Discussion:
Fedora Core 6 HUGE problem
(too old to reply)
valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
2007-05-28 10:46:26 UTC
Permalink
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20070528/54e14d86/attachment.html
antonio montagnani
2007-05-28 10:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I would try "linux text": have you checked your emdia by linux mediacheck???
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
Jim Cornette
2007-05-28 13:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've
burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you
might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just
wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce
6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.

You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic
support for video) using
linux xdriver=vesa
until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you
might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has
the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.

There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and
running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed
source binaries.

Jim
--
When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.
valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
2007-05-30 07:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic
support for video) using
linux xdriver=vesa
until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you
might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has
the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.
There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and
running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed
source binaries.
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4.
with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know
could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for
the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking
forward to the next distribution release.
--
Post by Jim Cornette
V at ly <<<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20070530/c9df6e64/attachment.html
sizo nsibande
2007-05-30 07:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6
supports it just fine.

It could be that your machines power management is interfering with
the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with
my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and
lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first
to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has
issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has
usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of
Nvidia cards.
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic
support for video) using
linux xdriver=vesa
until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you
might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has
the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.
There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and
running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed
source binaries.
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora Core 4.
with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if you know
could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical installer for
the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem.... anyway i'm looking
forward to the next distribution release.
--
Post by Jim Cornette
V at ly <<<
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Communication is not just english grammaer and literature, but a well
established database between people that have come to know each other!
Ric Moore
2007-05-30 08:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by sizo nsibande
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6
supports it just fine.
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with
the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with
my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and
lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first
to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has
issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has
usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of
Nvidia cards.
Didn't Staton Finley report an FC5 issue with SELinux and nVidia
drivers? The OP might want to visit his howto site
http://www.stanton-finley.net/
and check out the suggestions. Ric
Jim Cornette
2007-05-30 11:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by sizo nsibande
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6
supports it just fine.
Thanks for the info. He should be fine after the initial installation
then. The statement regarding FC4 installed in GUI mode fine makes the
newer hardware possibility less likely.
Post by sizo nsibande
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with
the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with
my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and
lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first
to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has
issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has
usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of
Nvidia cards.
So the GUI installation mode did not work for you either?

I would suggest using the graphics installer since the text installer
has been neglected in features compared to the GUI installer. I used to
use the text installer until I noted such a difference between the two
installers.

xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics
installer available vs. the text installer mode.

Jim
sizo nsibande
2007-05-30 12:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ric Moore
Didn't Staton Finley report an FC5 issue with SELinux and nVidia
drivers? The OP might want to visit his howto site
As much as Staton Finley might have pointed this out and have been
right about it, I thought we were talking about FC6 not FC5...
Post by Ric Moore
xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics
installer available vs. the text installer mode.
I will certainly keep this point to remembrance although one might
ague that the features left out from the text mode install can easily
be added after the basic install when you have your gnome or kde
working and power management issues sorted.
Post by Ric Moore
Post by sizo nsibande
Post by Jim Cornette
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.
I don't think that this is the issue as I have a Nvidia 6600GT and FC6
supports it just fine.
Thanks for the info. He should be fine after the initial installation
then. The statement regarding FC4 installed in GUI mode fine makes the
newer hardware possibility less likely.
Post by sizo nsibande
It could be that your machines power management is interfering with
the install process 'somehow', what usually works best "as I too with
my card have had such a problem" is when your distroe boots up and
lists a number of options before you hit enter to install, try first
to install the system on text mode = linux text, if this still has
issues try: linux noapic acpi=off or just linux noapic. This has
usually worked just fine with me on more than just one series of
Nvidia cards.
So the GUI installation mode did not work for you either?
I would suggest using the graphics installer since the text installer
has been neglected in features compared to the GUI installer. I used to
use the text installer until I noted such a difference between the two
installers.
xdriver=<driver> works better since at least you have the graphics
installer available vs. the text installer mode.
Jim
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Communication is not just english grammaer and literature, but a well
established database between people that have come to know each other!
Jim Cornette
2007-05-30 11:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora
Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if
you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical
installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem....
anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release.
--
V at ly <<<
If the graphical installer worked fine when installing FC4 but fails
when trying to install FC6, I do not know what caused the regression.

The regression might be caused by the reduced xorg.conf file not having
adequate information for the installer to get things right for the GUI
installer. The FC4 xorg.conf was more elaborate than the one used for
FC6 and F7. The driver or the hardware is probably not the direct cause
of the blank screen with the newer installer.

linux xdriver=vesa should work if xdriver=nv does not work.

Jim
Sebastian Gurovich
2007-05-30 14:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects?
Ie could one install say Beryl ?
Post by Jim Cornette
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
i'm gonna try that and see if it works. i'm currently running Fedora
Core 4. with this one i had no problem with the graphical installer. if
you know could you tell me what has changed so much in the graphical
installer for the 6th version of Fedora? maybe that's the problem....
anyway i'm looking forward to the next distribution release.
--
V at ly <<<
If the graphical installer worked fine when installing FC4 but fails
when trying to install FC6, I do not know what caused the regression.
The regression might be caused by the reduced xorg.conf file not having
adequate information for the installer to get things right for the GUI
installer. The FC4 xorg.conf was more elaborate than the one used for
FC6 and F7. The driver or the hardware is probably not the direct cause
of the blank screen with the newer installer.
linux xdriver=vesa should work if xdriver=nv does not work.
Jim
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Jim Cornette
2007-05-31 01:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sebastian Gurovich
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects?
Ie could one install say Beryl ?
The vesa driver usage is just to get the system installed in graphics
mode. The driver is 2D only as far as I know.

After getting items installed with the installer using the vesa driver,
reconfiguring X for a better driver is a better option. If you want 3D
like beryl, this is a must to use a better driver choice.

Jim
Sebastian Gurovich
2007-05-31 02:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Ok, understood.
thanks
- Seb
Post by Jim Cornette
Post by Sebastian Gurovich
Would the xdriver=vesa support 3D effects?
Ie could one install say Beryl ?
The vesa driver usage is just to get the system installed in graphics
mode. The driver is 2D only as far as I know.
After getting items installed with the installer using the vesa driver,
reconfiguring X for a better driver is a better option. If you want 3D
like beryl, this is a must to use a better driver choice.
Jim
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Alan Cox
2007-05-28 19:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
If you boot the installer with the "text" option it will get you to a
point you have a non graphical system installed. From there you can pull
any updates and other packages which may help get your graphics working
(as well as try any configuration changes people suggest)
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 19:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cox
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...

Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Rahul Sundaram
2007-05-28 19:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Alan Cox
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
That's not the "party line". Problems occur in all drivers. If the code
is open it can be fixed by other people besides the vendor.

Rahul
Mikkel L. Ellertson
2007-05-28 19:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?

Now, if Nvidia was willing to supply RedHat with the source code for
their driver, and pay them to support it, then you might have a
valid argument. Then again, it would be better if Nvidia were to
supply Xorg with the information and money, as they are really the
people that should do the video support. But until Nvidia is willing
to supply the information, things will probably stay the way they
are now.

Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 20:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.

Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Frank Cox
2007-05-28 20:55:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:22 -0500
Post by Les Mikesell
it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.

A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products
from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other
Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards
and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I
get asked several times every week.)

I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here
do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about
yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become
self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the
coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.

Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue
to do so. Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is
obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his
money on the counter, whose fault is that?

"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be.
The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.

"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!"
Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a
supported card. If you have a special wrench for a Chev you won't expect to
continue to use it if you get a new Ford. If it will kind-of-fit on the
odd-shaped nut, then fine. But if not, you have to get a new wrench to go with
the new vehicle.

My humble opinion. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But I and many
others will continue to recommend supported video cards and steer folks away
from Nvidia and ATI as much as possible. You are welcome to do so as well.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 22:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to
show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the
corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only
drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
Post by Frank Cox
A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products
from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other
Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards
and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I
get asked several times every week.)
I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here
do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about
yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become
self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the
coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.
Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue
to do so.
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has
made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output
that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
Post by Frank Cox
Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is
obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his
money on the counter, whose fault is that?
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Post by Frank Cox
"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be.
The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.
"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!"
Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a
supported card.
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Ian Malone
2007-05-28 22:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
--
imalone
Jim Cornette
2007-05-28 23:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
Including binary only for some aspects of support where there is no
working open source solution would allow less computer savvy individuals
to install Linux. It would give excuse to more vendors to keep their
source code and specs for hardware closed though.

