* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 14:40]: > DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a > better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but > brushing Utah as a thing "in the past" is, at best, cluelessness. If > *you* had trouble setting up Utah drivers it doesn't mean that > *everyone* will have them.
Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' -- something that once upon a time worked, but does not work any longer. Under this definition, the transparent cryptographic filesystem is "in the past" -- it worked with Linux kernel 2.0, but not newer releases. It might have been very good, and served the needs of its users well. It still provides functionality that hasn't been supplied by other packages. But it too is in the past, because it requires an older version of software than most people want to run. It seems clear to me that Utah-GLX fits this definition nicely. (Otherwise, Terry wouldn't be pissed right now. :) Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
