibility with the nvidia blob in the rc X.org version by removing obsolete code which is used only by nvidia driver. If nvidia devs are so lazy I wouldn't care. Fglrx team has always to care about compatibility and nvidia probably has not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X