Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: The Good & Bad OpenGL Drivers On Linux

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Not really because the blog post also centered around how willing the developers were willing to work with bugs they found, in which case Mesa responded VERY quickly (typically same day for the bugs referenced). Also if the open source drivers SUPPORT something it typically WORKS. Maybe its not the fastest but personal experience is if they say "This WORKS" then it does. There's no "Well we say we support it but it doesn't actually work in practice." Maybe its not the fastest but they tried their best to be ACCURATE. Which is the point of one of the bugs mentioned-- Mesa supported VBO's, Dolphin used VBO's. They 'worked' but they weren't that fast and there was a couple minor issues. Bugs reported, patches submitted, patches accepted. All in a matter of hours, with a personal thank you from the mesa devs to the dolphin devs because they didn't have a real-world workload prior to actually run that code path-- now they do.
    I think you meant to say "UBOs" there... if Mesa didn't support VBOs properly we'd be having one hell of a problem lol.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    Try this link. Or this one. Pages and pages of results from the Fedora forums of people who had failed upgrades. And just to show that I'm not picking on Fedora, here's Debian.



    The plural of anecdote is not "evidence". There is no proof that any particular distribution is any more successful at updating than others (for what it's worth, yes, distributions should really do a better job of tracking this stuff). Ubuntu is the most popular distribution, and there are many PPAs from which users install random packages and versions, so there may well be more upgrade failure reports than some other distributions. It's possible. But that's not proof.

    The fact is that the upgrade problem is a hard one, especially coping with random packages that users may have installed, or old versions that may still be present. It's a weakness of current Linux distributions. It's the reason why Android just blows away the old system install on every upgrade. I think that's probably the only way to do it 100% reliably.
    Nearly all of those people were using yum to update. That doesn't work reliably which is why fedup was created. The one instance I found in those two links where fedup failed (but DIDN'T harm the system) was when the person tried to fedup a remote system he leased/owned. Who knows how those servers, or maybe just vps, would handle the way fedup works (that is, it downloads all the necessary packages, reboots system with new initrd so updates aren't happening on a live system). It's supposed to be atomic, and from what that person said, it indeed didn't update his system.
    Of course fedup has problems as well, but the solution is a better one than bootstraping with yum/apt.
    Also, I hope we can all agree that this indeed shows that there is no substantial difference between yum/apt

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Also, I hope we can all agree that this indeed shows that there is no substantial difference between yum/apt
    I am interested in that. If Fedora has to write a separate update program, but Debian updates just fine with apt-get (at least I had never any problems with any of my Debian systems), how can there be no substantial difference? I am curious, what is it exactly that prevents an upgrade using yum from being successful?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    Wasn't Ubuntu the first distribution to provide a service that builds and distributes binary packages uploaded by any user in a personal repository?
    Even if that was the case, the argument here was that using an old distribution and replacing the whole OS core with components from an unofficial PPA was somehow better than simply using the latest distro release.
    The Dolphin Emu team should just suggest to use the latest release instead of bitch about itů

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    I think you meant to say "UBOs" there... if Mesa didn't support VBOs properly we'd be having one hell of a problem lol.
    Yes, I did mean UBO's. not sure why I was thinking V instead of U, but thanks for the catch.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    I am interested in that. If Fedora has to write a separate update program, but Debian updates just fine with apt-get (at least I had never any problems with any of my Debian systems), how can there be no substantial difference? I am curious, what is it exactly that prevents an upgrade using yum from being successful?
    It's not specific to yum but to the correctness (or rather the problems) or updating a system in place. It can work, but it can also fail...badly. With snapshots this is mitigated, but that isn't a general solution.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    And which driver is "The ugly" one?
    S3's driver.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •