On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy > > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up > > > stabilization of a kernel > > > > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is > > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days > > pretty solid IMHO for my uses. > > last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i > dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia
Well ati's stuff has gotten much better over the last year. But really IMHO from my experience. It's entirely about your xorg.conf. Wrong config or etc and it will totally blow. In that regard nVidia seems to be way more tolerant, and maybe detects stuff at runtime, ati requires to be configed in xorg.conf. > my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that > i > do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds > for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable tree? I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our stable tree. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
