On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:50:43 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> All I remember is that even after endless fiddling, I couldn't get 3D
>>> acceleration to work. (Actually producing a picture didn't require any
>>> special attention at all.)
>> 
>> Yes.  *Used* to be.  Not anymore.
> 
> When last I heard, all the nVidia and ATi offerings for Linux were a
> half-empty token gesture. I'd be surprised if they seriously changed
> their minds about it... but stranger things have happened.

Well, I've only got a laptop in front of me with an NVidia chipset and a 
second one with an ATI chipset in it, and both work flawlessly with 
acceleration enabled.  Am I imagining it?  I don't *think* so. ;-)

>>> OK, to be completely clear: It booted, but X wouldn't run.
>> 
>> That's quite different from "the Linux partition was non-bootable",
>> which is almost a direct quote of what you originally said.  X not
>> running is something that used to be an issue with a kernel update. 
>> It's rare now.
> 
> I didn't do anything to the kernel - I changed the graphics card. And
> witout X, I have *no idea* how to configure X. (Well, without
> reinstalling anyway. And that's so much bother...)

XF86Config used to be the way to do it.  And it actually wouldn't run (at 
least as I recall) if X was running - it required text mode.

> OpenSUSE has fixed this; you can now run the configuration tools in
> text-mode.

Text mode X11 configuration apps have been around for a while, longer 
than sax2, in fact.

>>> (E.g., klogic. It does almost exactly what I want. But it doesn't
>>> *work* properly. It randomly segfaults, and sometimes it GIVES YOU THE
>>> WRONG ANSWER. It's also fiddly to use for no good reason.)
>> 
>> And did you submit bugs against this, or did you just say "this thing
>> doesn't work" to yourself and go somewhere else.
> 
> Well, without an Internet connection, how am I going to file a bug?

You still don't have an Internet connection?  How did you obtain the 
Linux installation in the first place?

>>> Anyway, how much *commercial* software (such as big-budget games) are
>>> there for Linux?
>> 
>> Ever hear of Cedega?  Transgaming?  Loki Games?
> 
> Nope.

That doesn't mean they didn't (or don't, in the case of Loki) exist.  
Don't buy into the FUD that says "there's absolutely no gaming available 
on Linux AT ALL" and take it for the gospel truth.

>> If I can find a quality OSS solution for no cost, why would I look to a
>> commercial application?
> 
> There *is* that of course. ;-)

And the way the economy is going around the world, OSS applications are 
going to become more and more pervasive because of their low buy-in 
cost.  Start learning more about it and assume *nothing*.

>>> It's news to me that *anything* works under WINE yet. (But then,
>>> admittedly it's not something I follow closely. If I want to run
>>> Windows software, I just run Windows...)
>> 
>> Go and look at the Wine AppDB.  The list of supported apps is
>> significant.
> 
> Mmm, that's impressive. (Given that what Wine does should be impossible
> in the first place...)

Why should it be impossible?  Reverse engineering isn't impossible work, 
it's been done for hundreds of years.

If you see a finished Lego Technics car and have no instructions, do you 
assume nobody could ever build that same car again, even if they have the 
ability to take the one that's there apart?  Same thing applies to 
software engineering and identifying the inputs/outputs of functions.  
It's time consuming, but time consuming != impossible.

>>> Of course, it depends what you're trying to do with your PC...
>> 
>> Exactly.  And that's part of the reason why the approach of saying what
>> you said that got me started is the wrong approach.
> 
> Hmm. OK, now I'm confused. :-}

Mission accomplished! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message