Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How The X Stack In Ubuntu 10.04 LTS May Look

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

  • How The X Stack In Ubuntu 10.04 LTS May Look

    Phoronix: How The X Stack In Ubuntu 10.04 LTS May Look

    Canonical's Ubuntu Developer Summit for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (codenamed Lucid Lynx) is taking place this week in Texas, but happening right now on the Ubuntu-X mailing list is a discussion about what the X.Org plans are for Ubuntu Lucid.Bryce Harrington, Canonical's principal X leader, has shared his views about the X.Org package set for Ubuntu 10.04. As far as the X Server goes, Bryce believes it is a question between the 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 releases...

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

  • #2
    Wow, so OSS 3D stack will still not be in good shape even in 10.04? Time to keep investing on nVidia's card then. Thanks for letting me know this

    Comment


    • #3
      How did you conclude that ? Michael was talking about fglrx...

      There will also need to be proprietary graphics driver support in Ubuntu 10.04 by the time it ships in April, which would give AMD only one shot (Catalyst 10.4) at delivering X Server 1.8 support, seeing as they tend to not focus on supporting new kernel/X.Org releases until they are officially out.
      ... not open source...

      The Mesa stack in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS should also provide "out of the box" support for ATI Radeon R600/700 series graphics.
      Last edited by bridgman; 11-18-2009, 11:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think they should go with 2.6.33 even if it means delaying the release to 10.05 or 10.06. Assuming the VMware stuff lives up to the hype, having it in could mean alot of new users.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ernodv View Post
          I think they should go with 2.6.33 even if it means delaying the release to 10.05 or 10.06. Assuming the VMware stuff lives up to the hype, having it in could mean alot of new users.
          Yes, Ubutnu fixed/inflexible release schedules are bringing a lot of troubles by using quick and dirty hacks by getting just some of the git fixes from upstream with mixed software versions. May or June could be better for release to get the all new already relased stable kernel/drivers/software (kernel 2.6.33 with xserver 1.8 and new stable or stabilized drivers) and do some good testing before release.

          Comment


          • #6
            So is there hope for OpenGL with OSS drivers on a 3870 with ubuntu 10.04? Inclusive playing games under wine?

            I'm a bit confused which X-server, Mesa and Kernel is needed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Maybe U gets a new fglrx beta for it, ATI only releases a driver with newer Xserver support when they are really forced by U. They never did something for Fedora or others which currently already use something newer than Xserver 1.6.

              Comment


              • #8
                Why blame Ati/AMD for what is likely to be Canonical's decisions?

                It is their choice to use or not use the latest releases, and some of their choices... such as potentially sticking to Xserver 1.6 when 1.7 is already out and potentially 1.8 will also be out seems to be... serious.

                You can't blame Ati/AMD if Canonical decide to use software that is almost 6 months "too old".

                Since we are in the time frame of RHEL 6... you never know, Canonical may decide to piggy back on Red Hat supported packages instead of Debian supported packages for their LTS.

                In short, support costs and I think that they have realised just how much it costs to support packages LTS... and ever since they have been trying to push the responsibility onto others - onto upstream by demanding difference release cycles, onto other distributions by asking for synced release cycles.

                Currently they are latching onto the work done by Debian, and well, Debian is conservative (and is also probably a year away from its next release date/plan to start freezing even more.)

                Funny thing is, while people can argue that Canonical can get away without investing in many areas because others are already doing so, graphics is one area where the extra manpower over the coming months/year or so could have a major impact on the whole thing. Just sponsor a developer or two to focus on one major chipset family. If Ati is covered (but I am sure some of the part time volunteer developers can be coerced to do the work full time), choose nVidia or even Via and gvet the whole stack up to speed.
                Last edited by bugmenot; 11-19-2009, 06:10 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hasenpfote View Post
                  So is there hope for OpenGL with OSS drivers on a 3870 with ubuntu 10.04? Inclusive playing games under wine?

                  I'm a bit confused which X-server, Mesa and Kernel is needed.
                  Mesa 7.7 should have atleast OpenGL 1.4 for the R6xx/7xx drivers.

                  If the GLSL work is backported from HEAD, it may even have OpenGL 2.0, but that seems unlikely as from watching Mesa 7.6 after branching, it seemed to only get stability fixes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just a thought if LTS is intended to be in use for several years then isn't it wiser to include support for new technologies/hardware at the beginning so there would be a chance that it will be able to support hardware which will appear over those several years? If included software/drivers will be outdated at the beginning then what can one say after a year or two? Maybe this approach can also lower the costs of support in the future as new hardware could be supported out of the box?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by maciejus View Post
                      Just a thought if LTS is intended to be in use for several years then isn't it wiser to include support for new technologies/hardware at the beginning so there would be a chance that it will be able to support hardware which will appear over those several years?
                      It would seem but the real question is is it thoroughly tested? With a LTS you want to put out something as stable as possible, and newer doesn't really mean more functional, or of benefit to the intended audience. A lot of core app's are only seeing upgrades to work with newer GCC and GLIB releases, not to add functionality. I'd guess that just like Windows Update, those of use that continually "apt-get upgrade" are a very small percentage of the user base. That's can be very dangerous in a corporate or server environment.

                      My experience is that typical end users have far more hardware/software than they need for their actual use - And they are not even aware of it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rjwaldren View Post
                        It would seem but the real question is is it thoroughly tested? With a LTS you want to put out something as stable as possible, and newer doesn't really mean more functional, or of benefit to the intended audience. A lot of core app's are only seeing upgrades to work with newer GCC and GLIB releases, not to add functionality. I'd guess that just like Windows Update, those of use that continually "apt-get upgrade" are a very small percentage of the user base. That's can be very dangerous in a corporate or server environment.

                        My experience is that typical end users have far more hardware/software than they need for their actual use - And they are not even aware of it.
                        I would tend to think that the percentage of Linux users that upgrade regularly, if not religiously (like myself), is much higher than the number of Windows users that do the same. Most Linux users tend to be more technically savvy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by thefirstm View Post
                          I would tend to think that the percentage of Linux users that upgrade regularly, if not religiously (like myself), is much higher than the number of Windows users that do the same. Most Linux users tend to be more technically savvy.
                          That's one of those things that usually go unchallenged, but I'm yet to see on what grounds it's based. Also, I don't see any correlation between this and the frequency of the upgrades.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            U LTS does not help you at all when you install extra packages than default. Debian provides much more security updates and pointreleases to the stable branch.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by thefirstm View Post
                              I would tend to think that the percentage of Linux users that upgrade regularly, if not religiously (like myself), is much higher than the number of Windows users that do the same. Most Linux users tend to be more technically savvy.
                              I would agree across the entire user base, it is likely higher. But in a corporate environment it's probably no different and ideally controlled by the admins. I've met alot office workers who consider themselves savvy simply because they can sum a column in excel. In fact I used to get request all the time from people building resumes about OS and network experience-they were Data Entry employees who only used a proprietary app that was booted to directly almost like a kiosk. Incidentally that particular system runs to this day on NT4. LTS is more directed toward those type of environments/users. If you want gaming/video and other special uses you have to play chase the version, and a side effect you'll be user testing for what goes into canonicals next LTS release.

                              Even those who do run a LTS version will only get security and "safe" approved updates unless they've done a dist upgrade or enabled special repos.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X