Dave Witbrodt writes:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:28:19 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>>> I wasn't speaking of the independent xorg devs (although they also do a
>>> good job), I was saying AMD is doing a very good job.
>>
>> In what way is doing a very good job? A good job could be
On 12/17/2009 4:33 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:58:46PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
On 12/16/2009 4:27 PM, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
In what way "trolling"? Are you kidding? :-/
You are repeating your arguments in a circular fashion without
considering the arguments
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:58:46PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 4:27 PM, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>>
>>> In what way "trolling"? Are you kidding? :-/
>>
>> You are repeating your arguments in a circular fashion without
>> considering the arguments of others. Thats what we call trolli
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:56:28 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-12-17 03:36 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>
> > I've discovered that kernel modesetting seems to consistently crash my
> > 945GM within a few minutes of starting X:
> >
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25681
>
> Which kern
On 2009-12-17 03:36 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> I've discovered that kernel modesetting seems to consistently crash my
> 945GM within a few minutes of starting X:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25681
Which kernel version is that? I have a rather similar machine (Acer
Travelmate 249
On 12/16/2009 4:27 PM, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
In what way "trolling"? Are you kidding? :-/
You are repeating your arguments in a circular fashion without
considering the arguments of others. Thats what we call trolling.
That's not trolling. It may not be a good argument, but it's not
Johannes Wiedersich writes:
> Carl Johnson wrote:
>> I agree entirely with you. It is obvious by now that the original
>> poster has an irrational grudge against ATI and is not interested in
>> any real discussions.
>
> Ups OP was Rogério Brito, not Camaleón.
Sorry, I lost track of the original
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:54:53 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-12-14 13:28 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:17:59 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
...
> >> The best bet is probably
> >> to use Intel graphics, *except* GMA500¹.
> >
> > IIRC, some Intel cards were having *very*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:17:16 -0500, Dave Witbrodt wrote:
>
>> Camaleón wrote:
>
Which probably isn't true anyway, with that much in the way of
resources, you could reverse engineer it in short enough order.
>>> "Reverse en
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carl Johnson wrote:
> I agree entirely with you. It is obvious by now that the original
> poster has an irrational grudge against ATI and is not interested in
> any real discussions.
Ups OP was Rogério Brito, not Camaleón.
- --
Johannes
Three natio
Dave Witbrodt writes:
> More idiocy. More trolling.
>
> At this point I'd like to ask Kelly Clowers to stop feeding the
> troll. The only result of your attempts to correct this troll's errors
> has been to give it a chance to spread disinformation in the
> debian-user archives. Now Google will
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:17:16 -0500, Dave Witbrodt wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>>> Which probably isn't true anyway, with that much in the way of
>>> resources, you could reverse engineer it in short enough order.
>>
>> "Reverse engineering" is not legal in some countries and it's not a
>> fair appr
Camaleón wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:28:19 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:39, Camaleón wrote:
That "100 people" was just a "supposition", sir :-)
Hmmm, then that sentence needs some qualifiers or something:
"so even *if we had* 100 dedicated engineers working on A
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:28:19 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:39, Camaleón wrote:
>> That "100 people" was just a "supposition", sir :-)
>
> Hmmm, then that sentence needs some qualifiers or something:
>
> "so even *if we had* 100 dedicated engineers working on ATI drive
Since both ATI and NVIDIA are lacking driver-wise, compare the hardware.
NVIDIA was ahead for a long time, but they blundered several times
lately, such as the mobile chipset debacle. NVIDIA has tried and failed
also to again leapfrog ATI as they did with the 8800 and the 260/280.
However,
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 14:39, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:12:58 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:48, Camaleón wrote:
>
So what, you want AMD to hire a bunch of devs to write a complete open
source driver? They can't afford to do that.
>>>
>>> They
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 20:56:42 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Sven Joachim put forth on 12/14/2009 6:54 AM:
> > That blob is taken out from the closed
> > source driver and probably undistributable, although Nvidia has promised
> > not to take legal action.
>
> Ahem, yeah, it's not a bright idea
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:12:58 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:48, Camaleón wrote:
>>> So what, you want AMD to hire a bunch of devs to write a complete open
>>> source driver? They can't afford to do that.
>>
>> They couldn't do that... although they wanted.
>>
>> AMD has
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:48, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:24:07 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:09, Camaleón wrote:
>
On the contrary, ATI gives us all this: http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/ and
Intel gives us at least this: http://www.x.org/docs/intel
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:24:07 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:09, Camaleón wrote:
>>> On the contrary, ATI gives us all this: http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/ and
>>> Intel gives us at least this: http://www.x.org/docs/intel/ But Nvidia
>>> gives nothing at all.
>>
>> Still far
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:09, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:38:38 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:50, Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> So in fact, we get from ATI no much more than from nvidia :-/
>>
>> On the contrary, ATI gives us all this: http://www.x.org
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:38:38 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:50, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> So in fact, we get from ATI no much more than from nvidia :-/
>
> On the contrary, ATI gives us all this: http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/ and
> Intel gives us at least this: http://www.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:50, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:20:29 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:43, Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> Both, ATI and Nvidia are quite the same: they do not provide a complete
>>> access to their hardware specifications and just
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:20:29 -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:43, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Both, ATI and Nvidia are quite the same: they do not provide a complete
>> access to their hardware specifications and just provide closed source
>> drivers.
>
> ATI provides compl
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:43, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:33:41 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but people may need some functions that are not provided by Intel
> cards. And remember that Intel driver also had its own glitches...
Intel works great for me.
>> FWIW, I g
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:33:41 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> It seems we have not many real choices, then :-(
>
> One of the remaining options is to complain to the dealer and/or
> manufacturer for providing a product that does not fully work, since
> neither the specifica
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:54:53 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-12-14 13:28 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
Be sure to avoid Nvidia graphics cards then.
Why?
There is "nv" driver (2D) and soon it will be "nouveau" (2D+3D) driver
available. Both are open sour
Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:54:53 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2009-12-14 13:28 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
Be sure to avoid Nvidia graphics cards then.
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> There is "nv" driver (2D) and soon it will be "nouveau" (2D+3D) driver
>>> available. Both are open source.
>> T
Sven Joachim put forth on 12/14/2009 6:54 AM:
> That blob is taken out from the closed
> source driver and probably undistributable, although Nvidia has promised
> not to take legal action.
Ahem, yeah, it's not a bright idea to sue your own customers, ya know,
the ones buying your products (think
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:54:53 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-12-14 13:28 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>>> Be sure to avoid Nvidia graphics cards then.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> There is "nv" driver (2D) and soon it will be "nouveau" (2D+3D) driver
>> available. Both are open source.
>
> The nv driver is h
On 2009-12-14 13:28 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:17:59 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> Be sure to avoid Nvidia graphics cards then.
>
> Why?
>
> There is "nv" driver (2D) and soon it will be "nouveau" (2D+3D) driver
> available. Both are open source.
The nv driver is heavily
31 matches
Mail list logo