Including binary only packages related to programs used to be part of
RHL installs back during RHL 5.2 with realaudio and WordPerfect trial
editions. There are no binary only packages now which I know of for Fedora.

Regarding "other OSes" respecting their users. I found many
installations for XP that I did which left the network card not
recognized and the video card at 16 colors and 800 x 600. For Linux
installations using the same hardware, the installations all recognized
the video, sound and Ethernet cards without the need to pull in the
drivers from external and post installation sources.

The vendors that do not provide open source drivers should include media
with Linux capable drivers provided. My hardware lot "just works" with
Fedora but not with XP without post-install configuration and luck.

Jim
--
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.
Ian Malone
2007-05-29 17:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Cornette
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
<snip>
Post by Jim Cornette
Regarding "other OSes" respecting their users. I found many
installations for XP that I did which left the network card not
recognized and the video card at 16 colors and 800 x 600. For Linux
installations using the same hardware, the installations all recognized
the video, sound and Ethernet cards without the need to pull in the
drivers from external and post installation sources.
Hence '?'; if you define the majority of OSs to be
MS Windows (interesting definition) then they don't
include the vendors drivers, see also Alan Cox's post.

(Neither will the drivers included in the box be
the most current and bug free.)
--
imalone
Jim Cornette
2007-05-28 23:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
Including binary only for some aspects of support where there is no
working open source solution would allow less computer savvy individuals
to install Linux. It would give excuse to more vendors to keep their
source code and specs for hardware closed though.

Including binary only packages related to programs used to be part of
RHL installs back during RHL 5.2 with realaudio and WordPerfect trial
editions. There are no binary only packages now which I know of for Fedora.

Regarding "other OSes" respecting their users. I found many
installations for XP that I did which left the network card not
recognized and the video card at 16 colors and 800 x 600. For Linux
installations using the same hardware, the installations all recognized
the video, sound and Ethernet cards without the need to pull in the
drivers from external and post installation sources.

The vendors that do not provide open source drivers should include media
with Linux capable drivers provided. My hardware lot "just works" with
Fedora but not with XP without post-install configuration and luck.

Jim
--
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.
Frank Cox
2007-05-28 22:48:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:32:41 -0500
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to
show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the
corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only
drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
Sure you have. Out-of-the-box support for video cards on Fedora is not as good
for Nvidia and ATI.
Post by Les Mikesell
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has
made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output
that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
I don't want to sound too harsh, but now may be a good time to start keeping up
if you intend to continue to use Fedora Linux? If you intend to move off onto
another Linux distribution (or a BSD or Solaris or MS Windows or what-have-you)
then you may wish to investigate their hardware and driver requirements.
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.

Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia
and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is
simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI)
deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions. Personally, I
choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with
it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.

My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches
on.
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends
on the aims of the one making the decision.

As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 01:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.
Section 2.1.2 of
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
would seem to imply otherwise.
Post by Frank Cox
Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia
and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is
simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI)
deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions.
No, fedora has their own policy.
Post by Frank Cox
Personally, I
choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with
it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.
I deal with it by interacting with fedora mostly through a remote freenx
connection instead of fighting with the way it handles video directly.
Post by Frank Cox
My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches
on.
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people
use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make
it usable enough on popular hardware.
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends
on the aims of the one making the decision.
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with
windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested. Many
vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a
central place to find them. If you install replacement parts that
different or newer than your original purchase you might have to grab a
driver directly from the part vendor.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tim
2007-05-29 02:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.
Section 2.1.2 of
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
would seem to imply otherwise.
This part (from the above link) would appear to be a problem:

"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."

Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files
in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that),
neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly
the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
Post by Les Mikesell
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people
use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make
it usable enough on popular hardware.
I think it's always going to be chicken and egg when you try to meld
obsessively controlling commercial interests with FOSS.
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with
windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested.
I'd say *badly* tested. Prebuilt systems that I've had to deal with
have had poor performance, or hard to repeat kludgy work-arounds.
Post by Les Mikesell
Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a
central place to find them.
Some might, but I've had a hell of a time trying to rebuild some Windows
systems where the sound or video card needs special drivers that just
aren't available anywhere other than the long-since-lost original
install discs. Some Creative sound cards seem the worst at that.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Ed Greshko
2007-05-29 02:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."
Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files
in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that),
neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly
the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
I don't see the problem. Even if one may try to make the argument that the
install script is binary (rather silly) the license does *not* require that
you use nVidia's install script.

Nothing stops the distributor from taking the tarball from nVidia, unpacking
it and developing their own install script.
Mail List
2007-05-29 03:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."
...
You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seems
fine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one
could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been
very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to
assist further.

I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
Tim
2007-05-29 03:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mail List
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seems
fine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one
could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been
very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to
assist further.
I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
It's really pointless arguing along those lines, anyway. We have Livna
that already does it for us (provides a modified installation).

NVidia's own driver is not FOSS, and it doesn't look like it'll ever be,
that's the only thing worth us trying to communicate to NVidia. And
that alone (being non-FOSS) is going to preclude it from inclusion in
Fedora.

I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Frank Cox
2007-05-29 03:50:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:08:06 +0930
Post by Tim
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I agree completely.

Putting Nvidia and ATI proprietary drivers in Fedora will, as my grandmother
used to say, only encourage them.

Linux is a small but growing market. Companies who wish to participate in that
market must play by the rules of that market, just as companies who wish to
market their products in any given country must abide by the local laws and
customs if they plan to actually sell any product.

One of the current principles of the market in regard to Fedora is no
closed-source drivers. Other distributions and other operating systems see it
differently and as such may be more suited to the needs of people who require
closed-source drivers. I really have no problem with that at all. The right
tool for the job and all that.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Ric Moore
2007-05-29 15:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I do have to applaud Fedora for one thing... they drew the line in the
sand and they have stuck to their guns with regards to FOSS since he
beginning. You can depend on that.

So, I have maintained Java, Firefox, gspca and nVidia source tarball
installs in /opt from their respective sites for a long time, with nary
a burp in the barrel. It Just Works. (tm) To be running Firefox 1.5 is
just pure anathema to me. Nor do I have to get into the politics of it
all. Of course some may regard this as a case of my own situational
morality, <g> but there it is... it works. Ric

--
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 19:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ric Moore
Post by Tim
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I do have to applaud Fedora for one thing... they drew the line in the
sand and they have stuck to their guns with regards to FOSS since he
beginning. You can depend on that.
So, I have maintained Java, Firefox, gspca and nVidia source tarball
installs in /opt from their respective sites for a long time, with nary
a burp in the barrel. It Just Works. (tm) To be running Firefox 1.5 is
just pure anathema to me. Nor do I have to get into the politics of it
all. Of course some may regard this as a case of my own situational
morality, <g> but there it is... it works. Ric
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice
packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Chris Jones
2007-05-29 20:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice
packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
I guess it is a matter of "each to their own".

For what it is worth though, I agree with you. After many years experience
with linux the one peace of advice I would give people now, when setting up a
system, would be to ONLY install packages from properly maintained and
compatible sources. I have time and again run into problems due to my
installing packages from source, such that now I only do it if a) the package
is ABSOLUTELY essential.
In the case of Fedora this means RPM packages and to get them via yum(or apt,
smart) from one of the various repos available.

To take some the the examples given by Ric,

nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The
reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries.
Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS
driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the
nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.

The one issue people often quote with this is when a new kernel is released,
you might get that kernel as an update before livna/atrpms has provided the
rpm for your new kernel. Luckily, both sites provide yum plugins to protect
against this (just run 'yum search yum' to find them).

firefox : I currently use the remi repo (http://remi.collet.free.fr/) which
providesFF2 rpms. Been running these for some time now with ZERO problems.

java. http://www.jpackage.org/ provides rpms for java.

Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for
which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use,
there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from
source' mantra...

Chris
Post by Les Mikesell
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Chris R Jones work : +44 (0)1223 337324 |
| HEP Group (rm 882) fax : +44 (0)1223 353920 |
| Cavendish Laboratory, home : +44 (0)1223 510711 |
| Madingley Road, mobile : +44 (0)7737 616423 |
| Cambridge, CB3 0HE email : jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Matej Cepl
2007-05-29 21:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Jones
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric
package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the
main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer
alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
And then they should package it themselves and push it into
Fedora Extras (err, what used to be Fedora Extras), get proper
package review, and then they have a lot of fun on the top of
properly packaged software ;-).

Matej
Robin Laing
2007-05-30 15:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matej Cepl
Post by Chris Jones
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric
package for which there is no rpm repo available, but for the
main ones most people use, there are MUCH better and safer
alternative than the old 'install from source' mantra...
And then they should package it themselves and push it into
Fedora Extras (err, what used to be Fedora Extras), get proper
package review, and then they have a lot of fun on the top of
properly packaged software ;-).
Matej
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my
list of things to learn. :)
--
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
Andreas Bernauer
2007-05-30 16:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Laing
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my
list of things to learn. :)
In case you were not aware of checkinstall:

http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/

./configure
make
checkinstall # creates RPM from calling 'make install'

Andreas.
--
http://www.lysium.de/blog
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20070530/ee5e5ab6/attachment.bin
Rahul Sundaram
2007-05-30 16:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Bernauer
Post by Robin Laing
This is why I want to learn how to make packages. One more thing for my
list of things to learn. :)
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
./configure
make
checkinstall # creates RPM from calling 'make install'
This is a quick hack that might be appropriate for local installations.
If you are going to maintain packages for Fedora, you need to follow a
more detailed process.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join

Rahul
Ric Moore
2007-05-30 00:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Jones
Post by Les Mikesell
Can I paraphrase your advice as: "Fedora is a system with a nice
packaging and update mechanism. Don't use them."?
I guess it is a matter of "each to their own".
For what it is worth though, I agree with you. After many years experience
with linux the one peace of advice I would give people now, when setting up a
system, would be to ONLY install packages from properly maintained and
compatible sources. I have time and again run into problems due to my
installing packages from source, such that now I only do it if a) the package
is ABSOLUTELY essential.
In the case of Fedora this means RPM packages and to get them via yum(or apt,
smart) from one of the various repos available.
To take some the the examples given by Ric,
nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The
reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries.
Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS
driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the
nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.
URRRP! Sorry! I beat my brains out for MONTHS trying to get the heavily
openGL intensive 3D environment Croquet to work. Many MONTHS wasted, of
what should have been devel time, down the crapolla as the problem was
immediately fixed by installing the nVidia driver. Burn me once, but not
twice. Oh hell nah. I go with what works for me.
Post by Chris Jones
The one issue people often quote with this is when a new kernel is released,
you might get that kernel as an update before livna/atrpms has provided the
rpm for your new kernel. Luckily, both sites provide yum plugins to protect
against this (just run 'yum search yum' to find them).
firefox : I currently use the remi repo (http://remi.collet.free.fr/) which
providesFF2 rpms. Been running these for some time now with ZERO problems.
It took about a year for Remi to offer it after 2.0 was released, too. I
was already running 2.0 for ages and even have the Beta 3.0 installed
now... with ZERO problems.
Post by Chris Jones
java. http://www.jpackage.org/ provides rpms for java.
Bottom line. I am sure that someone can quote some odd esoteric package for
which there is no rpm repo available, but for the main ones most people use,
there are MUCH better and safer alternative than the old 'install from
source' mantra...
Call it a mantra if you wish, I have my reasons. Number One is my sanity. :) Ric
Bruno Wolff III
2007-05-30 14:53:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 21:58:17 +0100,
Post by Chris Jones
nvidia : I recommend MOST STRONGLY to not install the official installer. The
reason being is the official installer overwrites the standard GL libraries.
Once you have done this it is practically impossible to go back to the OSS
driver. Luckily both atrpms and livna supply kernel module RPMS for the the
nvidia drivers, that work around this problem.
Use rpm -Va to finc out what is out of sync, rpm -q --whatprovides to find
out which package owns those out of sync files and rpm --force -U to reinstall
them.

I have been playing with this after an FC5 to F7 upgrade to clean things up.
I had some extras and livna stuff installed and that probably didn't help
the upgrade process.
Frank Cox
2007-05-29 03:50:37 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:08:06 +0930
Post by Tim
I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
I agree completely.

Putting Nvidia and ATI proprietary drivers in Fedora will, as my grandmother
used to say, only encourage them.

Linux is a small but growing market. Companies who wish to participate in that
market must play by the rules of that market, just as companies who wish to
market their products in any given country must abide by the local laws and
customs if they plan to actually sell any product.

One of the current principles of the market in regard to Fedora is no
closed-source drivers. Other distributions and other operating systems see it
differently and as such may be more suited to the needs of people who require
closed-source drivers. I really have no problem with that at all. The right
tool for the job and all that.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Tim
2007-05-29 03:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mail List
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seems
fine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one
could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been
very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to
assist further.
I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
It's really pointless arguing along those lines, anyway. We have Livna
that already does it for us (provides a modified installation).

NVidia's own driver is not FOSS, and it doesn't look like it'll ever be,
that's the only thing worth us trying to communicate to NVidia. And
that alone (being non-FOSS) is going to preclude it from inclusion in
Fedora.

I don't have a problem with the FOSS stance with Fedora. There's plenty
of other Linux distros for those who don't care about that.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 18:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with
windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested.
I'd say *badly* tested. Prebuilt systems that I've had to deal with
have had poor performance, or hard to repeat kludgy work-arounds.
That's the sort of thing that usually makes people choose a different
vendor next time.
Post by Tim
Post by Les Mikesell
Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a
central place to find them.
Some might, but I've had a hell of a time trying to rebuild some Windows
systems where the sound or video card needs special drivers that just
aren't available anywhere other than the long-since-lost original
install discs. Some Creative sound cards seem the worst at that.
Perhaps I've been lucky, but I've always been able to find these for
Dell and IBM systems and their components. I'm not sure how old the
boxes are but the Dell support site still has bios updates for their
pentium II era optiplex GX1's that I've grabbed to fix PXE booting (they
still make nifty thin clients).
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Ed Greshko
2007-05-29 02:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."
Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files
in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that),
neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly
the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
I don't see the problem. Even if one may try to make the argument that the
install script is binary (rather silly) the license does *not* require that
you use nVidia's install script.

Nothing stops the distributor from taking the tarball from nVidia, unpacking
it and developing their own install script.
Mail List
2007-05-29 03:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."
...
You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
Honestly - the intent is pretty clear - changing the install script seems
fine from a layman's point of view - but instead of us playing silly one
could just ask nvidia if its ok ... and engage a discussion - they have been
very helpful in providing working drivers and they may be quite willing to
assist further.

I'd suggest open a dialogue - that way you don't need to argue at all.
Tim
2007-05-29 02:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.
Section 2.1.2 of
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
would seem to imply otherwise.
This part (from the above link) would appear to be a problem:

"2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of
Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or
FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the
source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way
(except for unzipping of compressed files)."

Unless they've changed how *they* install it, it used to mangle OS files
in a harmful manner (yes, *I* *have* been bitten by that),
neccessitating some modification of their files to avoid that, cheifly
the installation routines. You may argue that an install script is not
binary, others would argue its all binary.
Post by Les Mikesell
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people
use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make
it usable enough on popular hardware.
I think it's always going to be chicken and egg when you try to meld
obsessively controlling commercial interests with FOSS.
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with
windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested.
I'd say *badly* tested. Prebuilt systems that I've had to deal with
have had poor performance, or hard to repeat kludgy work-arounds.
Post by Les Mikesell
Many vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a
central place to find them.
Some might, but I've had a hell of a time trying to rebuild some Windows
systems where the sound or video card needs special drivers that just
aren't available anywhere other than the long-since-lost original
install discs. Some Creative sound cards seem the worst at that.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Alan Cox
2007-05-29 08:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
You are correct.

Out of the box windows will try and use a matching driver if it has one
(the hardware is old enough or generic enough), or things like VESA bios
support (which is also what Fedora uses as the X fallback).
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 01:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.
Section 2.1.2 of
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
would seem to imply otherwise.
Post by Frank Cox
Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia
and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is
simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI)
deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions.
No, fedora has their own policy.
Post by Frank Cox
Personally, I
choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with
it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.
I deal with it by interacting with fedora mostly through a remote freenx
connection instead of fighting with the way it handles video directly.
Post by Frank Cox
My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches
on.
Chicken, meet egg... It will have an impact on sales when enough people
use Linux desktops, which will only happen when the distributions make
it usable enough on popular hardware.
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends
on the aims of the one making the decision.
As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
The usual practice is for the hardware vendor to deliver a machine with
windows and all the necessary drivers installed and tested. Many
vendors keep updates online for things they have sold so you have a
central place to find them. If you install replacement parts that
different or newer than your original purchase you might have to grab a
driver directly from the part vendor.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Bruno Wolff III
2007-05-29 04:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way
to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that
being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay
an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the
update was delayed due to other considerations.)

People that want that option have Ubuntu and probably Linspire.
Ed Greshko
2007-05-29 04:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way
to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that
being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay
an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the
update was delayed due to other considerations.)
Except there are methods that, upon booting into a new kernel, will rebuild
the drivers as part of the boot process. Thus, making it a trivial task.
--
Having the fewest wants, I am nearest to the gods.
-- Socrates
Bruno Wolff III
2007-05-29 04:26:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:22:41 +0800,
Post by Ed Greshko
Post by Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 17:32:41 -0500,
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Except that they will be broken by kernel updates and there is no way
to force nVidia to produce updated drivers. I seem to remember that
being a significant part of a big discussion about whether or not to delay
an xorg update because of a lack of binary drivers. (Ultimately the
update was delayed due to other considerations.)
Except there are methods that, upon booting into a new kernel, will rebuild
the drivers as part of the boot process. Thus, making it a trivial task.
That depends on what changed. Some changes are going to break the drivers
in way that can't be fixed like that. In fact it is a virtual certainty
if you continue to run the hardware long enough while continuing to update
the kernels (and xorg).
Ian Malone
2007-05-28 22:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
?
--
imalone
Frank Cox
2007-05-28 22:48:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:32:41 -0500
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Frank Cox
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to
show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the
corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only
drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
Sure you have. Out-of-the-box support for video cards on Fedora is not as good
for Nvidia and ATI.
Post by Les Mikesell
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has
made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output
that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
I don't want to sound too harsh, but now may be a good time to start keeping up
if you intend to continue to use Fedora Linux? If you intend to move off onto
another Linux distribution (or a BSD or Solaris or MS Windows or what-have-you)
then you may wish to investigate their hardware and driver requirements.
Post by Les Mikesell
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Not under the current licensing conditions, they can't be and won't be. Windows
Vista could also be included with every Fedora download; somehow I don't think
that will be done either.

Note that Fedora isn't the one who's imposing unacceptable conditions -- Nvidia
and ATI are the ones who are making the decisions in this regard. Fedora is
simply accepting them and everyone (including you and me and Nvidia and ATI)
deal with the consequences of Nvidia's and ATI's decisions. Personally, I
choose to deal with it by avoiding their products. You may choose to deal with
it by purchasing their products and jumping through hoops to make them work.

My way is easier and may eventually have an impact on their sales if it catches
on.
Post by Les Mikesell
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
That is a valid choice for anyone to make. The wisdom of that choice depends
on the aims of the one making the decision.

As far as I know, the latest drivers for the latest video cards don't come
stock with Windows XP or Vista either. (I've never installed MS Windows on
anything so I could be wrong here, but it has always been my understanding that
they require a separate download.)
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 22:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Les Mikesell
it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.
Yes, people keep repeating that, yet they never produce any evidence to
show how much better and more reliable Linux 3-D video is on the
corresponding hardware than Windows or OSX with their binary-only
drivers. I've never experienced any problems with those myself.
Post by Frank Cox
A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products
from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other
Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards
and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I
get asked several times every week.)
I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here
do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about
yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become
self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the
coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.
Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue
to do so.
For some definition of working and some of their chips... Intel has
made a bunch of stuff that shares motherboard RAM and produces output
that isn't great. I haven't kept up with which is which.
Post by Frank Cox
Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is
obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his
money on the counter, whose fault is that?
Nvidia and ATI's drivers aren't included in the box. They could be.
Post by Frank Cox
"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be.
The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.
"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!"
Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a
supported card.
Or run an OS that respects its users enough to include the vendor's
drivers - which is what the majority do.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Anne Wilson
2007-05-28 21:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in
question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.

Anne
Kam Leo
2007-05-28 21:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne Wilson
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in
question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
D. Hugh Redelmeier
2007-05-28 21:54:22 UTC
Permalink
| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>

| The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
| graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
| Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
| embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
| run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.

I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is
an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know
that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video
interface not the add-in card.

I've noticed this on my Dell GX115 boxes when I add in ATI or nVidia
PCI video cards. The quick workaround is to install without the card and
then add it in later. But have sshd running so you can perform
surgery on xorg.conf from another machine. If I remember correctly,
just removing the bogus BusID line fixes the problem.

Does anyone know if this is in the xorg bugzilla?
Anne Wilson
2007-05-29 09:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Hugh Redelmeier
| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>
|
| The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
| graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
| Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
| embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
| run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is
an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know
that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video
interface not the add-in card.
That sounds as thought the 'built-in' video is not disabled in BIOS.

Anne
Kam Leo
2007-05-29 17:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne Wilson
Post by D. Hugh Redelmeier
| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>
|
| The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
| graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
| Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
| embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
| run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is
an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know
that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video
interface not the add-in card.
That sounds as thought the 'built-in' video is not disabled in BIOS.
Anne
The built-in uses a jumper on the motherboard for enabling/disabling
the interface. "lspci -v" shows that the built-in is disabled; yet,
quite a few distributions mess up when configuring the xserver.
Anne Wilson
2007-05-29 09:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kam Leo
Post by Anne Wilson
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their
users in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available.
The party-line argument that third party drivers cause support
problems kind of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't
work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card
in question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
Exactly what both Antonio and I told him to do, yesterday moening.

Anne
D. Hugh Redelmeier
2007-05-28 21:54:22 UTC
Permalink
| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>

| The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
| graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
| Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
| embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
| run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.

I've certainly run into this problem. With Fedora and Ubuntu. It is
an xorg problem. I haven't gotten to the bottom of it but I do know
that the xorg.conf ebds up with the PCI address of the built-in video
interface not the add-in card.

I've noticed this on my Dell GX115 boxes when I add in ATI or nVidia
PCI video cards. The quick workaround is to install without the card and
then add it in later. But have sshd running so you can perform
surgery on xorg.conf from another machine. If I remember correctly,
just removing the bogus BusID line fixes the problem.

Does anyone know if this is in the xorg bugzilla?
Michael.Coll-Barth
2007-05-29 21:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

I need a little guidance, not just a set of 'do this' instructions.
Although, I won't toss those! :)

I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.

I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server? Will it
need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the other
boxes? Is Fedora too big an OS for this? Something smaller, Ubuntu?

In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box ( Pentium III )
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this. Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files? Is
there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there? I
haven't looked for this yet, so, don't yell.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions before I go off to RTFM?

thanks,
Michael


The information contained in this message and any attachment may be
proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work
product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all
copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
Mark Haney
2007-05-29 22:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Folks,
I need a little guidance, not just a set of 'do this' instructions.
Although, I won't toss those! :)
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server? Will it
need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the other
boxes? Is Fedora too big an OS for this? Something smaller, Ubuntu?
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box ( Pentium III )
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this. Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files? Is
there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there? I
haven't looked for this yet, so, don't yell.
Any thoughts and/or suggestions before I go off to RTFM?
thanks,
Michael
My $0.02. I have 13 boxes at home on my network. All running Linux,
but a couple dual boot to Windows for games,etc. I have one linux box
(FC6) as a squid proxy server that all the rest go through so I can
limit and monitor my kids internet activity. I have mine set as a DHCP
server, but that isn't set in stone if you want to give static IPs to
your clients. Fedora is not too big an OS for this, but if you're
running a PII you probably don't want a GUI running on it all the time.
I don't think you will need a second NIC in the proxy server as I assume
the DSL modem is probably a firewall as well ( I know mine is, so I can
port forward anything I need from it to the gateway, however, a second
one wouldn't hurt, it just might make admin a little more complex.

As for storing files, Apache is great for web services, and Samba is
still 'de facto' in my opinion for letting windows boxes access the
storage on that server. I don't know about using Oracle as the db
backend on the PIII box. I'd almost use MySQL or something a little
lighter to reduce resource usage on it.

Does this help?
--
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
Rick Stevens
2007-05-29 22:31:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:23 -0400,
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Folks,
I need a little guidance, not just a set of 'do this' instructions.
Although, I won't toss those! :)
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server? Will it
need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the other
boxes? Is Fedora too big an OS for this? Something smaller, Ubuntu?
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box ( Pentium III )
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this. Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files? Is
there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there? I
haven't looked for this yet, so, don't yell.
Any thoughts and/or suggestions before I go off to RTFM?
Yes, you can use a Linux machine (Fedora, Ubuntu, whatever) as a
gateway/firewall. You say that everything's plugged into your
DSL modem. If that's the case, then it's really a DSL modem/router
and it should have a reasonable firewall on it already. You just
need to configure it properly. It also is acting as a DHCP server,
since your Windows boxes can get to the Internet. I don't know which
DSL modem you have, but if it's one of the "brand names" (3-Com,
Linksys/Cisco, etc), you should be fine.

If you do use a Linux box, you need to configure it as a router, set up
iptables rules (firewall) and configure the DHCP server. It will need
two NICs in it (one for the public internet side and one for the private
LAN side).

Whatever you do, set up the firewall rules VERY strictly--especially
since your LAN is made up of Winblows boxes (an inherent security
risk). For my systems at home, the only outside-initiated connections I
allow are DNS (from my primary DNS servers) and ssh. ssh is only
allowed from a very restricted list of IP addresses such as my office,
root is not allowed to log in via ssh and you must use a passkey to get
in.

Internally-initiated connections (in iptables' parlance, "established,
related") are permitted. Since my LAN at home is almost pure Linux
(well, one box is Xenified with Win2003 server as a fully-virtualized
domU), I'm fairly secure.

As far as using a Linux box as a file server for Windows, yes, Samba is
really the only way to go. In a small, home LAN, you can probably get
by with share- or user-based access rules (you don't need a domain
controller). It's not hard to set up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens at internap.com -
- VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
- -
- Microsoft Windows: Proof that P.T. Barnum was right -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric
2007-05-31 12:37:15 UTC
Permalink
At 06:31 PM 5/29/2007, Rick Stevens wrote:

<RS>>>>>Yes, you can use a Linux machine (Fedora, Ubuntu, whatever) as a
gateway/firewall. You say that everything's plugged into your DSL
modem. If that's the case, then it's really a DSL modem/router and it
should have a reasonable firewall on it already.<<<<<

I have often wondered about this...

If you have a DSL router, then almost certainly that router is routing a
public IP address to a private IP address block, probably in the
192.168.x.x range.

Since those private IP addresses aren't visible or accessible to the
outside world (assuming you don't have a DMZ set up that makes one of your
private IP addresses visible via the public IP address), then why would a
normal home or small business user need a firewall at all?
Tim
2007-05-30 04:48:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:23 -0400,
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server?
Only if you want it to. If you already have a DHCP server that you're
happy with, you can use that, instead. And if your new Linux box sits
between it and the rest of the LAN, you can set it up as a DHCP relay.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Will it need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the
other boxes?
Yes, if you want it to act as a firewall. It can't do that unless it's
in between the LAN and the rest of the world.

Other functions like being a server or proxy don't require it, they can
just be on the same network.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box (Pentium III)
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this.
You can run a server on the same machine, but it's generally a bad idea
to make a firewall dual-purpose. An exploit in one of the other
services could be used to kill the firewall. Stand-alone firewalls are
the most secure way to do it (whether they're a computer or a dedicated
hardware box).
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files?
Yes.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Is there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there?
Depends what you mean by IIS, it's a suite of things. Apache, is in my
opinion, a better webserver that IIS is. I haven't compared FTP
servers, nor other things that IIS can do.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
John bowden
2007-05-31 17:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Stevens
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:23 -0400,
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server?
Only if you want it to. If you already have a DHCP server that you're
happy with, you can use that, instead. And if your new Linux box sits
between it and the rest of the LAN, you can set it up as a DHCP relay.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Will it need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the
other boxes?
Yes, if you want it to act as a firewall. It can't do that unless it's
in between the LAN and the rest of the world.
Other functions like being a server or proxy don't require it, they can
just be on the same network.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box (Pentium III)
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this.
You can run a server on the same machine, but it's generally a bad idea
to make a firewall dual-purpose. An exploit in one of the other
services could be used to kill the firewall. Stand-alone firewalls are
the most secure way to do it (whether they're a computer or a dedicated
hardware box).
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files?
Yes.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Is there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there?
Depends what you mean by IIS, it's a suite of things. Apache, is in my
opinion, a better webserver that IIS is. I haven't compared FTP
servers, nor other things that IIS can do.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Sorry to jump in so late but what DSL set up have you got. You might also like
to have a look at smoothwall. Its designed to turn an old box into a
dedicated fire wall. With 3 network cards you get the choice of running
Internet accessible servers on their own sub net, well away from your
internal network. www.smoothwall.org (I think)
--
Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter the house's of parliment
with honest intentions, (he was going to blow them up!)
Registered Linux user number 414240
Les Mikesell
2007-05-30 06:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
I need a little guidance, not just a set of 'do this' instructions.
Although, I won't toss those! :)
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server? Will it
need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the other
boxes? Is Fedora too big an OS for this? Something smaller, Ubuntu?
You can build a special purpose box out of a general purpose
distribution but its a lot of unnecessary work, and fedora's short
support life cycle makes it a questionable starting point. Look at the
smeserver (http://www.contribs.org), clarkconnect
(http://www.clarkconnect.com/), and ipcop (http://www.ipcop.org)
distributions before deciding you can do better.
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box ( Pentium III )
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this. Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files? Is
there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there? I
haven't looked for this yet, so, don't yell.
The SMEserver disro can do this too, all configured with a simple web
interface, and on the same or a different box than the internet gateway
although the canned appliance-like configs can make it difficult to
add things it doesn't include.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Aaron Konstam
2007-05-30 13:28:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:23 -0400,
Post by Michael.Coll-Barth
Folks,
I need a little guidance, not just a set of 'do this' instructions.
Although, I won't toss those! :)
I have built a small network at home for the family using five windows
boxes and one Linux box. Currently, everything plugs into a DSL Modem
for Internet connectivity.
I would like to change this to have a Linux box ( Pentium II )
residential serve as a gateway to provide firewall and proxy services.
I suppose that it will also need to behave as a DHCP server? Will it
need a second NIC installed that will attach to a hub for the other
boxes? Is Fedora too big an OS for this? Something smaller, Ubuntu?
In addition, it would be nice to have another Linux box ( Pentium III )
acting as a web/db/file server. I plan to use Apache and Oracle for
this. Is Samba still what I should use to store Windows files? Is
there a mature IIS 6 'clone' or drop in replacement out there? I
haven't looked for this yet, so, don't yell.
Any thoughts and/or suggestions before I go off to RTFM?
thanks,
Michael
Well you need a pessimist in the group. As someone else said your DSL
modem/router already has firewall protection built in which is easier to
configure that fooling around with another machine.

I am suspicious , however, about your having a web server on your LAN if
you mean to serve the rest of the world. My mythology is that DSL ISPs
don't like to have web service clogging up their DSL lines. And they
arrange the DSL speeds to make that less viable.

Now having a web server to service your LAN internally is fine. I have
one of those and it works fine.
--
=======================================================================
Death before dishonor. But neither before breakfast.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
Kam Leo
2007-05-28 21:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne Wilson
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in
question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.
Anne
The problem may not have anything to do with the driver for the
graphics adapter. A few of my systems have embedded graphics adapters.
Numerous distributions(including Fedora) have choked on the disabled
embedded adapter. When that happens I resort to text mode install and
run system-config-display or it's equivalent post install.
Alan Cox
2007-05-29 08:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Which is from Nvidia...
Aaron Konstam
2007-05-29 13:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
I have not dealt with this for a while. But aren't nvidia drivers
available from Nvidia?
--
Aaron Konstam tel: (210) 656-0355 akonstam at sbcglobal.net
Frank Cox
2007-05-28 20:55:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:33:22 -0500
Post by Les Mikesell
it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The main problem is support for a "black box", as you have been told many times
before.

A side-effect of this is that people are incented to purchase and use products
from "cooperative manufacturers" when they wish to use Fedora (or any other
Linux distribution). Personally, I use and recommend Intel motherboards
and video chipsets when anyone asks my opinion. (I don't know about you, but I
get asked several times every week.)

I'm just one guy, and who cares about my opinion? Apparently, folks around here
do. You can provide similar advice to the folks around your area who care about
yours. On a sufficiently large scale, the problem will eventually become
self-resolving as Nvidia and ATI and whoever-else will wake up and smell the
coffee and continue to sell video cards into the Linux market, or not.

Intel graphics currently work just fine out-of-the-box and will continue
to do so. Nvidia's and ATI's don't. Therefore, the correct decision is
obvious; if the purchaser doesn't research his purchase before putting his
money on the counter, whose fault is that?

"But it's a lot of money to spend to buy a new computer!" Indeed, it can be.
The more reason to look into what you're buying before making the deal.

"But we already have one of these unsupported video cards in our old computer!"
Well, it's unsupported. Your choices are to live with it or purchase a
supported card. If you have a special wrench for a Chev you won't expect to
continue to use it if you get a new Ford. If it will kind-of-fit on the
odd-shaped nut, then fine. But if not, you have to get a new wrench to go with
the new vehicle.

My humble opinion. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But I and many
others will continue to recommend supported video cards and steer folks away
from Nvidia and ATI as much as possible. You are welcome to do so as well.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
Anne Wilson
2007-05-28 21:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.
Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
The linux compatibility list says that the nv driver works for the card in
question. Tested on Debian, IIRC.

Anne
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 20:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mikkel L. Ellertson
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?
Per the original poster, it isn't Nvidia's driver that is broken, it is
the one included in the distribution.

Supplying, or at least documenting the procedure to get the working
version isn't about 'supporting' Nvidia, it is about supporting fedora
users and providing something that works for them. It seems odd for
that to be such a controversial topic.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Gilboa Davara
2007-05-29 12:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Alan Cox
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Oh come-on! Not that argument again!
Ignoring for the second the GPL problem (so called party-line), which is
the basis on which... err... Linux is built:

Please solve the following problems:

Case 1: (Happens once every 6 months or so)
1. nVidia tends to release their driver on a 4 month - 1 month schedule.
(Major each 4 months, with a minor bug fix after a one month)
2. Fedora kernel people are pushing a new upstream kernel that is
incompatible with the current nVidia release - while nVidia is during
the their major-update-wait.
... Which in turn:
A. Fedora should not push a new kernel update because nVidia has yet to
support it.
B. Fedora should push a new kernel update, getting hammered by users
that have broken system on their hands.

Case 2:
1. Fedora is about to release new major release (Fx) which uses a kernel
which is completely incompatible with the current nVidia driver.
2. nVidia, due to Vista driver development problems, decides to spend
less resources on Linux driver development.
... Which in turn:
A. Fedora should use the old Fedora Fx-1 kernel just to maintain
compatibility with nVidia - until nVidia releases a new driver. (If and
when)
B. Fedora should release the new kernel with Fx, breaking support for
the nVidia driver. (Which is officially supported - following your
advice)

Both Case 0 and Case 1 happened before. (8K stacks, X.org 7.x, 2.5.x
kernels, a couple of 2.6.xx releases, Xen, etc)

While I use the nVidia driver on a daily basis on a number of
i386/x86_64 machines (and I have the utmost respect for nVidia's driver
development team for producing close-to-rock-solid-drivers *), Fedora
should not officially support, nor for that matter should they even care
about breaking my setup when it's time to push a new update. (Kernel,
X.org, etc)
It's my choice to use binary-only out-of-the-tree drivers and it's not
Fedora's problem if things break because of it.

