Are AMD HD video card users all using older versions of GNU/Linux?

[Yfrwlf]

an idiot that can not do ./configure&&make&&make install is nicely prevented from installing crap - until they see a oh-so-easy-and-friendly zeroinstall installer.

Linux will definitely be successful on the desktop with that attitude, no doubt about it. You should open a window once in a while in that basement.

[energyman]

people can install apps easily with the installation tool of their distribution. No need to deal with tar balls. If they think they need a tarball - it helps to.. you know, use it from the original homepage, not some russian blog. And zeroinstall helps you what? hm? which problem does it solve? none that could not be solved better without that really bad crutch.

Also I really recommend you these two links:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/userfriendly1.php

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid1.php

read and think about it.

[Yfrwlf]

people can install apps easily with the installation tool of their distribution. No need to deal with tar balls. If they think they need a tarball - it helps to.. you know, use it from the original homepage, not some russian blog. And zeroinstall helps you what? hm? which problem does it solve? none that could not be solved better without that really bad crutch.

Also I really recommend you these two links:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/userfriendly1.php

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid1.php

read and think about it.

Every version of every Linux program will never be in every software repository. That's why you need to unfortunately deal with compressed archives for now. A package is easier than dealing with a compressed archive, because it actually integrates with your desktop. That's the point of Zero Install. DEBs and RPMs are dumb and fail, as you have to make one for every different version because they reference dependencies through language not standardized when it should be, so only extremely popular Linux developers will take the time and effort to do so, when it's so much easier just releasing a compressed archive of the binaries (tarball). I hope that Zero Install will thus start to gain more traction as a better solution than a tarball in the future. Also, if there were Linux packaging standards that the major package managers made themselves compatible with, your "repository" would have no bounds other than the bounds you set for it. That would be a much greater software freedom. Your access to software is one factor that deems how "free" it really is.

Any way, packaging standards are fairly unrelated to this topic, which is about Xorg standards, but really I just wanted to know if other users were having to stick with older kernels and Xorgs who are on newer cards, while still having 3D functionality. I want the open source drivers to improve like anyone else does, but I also need 3D now, and wondered what others were doing to get it.

[Wyatt]

Oh wow, I haven't written this much in a while.

Every version of every Linux program will never be in every software repository.

You do realise that that is a good thing, right? There's no reason to keep deprecated and unsupported software floating around in package managers, too; we already have enough problems with things like that.

That's why you need to unfortunately deal with compressed archives for now.

Where "you" is "the package maintainer." With a decent package manager, a user will be able to find pretty much anything they could want and never need deal with format issues. Can you name something the average user would want that isn't found in your PM?

A package is easier than dealing with a compressed archive, because it actually integrates with your desktop.

Before you go railing for standardisation, please define this "integrates with your desktop" phenomenon.

That's the point of Zero Install.

No, the point of ZeroInstall is ostensibly to allow a user to install software that hasn't been provided already in userspace. However, there are things that I don't want in every user's default $PATH. Why should users be allowed to circumvent that without me knowing and possibly screw their accounts up? Or worse, use an exploit to escalate privileges? Come to think of it, ZeroInstall isn't just a bad idea, it's a terrible idea.

DEBs and RPMs are dumb and fail, as you have to make one for every different version because they reference dependencies through language not standardized when it should be, so only extremely popular Linux developers will take the time and effort to do so, when it's so much easier just releasing a compressed archive of the binaries (tarball).

While I'm not a fan or user of a Deb- or RPM-based distro, I don't see how this automatically makes them "dumb and fail." Hell, even I know that there's a debhelper script that makes debs pretty easy. Even better, the alien utility converts between a bunch of different binary package formats, so if you can make a tarball, you're set. Write a shell script for building your packages and call it a day.

I hope that Zero Install will thus start to gain more traction as a better solution than a tarball in the future.

For reasons stated and more, don't hold your breath.

Also, if there were Linux packaging standards that the major package managers made themselves compatible with, your "repository" would have no bounds other than the bounds you set for it. That would be a much greater software freedom. Your access to software is one factor that deems how "free" it really is.

You know, as a user, I think you really need to think about why things aren't in your package manager already. If you understand the role of your distro, then it shouldn't be a very deep thought, either.

Anyway, @topic
I've actually been using the git drivers for Xv, not bothering with things that need 3D, and have been getting by quite swimmingly considering they're pre-alpha drivers in my case (haven't pulled more recent ones in weeks, and uptime reports 58 days). That's an HD2600, btw.

[Yfrwlf]

You do realise that that is a good thing, right? There's no reason to keep deprecated and unsupported software floating around in package managers, too; we already have enough problems with things like that.

Yes, what was I thinking, it's great having to package one program over and over again for every version of every distro out there, easy!

You've got your head in the sand and you just aren't getting it.

Users are always stuck on older versions of software instead of the latest releases, unless it's Firefox or security-related. They should be able to have the latest version easily if they want it, but right now they can't, because my first paragraph was sarcasm and you will never be able to accomplish this, not to mention it's a waste of time and energy to compile things five billion times.

Ugh responding to these comments is getting really old. It comes down to this:

A) If you like the way things are now, with being stuck on certain versions because the developers, if you are LUCKY, may have released one package specific for your Linux installation, with forcing developers to deal with packaging software for several versions of a thousand different distros instead of just releasing ONE package, the way it should be, like with Zero Install, if you don't think that's a headache and don't realise that your selection of easy to install software packages would be greatly expanded if packaging was done correctly and distro companies weren't assholes, fine, good for selfish little you.

