Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Dirty List Of GPUs With Open-Source Drivers Gone Wildly Wrong

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

  • #41
    This:
    X1950PRO: failed to schedule IB when it came to Tesseract test...
    is a known issue:
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76558

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
      Fedora 20 is currently going with 10.1.4 which is afaik considerably higher than it originally shipped with. I don't consider it that unlikely that 10.2 would get in when it's final, the decision to upgrade from 9.x to 10.x probably took considerably more guts than 10.1 to 10.2 would. Fedora is not Ubuntu.
      I am not so shure about that, we will see, but if you look at the wiki they say they dont update shit except it has security fixes or is the kernel ^^ so a update 10.2 is not nessecary happening. But ok there is something about major and minor versions so u maybe are true.

      But again they delivered mesa 9.2 rc2 before it is officialy stable in fedora 19 so I am pretty shure they would have NOW 10.2 in a fedorra 21 version.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by TheOne View Post
        I would advice to anyone depending on open source drivers to better use a rolling release distro, is a dream come true :P
        Dont get me wrong Archlinux was one of the two candidates I considered and tested for switching. I have a archlinux installation on my Laptop still, and even installed it after tried to explain the advantages of both fedora and arch on the laptop of my brother. And installed fedora on the pc of my dad.

        Most advantages u get on both distries. And yes there are some small disadvantages fedora has maybe, like less good wiki as example. And some very exotic tools u have to compile yourself in fedora where u find a package in AUR.

        But there are some points why I know like fedora more:

        - more commitment to use nearly only free software (not good enough for fsf-recommendation but closer than any other mentioned distro)
        - sometimes better official packages or earlier, had to wait several months till I got mesa 9.2 while in f19 it was included as rc2. tried to compile 1hour the aur things didnt work 2 times.
        - the packages they deliver are better maintained by paid full-time working peolple.


        they are close, also yum works for me better, and even in gnome they have update-mechanism that works for endusers (my dad)

        ...

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by TheOne View Post
          You can much pretty say that archlinux is the distro that is guiding how others distros make things up. Arch was one of the first distros that started using systemd, and for now it has proven pretty stable, so thats why other distros are adopting it.
          Fedora:
          24 Jul 2010
          From: Lennart Poettering <mzerqung-AT-0pointer.de>

          Heya,

          I have just uploaded a new systemd and a new upstart package which make
          systemd the default init system for Rawhide.

          http://lwn.net/Articles/397383/


          Archlinux:

          2012-10-13 - Thomas B?chler

          The base group now contains the systemd-sysvcompat package. This means that all new installations will boot with systemd by default.
          So how sets the trends and others run behind it? No biggy just wanted to clearify a false statement.

          and more important the 2 original authors that are still developing on it, are paid redhat employes.

          AUTHOR:
          Lennart Poettering
          Kay Sievers
          ...and many others

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Bryce Harrington View Post
            You forgot to link to the detailed bug reports you filed upstream on each of the issues you found.
            Bryce, serious question.. one of the most common (several times a day) installation failures reported on AskUbuntu.com is basically "I tried to install 14.04 but at boot graphics fail/hangs" - the majority of these reports appear to be failures in radeon or nouveau - is there any point in reporting these on Launchpad? The obvious answer might be "yes" but I wonder if a) upstream is too far ahead of 14.04 for reports to be relevant, and b) whether "fails on radeon HDx (or nvidia x)" alone is sufficient information to help? Or is there anything else that you could do to get useful information from these reports (I guess most users would be happy to download and boot a test diagnostics iso for you, if you made one available).

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              The firmware should fix it, but AFAIK, even with current kernel Git the R7 260X re-clocking support is still disabled by default.
              It's enabled by default when the new firmware is loaded.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                2005 called. They want their hardware back.
                My father?s PC*contains a Radeon 9200 SE from 2004, and it is working fine (under Xubuntu 12.04 with a 1680?1050 screen). It can be useful to have recent information about old hardware (for example I?m trying to compare an Athlon 64 3000+ to recent processors, and it?s almost impossible to find any comparison).

                Comment


                • #48
                  When I ask Michael on Twitter about testing older hardware when comparing kernel releases (regarding power consuption), he responds that it's not interesting. I have a six years old laptop, I'm not sufficiently skilled to run the tests myself, but I want to know if newer kernel can help gain battery life. I'm not interesting, according to Michael. But I can't afford buy a 1000?+ laptop with top-notch components.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Morpheus View Post
                    When I ask Michael on Twitter about testing older hardware when comparing kernel releases (regarding power consuption), he responds that it's not interesting. I have a six years old laptop, I'm not sufficiently skilled to run the tests myself, but I want to know if newer kernel can help gain battery life. I'm not interesting, according to Michael. But I can't afford buy a 1000€+ laptop with top-notch components.
                    Power usage will depend heavily on what drivers you are using - what hardware your laptop has. I doubt any comparison michael did would mean much anyway, since it would be completely different hardware from what you are running.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      So why doing it on his hardware then ? Not all people run Linux software on less-than-a-year hardware. The ultrabook may be very cool, but I'm not a rich guy that can afford change my hardware each year. Doing the same tests (multiple kernels with power monitoring) on an older hardware makes sense.

                      Hardware support for older machines was already mentionned as becoming sometimes problematic. It IS interesting to see the kernel comparison then.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X