- Gilboa
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 17:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilboa Davara
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Oh come-on! Not that argument again!
Ignoring for the second the GPL problem (so called party-line), which is
It is more a question of _who_ should deal with the problems created by
the inability or refusal of the kernel developers to define a driver
interface. In the 'enterprise' release the distro packagers handle it
and the users win. In fedora the users lose.
Post by Gilboa Davara
Case 1: (Happens once every 6 months or so)
1. nVidia tends to release their driver on a 4 month - 1 month schedule.
(Major each 4 months, with a minor bug fix after a one month)
2. Fedora kernel people are pushing a new upstream kernel that is
incompatible with the current nVidia release - while nVidia is during
the their major-update-wait.
A. Fedora should not push a new kernel update because nVidia has yet to
support it.
B. Fedora should push a new kernel update, getting hammered by users
that have broken system on their hands.
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does anyone
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a
behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
question, then the next one becomes how to make yum understand kernel
module dependencies and schedule kernel updates only after all needed
modules (i.e. currently loaded in your kernel) are available in the
repositories so you at least have fewer unpleasant surprises.
Post by Gilboa Davara
1. Fedora is about to release new major release (Fx) which uses a kernel
which is completely incompatible with the current nVidia driver.
2. nVidia, due to Vista driver development problems, decides to spend
less resources on Linux driver development.
Or, perhaps being snubbed and excluded by popular Linux distros is what
makes them decide to reallocate those resources...
Post by Gilboa Davara
A. Fedora should use the old Fedora Fx-1 kernel just to maintain
compatibility with nVidia - until nVidia releases a new driver. (If and
when)
B. Fedora should release the new kernel with Fx, breaking support for
the nVidia driver. (Which is officially supported - following your
advice)
Both Case 0 and Case 1 happened before. (8K stacks, X.org 7.x, 2.5.x
kernels, a couple of 2.6.xx releases, Xen, etc)
Again, proper dependencies in the packaging system should permit such
changes to propagate at the speed that the slowest needed component
becomes available.
Post by Gilboa Davara
While I use the nVidia driver on a daily basis on a number of
i386/x86_64 machines (and I have the utmost respect for nVidia's driver
development team for producing close-to-rock-solid-drivers *), Fedora
should not officially support, nor for that matter should they even care
about breaking my setup when it's time to push a new update. (Kernel,
X.org, etc)
It's my choice to use binary-only out-of-the-tree drivers and it's not
Fedora's problem if things break because of it.
Perhaps - but things are different now that users have other choices. I
think it's fedora's - and eventually RH's problem if users are forced to
a distro that uses different packaging and admin techniques to get a
usable desktop. Fedora tends to be usable in this respect at or near
the end of its life cycle, but then quickly becomes unusable due to the
ending of security updates.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Bruno Wolff III
2007-05-29 18:11:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500,
Post by Les Mikesell
It is more a question of _who_ should deal with the problems created by
the inability or refusal of the kernel developers to define a driver
interface. In the 'enterprise' release the distro packagers handle it
and the users win. In fedora the users lose.
I am going to lose either way, but prefer Fedora's way where I know what
the deal is up front, rather than getting burnt down the road.
Post by Les Mikesell
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does anyone
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a
behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt
getting write barrier support back.
Post by Les Mikesell
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release.
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
Post by Les Mikesell
question, then the next one becomes how to make yum understand kernel
module dependencies and schedule kernel updates only after all needed
modules (i.e. currently loaded in your kernel) are available in the
repositories so you at least have fewer unpleasant surprises.
Getting this to work better is an admirable goal, but the dependencies will
probably need to be from the third party kernel modules on a specific
kernel version.
Post by Les Mikesell
Perhaps - but things are different now that users have other choices. I
think it's fedora's - and eventually RH's problem if users are forced to
a distro that uses different packaging and admin techniques to get a
usable desktop. Fedora tends to be usable in this respect at or near
the end of its life cycle, but then quickly becomes unusable due to the
ending of security updates.
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions
of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a
source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software
included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though.
For people admining their own system that want something that just works,
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 18:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Post by Les Mikesell
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does anyone
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a
behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt
getting write barrier support back.
Post by Les Mikesell
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release.
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release.
You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A
kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
Post by Bruno Wolff III
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions
of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a
source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software
included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though.
For people admining their own system that want something that just works,
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL
releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for
the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current
fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but
I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin
techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release
usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Arthur Pemberton
2007-05-30 02:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Post by Les Mikesell
Users lose either of these ways. The first question is why does
anyone
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Post by Les Mikesell
who has a working kernel and device drivers _ever_ need to install a
behavior-changing replacement - and particularly within an FCx release
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally looking
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt
getting write barrier support back.
Post by Les Mikesell
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next Fedora release.
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release.
You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A
kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade
and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent
entities. Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Post by Frank Cox
Post by Bruno Wolff III
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions
of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a
source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software
included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though.
For people admining their own system that want something that just works,
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL
releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for
the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current
fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but
I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin
techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release
usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
Les Mikesell
2007-05-30 03:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Post by Bruno Wolff III
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am personally
looking
Post by Bruno Wolff III
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and dmcrypt
getting write barrier support back.
Post by Les Mikesell
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next
Fedora release.
Post by Bruno Wolff III
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release.
You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A
kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade
and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent
entities.
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If
some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating
the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely
frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an
interface for drivers.
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL
releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for
the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current
fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but
I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin
techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release
usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might
have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for
about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not
sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tim
2007-05-30 04:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely
frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an
interface for drivers.
Shouldn't this really be an Xorg stability issue, rather than the
kernel? I've never really held with the idea of bunging everything into
the kernel.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
Robin Laing
2007-05-30 15:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Post by Bruno Wolff III
When they want a feature in the new kernel. Features I am
personally looking
Post by Bruno Wolff III
forward to is the removal of the limit of arguments to exec and
dmcrypt
Post by Bruno Wolff III
getting write barrier support back.
Post by Les Mikesell
where the next one is only months away? If there is an answer to that
Your assuming that there will be an nVidia driver for the next
Fedora release.
Post by Bruno Wolff III
That isn't necessary going to be the case.
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release.
You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A
kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade
and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent
entities.
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If
some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating
the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in
a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think
nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be insanely
frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses to define an
interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I
remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for
improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Post by Bruno Wolff III
Don't forget fedora's 'other' purpose of evolving to near-verbatim RHEL
releases - which then has the problem of frozen application versions for
the long, long term between those releases. I agree that the current
fedora disto acting as a fast-changing testbed is a necessary evil, but
I wish there were something that used the same packaging and admin
techniques that would make a usable desktop - like an FCx release
usually becomes for a short period near the end of its life.
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might
have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for
about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not
sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control. I read the Evolution
list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This
can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the
fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
--
Due to the move to M$ Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
Les Mikesell
2007-05-30 16:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If
some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating
the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in
a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think
nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Agreed, but I can't say that I blame ATI for avoiding work that would
not be embraced by the distributions anyway.
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be
insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses
to define an interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I
remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for
improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Yes, it was understandable back when Linus was an inexperienced college
student since he could claim not to know what might be needed. It's a
little late in the game to still be making that claim. And it might
still be understandable at major kernel revision number releases several
years apart as new technology is invented. It doesn't make much sense
to think that if the interface design was flawed in every version up to
x.x.19 that the change in x.x.20 is finally going to be perfect even
though it breaks all the existing drivers in the middle of a
distribution life cycle. Or, the distributions could just refuse to
ship the wildly experimental stuff like they did when it was identified
with an odd minor number.
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime
might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was
broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working
version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most
of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control.
How so, when they have shipped a working version, then push out updates
that break it?
Post by Robin Laing
I read the Evolution
list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This
can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the
fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
So they broke it on purpose? What about firewire?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Arthur Pemberton
2007-05-31 04:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
No, I'm not ignoring that part. I'm saying that _is_ the problem. If
some other OS regularly made incompatible changes without coordinating
the availability of drivers with releases they'd have been dead long ago.
But some other OS has support of the manufacturers for their drivers in
a big way. This isn't the same so it isn't a fair comparison. I think
nVidia is doing a great job in comparison to AMD/ATI.
Agreed, but I can't say that I blame ATI for avoiding work that would
not be embraced by the distributions anyway.
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
Oh, I'm amazed they have kept trying this long. They have to be
insanely frustrated by something that claims to be an OS but refuses
to define an interface for drivers.
In a thread way back some time ago, this was discussed. The issue, if I
remember correctly is flexibility to make changes to the API, either for
improvements or security. Of course it could be made easier.
Yes, it was understandable back when Linus was an inexperienced college
student since he could claim not to know what might be needed. It's a
little late in the game to still be making that claim. And it might
still be understandable at major kernel revision number releases several
years apart as new technology is invented. It doesn't make much sense
to think that if the interface design was flawed in every version up to
x.x.19 that the change in x.x.20 is finally going to be perfect even
though it breaks all the existing drivers in the middle of a
distribution life cycle. Or, the distributions could just refuse to
ship the wildly experimental stuff like they did when it was identified
with an odd minor number.
Post by Robin Laing
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Arthur Pemberton
What are you talking about? My Fedora desktop was always usable.
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime
might have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was
broken for about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working
version. Not sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most
of the time.
Some of the issues are outside Fedora's control.
How so, when they have shipped a working version, then push out updates
that break it?
It seems that the fact that Fedora doesn't not distribute Nvidia's
drivers makes this entire thread moot.
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Robin Laing
I read the Evolution
list and see enough comments about issues not being dealt with. This
can be compounded by Fedora/RH making changes to their code to meet the
fears of litigation and lawyers big fees. :)
So they broke it on purpose? What about firewire?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
Bruno Wolff III
2007-05-30 15:02:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 22:58:36 -0500,
Post by Les Mikesell
Did you have firewire drives mid FC5? A good 6 months of downtime might
have changed your mind. The Evolution exchange connector was broken for
about the same interval after a brief glimpse of a working version. Not
sure what you've been using.... Some stuff works most of the time.
Also recent (post 2288) kernels for FC5 have had a problem where processes
start hanging after a while. On a machine where this was happening about
everyday I stayed with 2288 to avoid problems. On another machine where
it happened about every 7 days I stuck with the latest kernels to try to
help locate the problem so that it could be fixed. That machine is now on F7
and I'll get to see if the regression is also in F7 kernels.
Gilboa Davara
2007-05-31 23:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Pemberton
Post by Les Mikesell
But that's not a big problem until updates stop for the current release.
You can put off installing a new release as long as necessary. A
kernel update within a release that breaks needed drivers is a big problem.
But, you're ignoring the part that the entity doing the kernel upgrade
and the entity working on the driver are two separate and independent
entities. Seriously, you don't give Nvidia's devs enough credit, if
their higher ups cared, their drivers would always work.
I'd wager my next pay-check that most nVidia Linux devs would have been
more-then-willing to GPL their source-code.
People tend to forget that back in XFree86 3.x days nVidia did open
their source code. AFAIK, it was Intel+Microsoft (with a number of cease
and desist letters) that got them closing their driver. [1]

- Gilboa
[1] http://marc.info/?l=dri-devel&m=114981283225530&w=2
Phil Meyer
2007-05-29 18:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Wolff III
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:50:56 -0500,
I think trying to make Fedora for everyone is a mistake. It's current missions
of using all free software (now including build tools, making it almost a
source based distro) and keeping up with very recent versions of software
included fits what I want very well. It isn't a no headache system though.
For people admining their own system that want something that just works,
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice these days.
I just might add, that the case with AMD/ATI drivers is even worse.


There is NO distro that supports R500 and R600 cards, period! Ububtu or
whatever, is no help there.

The official AMD/ATI drivers do not recognize the new numbering scheme
for Xorg (1.3 vs 7.X) and simply will not work. They are not expected
to get corrected until the June release, and even then, there is no
reason to expect them to support Composite natively. We can hope, but ...