B) If you know that your choice of easy to install Linux software is being reduced because of a lack of universal software packaging standards, and you'd rather not give developers one more headache to worry about when writing software for Linux, because you think Linux needs all the software it can get, and you'd like to create an atmosphere of true software freedom for Linux users, instead of being in walled gardens until they INSTALL A DIFFERENT OS to gain access to more Linux software when there should be no need to do so, and it's not just for you but you want this for OTHERS too and for Linux to succeed on the desktop, which effects ALL Linux users, go you! Thanks for caring!

You're type A. I'm type B. I care, you don't.

No, the point of ZeroInstall is ostensibly to allow a user to install software that hasn't been provided already in userspace. However, there are things that I don't want in every user's default $PATH. Why should users be allowed to circumvent that without me knowing and possibly screw their accounts up? Or worse, use an exploit to escalate privileges? Come to think of it, ZeroInstall isn't just a bad idea, it's a terrible idea.

Wow. Yeah, attack Zero Install for some random reason, and say it's not for easy installation of Linux programs. How narrow minded can you possibly get. The "point" of Zero Install is for several reasons, that's because it has several features, and ideally a package manager would be able to be very configurable so that you can specify exactly where and how you want to install packages. Universal Linux Packages need to be dumb, with lots of metadata defining things, so that managers are free to put everything where they want to.

Whatever you may think about Zero Install, it's just one program and anyone could make a manager deal differently with Zero Install files, but perhaps the actual packages need more information to allow administrators or computer users to be able to install them how they want to.

Regardless, that wasn't the point, the point was at least someone is trying to address the issue even though the solution is for the existing managers to adopt at least one universal format. They don't care about your freedom though, because they want you tied to proprietary packages. That's one way they get businesses attracted to their platform and thus their support, by having their package repos big so that users are won over by it's size.

You know, as a user, I think you really need to think about why things aren't in your package manager already. If you understand the role of your distro, then it shouldn't be a very deep thought, either.

Um, how about to get users access to Linux software, the software they want, ASAP? The role of an OS should be to get the hell out of the way, and get users to what they want. That's how Linux will be successful, and making your manager compatible with one or more universal package formats would greatly help accomplish this.

I recognise a feature when I see it, but apparently you don't. For the sake of Linux adoption, I hope more users will push for universal Linux packages.

[Wyatt]

I wish I could say you were trolling at this point, but you put so much effort into it. Are you for real? And I'm asking an honest question here: do you actually believe the things you're saying here?

I sincerely hope not. It's honestly incredibly insulting if you do. That you would have the gall to insinuate anything remotely close to the idea that distros are bad or out to get you? Distros that spend all of their time taking flak from both users and upstream, trying to unite a bunch of things that only coincidentally at times work together into a solid, stable and usable release that is pleasing to people like you? Distros that spend countless hours testing, verifying, and testing again, to at least make the best effort they can to ensure that a bad package doesn't get into the public repositories and ruin productivity for thousands of users? Distros that make tough calls like moving to X.org 1.5 and the HAL config system, or choosing to go with KDE 4.0 despite the issues? You would really have the nerve to sit there at your desk and belittle those efforts with something as feeble as "But I can't get the newest software easily?" I can't even properly articulate in words just how insulting that is.

Ignore me if you must. Degrade my opinions, refute my arguments with platitudes, and even dare to say something as ridiculous as "I care, you don't." But don't even go there with devs and distros. I'm not a fan of a lot of distros, and in fact, don't really like a lot of them, but I respect the work they do and why they do it. Your distro isn't a monolithic gestalt entity that is unapproachable; that "holds you back" from the "software [you] want, ASAP" and to think that way is just tragic.

But if you truly do not understand; if you truly don't see any of my points, then it's for the best if we stop this. Maybe you'll understand in time.

[energyman]

why is it bad to not have the lastest version of appX? Most people do not need to care about version numbers. For almost all users it does not make a difference if they have gcc 4.3.2. 4.1.2 or 4.4.0 installed. Same for X. Or gnome (ok, with the latest version there might be a handfull of options less).
Security? Well, the distros backport the patches so that argument is instant fail.

[AdrenalineJunky]

agreed ^^^

as long as you use a little common sense when you pick your distro you probably shouldn't run into a whole lot of problems with not being satisfied with your package version.

and if its really that important to you use something like arch or sidux...

[Yfrwlf]

Yes you're right, easily installing any version of any app on any distro would be a horrible feature. You love your walled gardens, so stay in them then, have fun. I just thought it would be great if Linux users of a particular distro, say Ubuntu or Moblin or Android or whatnot, could easily install and run any Linux software, but I'm insaaaaaaaane I guess. ^^

Guess I'll stick to Zero Install and simple binary packages then, instead of other systems which could easily exist which would be a lot friendlier to the user. ZI is pretty nice tho once you install it.

[energyman]

there is an easy way:
./configure&&make&&make install

Now, if crapbuntu. shitdora and suckse would start installing headers by default, that would remove almost all problems people have with manually compiling stuff.

There is no need for crutches like 'zeroinstall'. And 'one package working everywhere' is not working unless you make use of static binaries - memory waste and security problems, here we come - or every package bringing everything it needs with it - yeah, dll hell just like in windows, also: security problems still there.

as soon as distros stop acting idiotic (something you can not expect from 'lets break everything' fedora or 'lets make packages worse, never work with upstream and screw debian over' ubuntu).