X.Org Server 1.20.7 Released With A Handful Of Fixes For GLAMOR + Modesetting

[gedgon]

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

Dude, what a BS. I'm on Arch for more than 15 years, and I never, ever had to reinstall because I needed to. I have never experienced an issue with the distro itself that couldn't be fixed in less than 5 minutes (using chroot in the worst case scenario).

[skeevy420]

Michael
Help, Help, I'm trying to win an argument.

[skeevy420]

You can't start redefining words.

stable literally means not moving, firm, fixed.

99% of the work I do is inside containers, once the host OS is setup in a certain way I rarely touch it other than installing updates once a week.

stable adjective
Definition of stable (Entry 3 of 3)


1a : firmly established : fixed, steadfast stable opinions
b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying in stable condition
c : permanent, enduring stable civilizations

2a : steady in purpose : firm in resolution
b : not subject to insecurity or emotional illness : sane, rational a stable personality

3a(1) : placed so as to resist forces tending to cause motion or change of motion
(2) : designed so as to develop forces that restore the original condition when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion

b(1) : not readily altering in chemical makeup or physical state stable emulsions
(2) : not spontaneously radioactive

I'm not changing the definition. I'm going with 2a. You are using 1a or 1b. We're both correct, asshole.

Or are we both changing the definitional since we're not talking about where to corral a horse. You know, like in a stable.

Basically, words can have more than one meaning.

[Britoid]

You realize that a package manager is a noob helper, right? I guess apt shouldn't exist when we have "make && make install". Don't go full on absolute with noob helper hate.

Stable can be "not moving", "not having as many bugs", "moving with standards", and more. We can argue the semantics of stable vs stable all day long so lets just agree that we use stable with different meanings and not go here. I've had the stable vs stable argument a lot on Phoronix and don't feel like going there again (today) after this post.

For Manjaro, stability means: moving with standards.

For Ubuntu, stability means: not moving.

For Arch, stability means: cross your fucking fingers after you type 'sudo pacman -Syu'.

The problem with Arch users moving to Manjaro is they'll still do things the Arch Way instead of doing them the Manjaro Way. I know, I've had that one week crap effect me and it was because I didn't RTFM that Manjaro provided and was still doing things the way the Arch Wiki said to do them. It's like managing an Ubuntu system from Debian documentation -- most of the documentation will just work from Debian to Ubuntu, but Ubuntu does do some things differently than Debian and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you don't know about those differences. Arch and Manjaro are the same as Debian and Ubuntu in that regard.

You can't start redefining words.

stable literally means not moving, firm, fixed.

99% of the work I do is inside containers, once the host OS is setup in a certain way I rarely touch it other than installing updates once a week.

[skeevy420]

Manjaro isn't stable either. Stable means "not moving", rolling means "always moving", freezing Arch for 2 weeks does not change anything (and is pointless if you ask me).

Noob helpers are stupid too, they shouldn't exist. If a noob helper is needed something has gone wrong, and often the noob helpers create more issues than they're worth.

I've personally had an Arch install that was installed over a year ago and is still fine to this day, Manjaro last time I tried broke after a week.

You realize that a package manager is a noob helper, right? I guess apt shouldn't exist when we have "make && make install". Don't go full on absolute with noob helper hate.

Stable can be "not moving", "not having as many bugs", "moving with standards", and more. We can argue the semantics of stable vs stable all day long so lets just agree that we use stable with different meanings and not go here. I've had the stable vs stable argument a lot on Phoronix and don't feel like going there again (today) after this post.

For Manjaro, stability means: moving with standards.

For Ubuntu, stability means: not moving.

For Arch, stability means: cross your fucking fingers after you type 'sudo pacman -Syu'.

The problem with Arch users moving to Manjaro is they'll still do things the Arch Way instead of doing them the Manjaro Way. I know, I've had that one week crap effect me and it was because I didn't RTFM that Manjaro provided and was still doing things the way the Arch Wiki said to do them. It's like managing an Ubuntu system from Debian documentation -- most of the documentation will just work from Debian to Ubuntu, but Ubuntu does do some things differently than Debian and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you don't know about those differences. Arch and Manjaro are the same as Debian and Ubuntu in that regard.

[Britoid]

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

Manjaro isn't stable either. Stable means "not moving", rolling means "always moving", freezing Arch for 2 weeks does not change anything (and is pointless if you ask me).