Form Xorg.0.log
----
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
(II) Module fglrx: vendor="FireGL - ATI Technologies Inc."
compiled for 7.1.0, module version = 8.36.5
Module class: X.Org Video Driver
ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 1.0
[atiddxSetup] X version mismatch - detected X.org 1.3.0.0, required
X.org 7.1.0.0
(II) UnloadModule: "fglrx"
(II) Unloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
----

At least Nvidia owners have an option. The nv drivers just work.
Rahul Sundaram
2007-05-28 19:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
Post by Alan Cox
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
That's not the "party line". Problems occur in all drivers. If the code
is open it can be fixed by other people besides the vendor.

Rahul
Mikkel L. Ellertson
2007-05-28 19:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Mikesell
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...
Nvidia supplies the driver, shouldn't they also supply the support
for it? After all, Nvidia is getting profit for selling the
hardware. They are also the people that know what is in the driver.
Why should someone else be expected to provide support if Nvadia
isn't willing to provide the source for their driver, or at least
the information needed so someone else can create an open source driver?

Now, if Nvidia was willing to supply RedHat with the source code for
their driver, and pay them to support it, then you might have a
valid argument. Then again, it would be better if Nvidia were to
supply Xorg with the information and money, as they are really the
people that should do the video support. But until Nvidia is willing
to supply the information, things will probably stay the way they
are now.

Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Les Mikesell
2007-05-28 19:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cox
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
*AND* because the fedora distribution does nothing to assist their users
in installing the driver that Nvidia makes freely available. The
party-line argument that third party drivers cause support problems kind
of falls on its face when the included driver doesn't work at all...

Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Anne Wilson
2007-05-28 19:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt
it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might
wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't
start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce
6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
For any problem like this, the first stop is Google. If you use the search
term 'linux 6200 A-LE', the first entry takes you to a list of cards known to
work with linux. Your card is there, and said to work with the nv driver.

That means that you don't have a driver problem, and your problem is probably
relevant only to the install. Try a text install, as Antonio suggests. You
will be able to configure your graphics card and monitor after the install.

Anne
Matej Cepl
2007-05-29 20:57:10 UTC
Permalink
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same
packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me
soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer
savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but
the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red
Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she
goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red
Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates
unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer
geek; sorry, I digress).

Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some
Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course,
they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering
CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel
happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of
guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing
them CentOS as a desktop.

Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using
CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else
than developing Linux? Any other ideas?

Thanks,

Matej
Rick Stevens
2007-05-29 21:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matej Cepl
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same
packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me
soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer
savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but
the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red
Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she
goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red
Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates
unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer
geek; sorry, I digress).
Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some
Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course,
they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering
CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel
happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of
guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing
them CentOS as a desktop.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using
CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else
than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
Ubuntu seems to be the system of choice for many folk and the desktop
variants (kubuntu, etc.) are quite popular.

We use CentOS a lot (mostly for servers--in fact we use it to manage our
storage arrays at 70+TB of content), but the desktop stuff works fine as
well. I've no complaints.

Since CentOS has a similar life span to RHEL, it's a reasonably safe
bet for "regular folk" use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens at internap.com -
- VitalStream, Inc. http://www.vitalstream.com -
- -
- To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Les Mikesell
2007-05-29 21:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matej Cepl
[...], but I wish there were something that used the same
packaging and admin techniques that would make a usable desktop
On that note. Couple of people asked me (or are going to ask me
soon) to install Linux on their desktop. People who are computer
savvy to some degree (or not that much savvy in one case -- but
the lady has learned Red Hat first in times when it was still Red
Hat, and then she got Windows with the new computer, and now she
goes around and notalgically remembers about beautfy of that Red
Hat icons which was welcoming her on login, and hates
unfriendliness of Windows ;-) -- and she is really not computer
geek; sorry, I digress).
Being now a Red Hat employee, I would love to install them some
Red Hat related distro, but I am not sure which one. Of course,
they wouldn't like to shell out big bucks (especially considering
CZK-USD exhange rate) on RH Desktop. However, I wouldn't feel
happy to install them Fedora with 13 (or how many) months of
guaranteed support. So, I was thinking lately about installing
them CentOS as a desktop.
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using
CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else
than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
Today, Centos5 would be a very reasonable desktop choice since it was
just released and is almost exactly that end-of-life FC6 but with
continued updates that I said earlier that I wanted. But, a year and a
half from now - or whenever faster-moving distros have shipped a newer
Evolution, Firefox, OO, etc., it may start to look old and stale because
the apps don't get new-feature updates within the release lifetime.
The nature of the fedora/RHEL split is that if you want new app features
you have to accept the experimental kernels and device drivers that come
bundled with them in fedora. There is also some odd issue with Sun java
vs. the packaged java items in the Centos5 base repository that might or
might not be a problem for you. I think this is inherited from RHEL5
and has something to do with rebuilding jars during package installs.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Styma, Robert E (Robert)
2007-05-31 13:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matej Cepl
Is it good idea? Does anybody have any experience with using
CentOS on desktop, which is primarily used to do something else
than developing Linux? Any other ideas?
I converted several non-technical users from Windows to
Red Hat based Linux. My skating coach currently runs
FC6 (upgraded from FC2 and FC4). I put CentOS on my
wife's desktop. In both cases they like the fact that
it does not crash and also the increased resistance to
virus attacks and adware.

I wrote up the experience with the coach and posted
it at http://www.styma.org/LinuxForTheMasses.shtml

In synopsis, you will probably end up being sysadmin
for them. In my case, only I know the root password.
I set up /etc/hosts.allow and port forwarding on the
DSL router so that I can ssh in from either my box
at work or my box at home. Nothing else gets a login
prompt. I also set up the VNC module so that when they
call for help, I can bring up their screen. This works
less well under FC6 than FC4 (munges up the desktop
as you go along).

The biggest drawback is multimedia. People mail
wmv files and mp3's and other stuff to each other.
It takes a bit of effort to get this working under
Linux. There are still a lot of sites which do not
work correctly under Linux that I have not found
a way to access. This probably bothers me more than
the user as I do not like Windows to work better
than Linux in any way.

Hope this helps.

Bob S.
Phoenix AZ.
valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
2007-05-28 10:46:26 UTC
Permalink
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20070528/54e14d86/attachment-0002.html
antonio montagnani
2007-05-28 10:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I would try "linux text": have you checked your emdia by linux mediacheck???
--
Antonio Montagnani
Skype : antoniomontag
Jim Cornette
2007-05-28 13:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've
burnt it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you
might wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just
wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce
6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
--
V at ly <<<
Probably the card is too recent to have successful Open Source support
for the driver. NVidia does not release specifications and/or source
code to allow decent support for their products.

You probably could install the system using the vesa driver (Generic
support for video) using
linux xdriver=vesa
until you get your system installed. After the initial installation, you
might grab the NVidia binaries packaged up by one of the repos that has
the driver. You should also be able to get this from NVidia.

There is much to find related getting a NVidia video system up and
running in Linux. The most successful seem to be with using the closed
source binaries.

Jim
--
When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.
Alan Cox
2007-05-28 19:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:46:26 +0300
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt it
and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might wonder
why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't start.
after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce 6200
Nvidia support is fairly basic because they choose to keep all their bits
secret.
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
If you boot the installer with the "text" option it will get you to a
point you have a non graphical system installed. From there you can pull
any updates and other packages which may help get your graphics working
(as well as try any configuration changes people suggest)
Anne Wilson
2007-05-28 19:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by valy.tgv at gmail.com ()
hello! i've one day of my life downloading your FC6 DVD image. i've burnt
it and checked it for errors. it was ok so i "started" setup. you might
wonder why the "" around started... well the graphical setup just wouldn't
start. after the blue setup screen, at the part where it says "running
anaconda....." when it tries to detect my video card it only detects the
manufacturer which is nVidia but not the actual card which is a GeForce
6200 A-LE. the screen goes black and nothing happens. please include the
appropriate drivers for my video card in fedora 7. i really need a good
opensource release because i don't have the money to buy a MS OS.
i hope you'll fix this problem.
For any problem like this, the first stop is Google. If you use the search
term 'linux 6200 A-LE', the first entry takes you to a list of cards known to
work with linux. Your card is there, and said to work with the nv driver.

That means that you don't have a driver problem, and your problem is probably
relevant only to the install. Try a text install, as Antonio suggests. You
will be able to configure your graphics card and monitor after the install.

Anne
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...