Mesa 12.0.4 Being Prepped For Ubuntu 16.10/16.04

[dungeon]

Explain to me why Ubuntu and derivatives apply "compatibility profile" by mesa while Fedora or Opensuse apply "core profile" on the same hardware (see at the page 3 of this thread for any reference about this dichotomy)

I think he explained to you that your example from page 3 is not really good one, as if you check 53 and 55 version of Chrome info you get is different even on the same OS, which means that likely just app actually changed something.

[dungeon]

And really file a bug, if you see any functionality is affected with this difference that should be a strong point if you see anything different there.

But keep in mind that 'fglrxinfo' list compatibility profile version on both Ubuntu and Fedora, while core by 'glxinfo' is a bit lower 4.4 and with fglrx gles is actually missing , but with amdgpu-pro it say 4.5 for gles which is version that does not exists

[DanL]

Explain to me why Ubuntu and derivatives apply "compatibility profile" by mesa while Fedora or Opensuse apply "core profile" on the same hardware

I already explained it. It is up to the application. Ubuntu provides core profile like Fedora. Please give the glxinfo from your Ubuntu if you don't believe me:

glxinfo | grep version

see at the page 3 of this thread for any reference about this dichotomy)

The only thing you showed was output from Chrome. I already explained that the difference you see is because chromium/Chrome changed how they create contexts in version 54
- If you used Chrome 55 on Ubuntu, you would see OpenGL 3.3 in the info
- If you used Chrome 53 on Fedora, you would see OpenGL 3.0 in the info

[getaceres]

I'm currently on Manjaro, having used nearly every distro I could find. While I do see the point of having stable and LTS distros for servers, they're somewhat broken for desktops.

If all the *testing* they do for the SRU was really needed, I'm pretty sure rolling and semi-rolling releases would have loads of problems, which is just not true. Most of the bugs I see reported again and again on the Launchpad just don't happen on Manjaro and Arch. Do you know why? Because they had been fixed upstream. Seriously, if Arch can get pretty much every package out there up to date and still work better than Ubuntu, I can't see why they can't update to the latest upstream after some more testing. You know, like Fedora does. That's the right way of doing a desktop distro, IMHO.

Except when it doesn't work.

I've been using Manjaro for some weeks at work and I was pleased with the idea of running the latest GNOME and software packages as they were released until one day I arrived at work and the computer refused to enter in graphical mode. I was thrown to a text log in. I tried to see the boot logs but I couldn't find anything suspicious. I tried manually starting gdm but again I got a "can't connect to bus" error which I didn't know how to solve. After some hours, I decided to give up and installed Ubuntu 16.04 which was working for months without any of those issues.

When I need to get work done and I can't spend a whole day debugging some bogus update of systemd or whatever other package, I rely on a LTS desktop which is reliable. At home, where I might have time to try to debug this issues because it's fun and I don't have to do work "right now" I can play with a rolling release. I think there's a market for both, LTS distribution and rolling releases.

[Azrael5]

I already explained it. It is up to the application. Ubuntu provides core profile like Fedora. Please give the glxinfo from your Ubuntu if you don't believe me:

glxinfo | grep version

The only thing you showed was output from Chrome. I already explained that the difference you see is because chromium/Chrome changed how they create contexts in version 54
- If you used Chrome 55 on Ubuntu, you would see OpenGL 3.3 in the info
- If you used Chrome 53 on Fedora, you would see OpenGL 3.0 in the info

now I verify

[Azrael5]

I already explained it. It is up to the application. Ubuntu provides core profile like Fedora. Please give the glxinfo from your Ubuntu if you don't believe me:

glxinfo | grep version

The only thing you showed was output from Chrome. I already explained that the difference you see is because chromium/Chrome changed how they create contexts in version 54
- If you used Chrome 55 on Ubuntu, you would see OpenGL 3.3 in the info
- If you used Chrome 53 on Fedora, you would see OpenGL 3.0 in the info

You are right: the release versions of chrome following the 53 take benefit from core profile also in ubuntu distros Iv'e made the test on Kubuntu by 56 beta release of chrome.

[tmpdir]

Crap, just installed 'ubuntu 16.10 desktop' on a system of a friend that wants to use it as a homeserver / workstation / citrix station.

It has a AMD HD6530D and is about four years old and... unsupported according to amd's site. AMD's opensource approach is great, especially for the goverments I work for, but come on.... who buys hardware with such short live spans? Well... fine, going for unsupported opensource drivers (he can forget his helpdesk now).

Not much experience last 6 years with amd and the information on the internet is very fragmented on this subject. Am I understanding correctly that:
- ubuntu 16.10 includes outdated drivers?
- the included opensource drive is mesa, but the included binairy choice is something from AMD that is not available on their website?
- amdpgu drm is not available for the HD6530D?
- do I need to install mesa 12.x of 13 for this gpu? since its an older model (without benefits I prefer stable over bleeding edge for workstations)

What a mess!

p.s. both included drivers with ubuntu 16.10 are terrible, feels slow, scrolls with micro pauses and images appear a bit slower then I'm used to on much slower WBT's using intel igp's.

[tjaalton]

Phoronix: Mesa 12.0.4 Being Prepped For Ubuntu 16.10/16.04

Ubuntu is preparing Mesa 12.0.4 for Ubuntu Xenial and Yakkety users. It's not as great as Mesa 13, but at least there are some important fixes back-ported...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...repping-Ubuntu

And they both now have 12.0.6 in the -proposed pocket, 16.04.2 will ship with this! This also allows pushing newer versions to xenial-backports, so the turd-polishing can commence!