Noob helpers are stupid too, they shouldn't exist. If a noob helper is needed something has gone wrong, and often the noob helpers create more issues than they're worth.

I've personally had an Arch install that was installed over a year ago and is still fine to this day, Manjaro last time I tried broke after a week.

[skeevy420]

That's why when you see people go "ARCH IS STABLE IT NEVER CRASHES" you have to remind them that no, distro stability does not refer to crash rates.

Anyone who says that probably reinstalls their Arch box every other week. In damn near 10 years I've never had Arch stay, well, stable for a lack of a better word, for more than six months without a reinstall being helpful.

There's a reason I switched from Arch to Manjaro and I can assure you it isn't because a 20 year Linux user needs Manjaro's noob helpers.

[Britoid]

For workstations working on long-term projects and various servers, LTS does make sense because a feature update could completely screw a company or person's workflow or you could be using BTRFS and the updated kernel isn't quite happy with your file system configuration so goodbye data. That's because stability in a lot of LTS's means that the platform won't have any drastic changes and is, therefore, stable; not stability as in bugs are less likely to occur so our platform is, therefore, stable.

That's why, IMHO and for the most part, LTS is long-term stale and not long-term stability. All one has to do is look at random Steam bug reports to find all the examples they'd need that LTS isn't good for the average desktop user or new Linux user. The amount of LTS distribution users that have bugs and the non-LTS users going XYZ fixed that 6 months or a year ago is, honestly, hilarious.

....unless we're talking about projects like KDE Plasma or the Linux kernel that have both LTS and Mainline releases. In cases like that we're actually getting a long-term supported project and not SUSE or Ubuntu or *insert distribution here's* rendition of an LTS project. I've seen both Ubuntu and SUSE feature freeze at utterly retarded times like not waiting a few more days and using a Linux LTS release for their LTS distribution....nope, we're gonna stick with the kernel release right before the LTS release and backport a bunch of shit because that makes a lot of fucking sense.

I don't use Nvidia. Fuck Nvidia.

AMD FTW

That's why when you see people go "ARCH IS STABLE IT NEVER CRASHES" you have to remind them that no, distro stability does not refer to crash rates.

[skeevy420]

We need to move away from this 'LTS' line of thinking. LTS means little in the context of support of a free operating system, and it definitely doesn't suggest any sort of stability. Quite the opposite is usually true, as stability, bug fixes, and hardware support come from upgrading the Kernel and drivers. LTS releases are simply a point in time snapshot. While there may be smaller updates, they will rarely improve any of the aforementioned items.

One other thing: If you think NVIDIA is the least bit pressured by Ubuntu, you are wrong.

For workstations working on long-term projects and various servers, LTS does make sense because a feature update could completely screw a company or person's workflow or you could be using BTRFS and the updated kernel isn't quite happy with your file system configuration so goodbye data. That's because stability in a lot of LTS's means that the platform won't have any drastic changes and is, therefore, stable; not stability as in bugs are less likely to occur so our platform is, therefore, stable.

That's why, IMHO and for the most part, LTS is long-term stale and not long-term stability. All one has to do is look at random Steam bug reports to find all the examples they'd need that LTS isn't good for the average desktop user or new Linux user. The amount of LTS distribution users that have bugs and the non-LTS users going XYZ fixed that 6 months or a year ago is, honestly, hilarious.

....unless we're talking about projects like KDE Plasma or the Linux kernel that have both LTS and Mainline releases. In cases like that we're actually getting a long-term supported project and not SUSE or Ubuntu or *insert distribution here's* rendition of an LTS project. I've seen both Ubuntu and SUSE feature freeze at utterly retarded times like not waiting a few more days and using a Linux LTS release for their LTS distribution....nope, we're gonna stick with the kernel release right before the LTS release and backport a bunch of shit because that makes a lot of fucking sense.

I don't use Nvidia. Fuck Nvidia.

AMD FTW

[betam4x]

GNOME still disables Wayland on the Nvidia driver because it's generally buggy and XWayland hw acceleration doesn't work (no games).

I imagine KDE has the same latter bug.

The KDE situation is equally as bad. Due to XWayland, pretty much all GPU operations are via llvmpipe. This means no GPU acceleration at all for NVIDIA users. It is not currently possible to use KDE or GNOME under Wayland without XWayland.