On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:37:45 +0100 Slavko <li...@slavino.sk> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks, i will try it. But i see, that you know more than I about this. > Please, can you describe me in short, what are differences between usage > the mesa-glx and the nvidia-glx?
The way I see it - nvidia-glx and mesa-glx are different implementations of libGL.so (and friends). Mesa-glx is a free software. Nvidia-glx is not a free software. Mesa-glx can work with any xorg video module they put into Debian main archive. Nvidia-glx can work with 'nvidia' xorg video module only, and they put it into non-free Debian archive along with nvidia-glx. >From the user's point of view, the difference between mesa-glx and nvidia-glx lies in the number of OpenGL extensions supported. > Are there some disadvantages or so? It > is possible and not dangerous to mix the nvidia driver and mesa-glx? Simple mixing won't work, in my experience. For example, trying to run 'glxgears' linked against nvidia-glx on the X server running 'intel' xorg module ends with: Xlib: extension "NV-GLX" missing on display "xxx". In Debian, at least, they provide 'glx-alternative-*' packages which allows the user to switch between different implementations of GL.so. Now, they say there's that 'bumblebee' project, which allows to run an X client on a NVIDIA video card while drawing on the Intel video card, but: a) The way I undestand it, their 'optirun' wrapper is preloading nvidia-glx GL.so to an executable, while everything is linked against mesa's GL.so. b) Luckily I don't have the hardware for which 'bumblebee' is necessary. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131224145629.8d02926170286a2e6850e...@gmail.com
