On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:12:32 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> I meant there are no Linux drivers for high-end hardware like
>>> expensive graphics cards. Clearly there *are* Linux drivers for lots
>>> of other things.
>> 
>> No Linux drivers for what high-end expensive graphics cards, exactly?
> 
> I didn't say "no", I said "few". And I was making a generalisation.

And a generalization that at least in the X world is not accurate.  Just 
because it's a generalization doesn't mean it's correct.

>> Most of those are now Nvidia or ATI IIRC, and there are Linux drivers
>> that support the majority of those cards, even with 3D (though you
>> often have to go to a proprietary kernel module for it).  I use both
>> the ATI and Nvidia drivers, so it's not exactly accurate to say that
>> those cards don't work well with Linux.
> 
> Things have improved since 2006 then. ;-) I wasted a whole day trying to
> get the nVidia drivers to work...

2006 is about 4 generations ago for openSUSE.  Yeah, things have changed 
since then.  The ATI drivers used to be a royal pain the ass to install 
and configure.  Not anymore.

> (Of course, a few months later I upgraded my graphics card, making my
> Linux partition non-bootable. That was roughly when I decided to just
> not bother fixing it.)

Probably rebuilding the kernel?  Otherwise, I can't see how a graphics 
card change would affect the hard drive at all.

>>> And by "a few" I meant more games and applications rather than
>>> drivers.
>> 
>> There's quite a large selection of software.  It may not be WoW, but
>> it's out there.
> 
> Sure. And it'll probably continue to get larger over time. But right
> now, it's still fairly modest by comparison.

You must be looking at different places than I.  Go have a look at 
sourceforge.net, freshmeat.net, and at the repository list for openSUSE 
at the number of packages available.  There's TONS of software for Linux.

Then add to that Windows apps that work with WINE (and that is growing 
significantly every month).  Now go find a Linux binary application that 
runs on Windows without something like Cygwin.

Now tell me again that you have more choice on Windows than on Linux.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:26:15 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> No Linux drivers for what high-end expensive graphics cards, exactly?
>> 
>> No accelerated Linux drivers for almost any graphics card.
>> 
>> ...I mean for DirectFB, not X :D
> 
> I don't know that that's a true statement, but I don't use DirectFB on my
> systems. :-)

In practice, I think DirectFB it's only used by embedded developers, and by
the people working on DirectFB itself :)

Post a reply to this message

>> Things have improved since 2006 then. ;-) I wasted a whole day trying to
>> get the nVidia drivers to work...
> 
> 2006 is about 4 generations ago for openSUSE.

Actually is was (IIRC) Debian at the time, but whatever. ;-)

> Yeah, things have changed 
> since then.  The ATI drivers used to be a royal pain the ass to install 
> and configure.  Not anymore.

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.)

>> (Of course, a few months later I upgraded my graphics card, making my
>> Linux partition non-bootable. That was roughly when I decided to just
>> not bother fixing it.)
> 
> Probably rebuilding the kernel?  Otherwise, I can't see how a graphics 
> card change would affect the hard drive at all.

OK, to be completely clear: It booted, but X wouldn't run.

>> Sure. And it'll probably continue to get larger over time. But right
>> now, it's still fairly modest by comparison.
> 
> You must be looking at different places than I.  Go have a look at 
> sourceforge.net, freshmeat.net, and at the repository list for openSUSE 
> at the number of packages available.  There's TONS of software for Linux.

Most of which is only marginally functional.

Don't get me wrong, there *is* some seriously quality software out 
there. But there's also a lot of stuff that doesn't work very well. 
(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.)

Anyway, how much *commercial* software (such as big-budget games) are 
there for Linux?

> Then add to that Windows apps that work with WINE (and that is growing 
> significantly every month).

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...)

> Now tell me again that you have more choice on Windows than on Linux.

Most of the software *I* want runs only under Windows. Not all of it 
(there are some notable exceptions), but most of it.

Of course, it depends what you're trying to do with your PC...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now go find a Linux binary application that 
> runs on Windows without something like Cygwin.

Most of the utilities are ported to native Windows. The appropriate google 
term is to tack "win32" onto whatever you're searching for:
gunzip win32
diff win32
... and so on.

Just in case you ever go looking.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

>> I saw an interesting project where people were figuring out what steps 
>> you could cut out of a Linux boot for known hardware (like a laptop) to 
>> get it to boot all the way to logged in under X in less than five 
>> seconds. They apparently got it working, too.
>
> And why shouldn't it boot in 5 seconds flat? Damnit! >_<

I always put my XP laptop to sleep rather than turning it off, from hitting 
the power button to windows unlock prompt is always under 5 seconds - it 
would drive me mad if I had to shut it down and boot it up from cold each 
time I used it.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> I always put my XP laptop to sleep rather than turning it off, from 
> hitting the power button to windows unlock prompt is always under 5 
> seconds - it would drive me mad if I had to shut it down and boot it up 
> from cold each time I used it.

Doesn't that mean that after X hours the battery runs flat and you need 
to cold boot it anyway?

(I guess it depends on exactly which "sleep mode" you mean...)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> ...it would drive me mad if I had to shut it down and boot it up
> from cold each time I used it.


No it wouldn't if it took only less than 5 seconds. And with SSD and
proper kernel config and INIT config it is very possible.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now go find a Linux binary application that runs on Windows without 
>> something like Cygwin.
> 
> Most of the utilities are ported to native Windows. The appropriate 
> google term is to tack "win32" onto whatever you're searching for:
> gunzip win32
> diff win32
> ... and so on.
> 
> Just in case you ever go looking.

The fun thing is, usually there are several versions to choose from. 
Some of them require a Cygwin DLL, some of them don't. Some of them 
understand Windows pathnames. Some of them don't. Some have been simply 
recompiled, some have been extensively modified. And so on.

Post a reply to this message

>> I always put my XP laptop to sleep rather than turning it off, from 
>> hitting the power button to windows unlock prompt is always under 5 
>> seconds - it would drive me mad if I had to shut it down and boot it up 
>> from cold each time I used it.
>
> Doesn't that mean that after X hours the battery runs flat and you need to 
> cold boot it anyway?

X is a very large number though, even after a weekend in standby the battery 
is still at 90-something %.

> (I guess it depends on exactly which "sleep mode" you mean...)

Start -> Shutdown -> Standby

AIUI it just supplies enough power to the RAM to keep its contents 
refreshed, everything else is turned off.

Post a reply to this message

>> ...it would drive me mad if I had to shut it down and boot it up
>> from cold each time I used it.
>
> No it wouldn't if it took only less than 5 seconds. And with SSD and
> proper kernel config and INIT config it is very possible.

Man, it takes longer than that to just get through the BIOS before it gets 
anywhere near an OS!

Post a reply to this message