Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On 7/24/07, Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:47:38 -0700
Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you didn't wish to receive an answer, don't ask.
You didn't answer the question, you merely started spouting FUD.
When you stop providing mis-information, I'll stop correcting it.
What exactly would you be correcting? Please educate us all on your
background using NVIDIA products. Or are you just speaking on a topic
of which you have no first hand knowledge?
Lonnie, I too use the NVIDIA driver. That code is closed source and NO ONE
HERE has access to it should it be defective.
Now, if you can duplicate the problem using the nv driver, which we as a
group, do have the src code for, then someone might be able to help you.
But, since the NVIDIA driver is closed, these people have no way of knowing if
it is correct, or contains a miss initialized pointer that can scribble all
over the rest of the systems memory, causing all sorts of hate, discontent
and problems. So as long as you and I use that driver, there is absolutely
zero chance that a kernel bug report filed by either of us will get more
attention than cleared with a notabug, kernel is tainted note in bugzilla.
Those are the revelant facts, and if they don't happen to fit your opinion,
that is unfortunate but it doesn't alter the facts in the real world, so why
don't you either duplicate the problem while using the nv driver, or toddle
off and install windows something or other on your box and leave these good
people to do what they do best, which is to write better code than Bills
best.
You might also take your problem to nvidia, where legit bugs are usually fixed
and new drivers issued in just a few days. If its indeed their problem.
I for one am having problems with the Nvidia driver but I don't think
the issue is with the driver as I have issues with the nv driver as
well. If I change from the Nvidia driver to the nv driver, I get the
same trace info from xorg that I get with nvidia when xorg decides it
wants to use a large amount of processor power.
I ran the tests last night after upgrading to the latest kernel. The
latest kernel works better than the previous kernel.
<rant>
On the note of Fedora not wanting to look at closed source driver
issues, I understand but that affects the ability to be adapted to the
desktop and the desktop user. Many users like myself have a hard time
tracing problems and then do the best we can to submit bugs. But when
the finger pointing starts it gets harder. The people that know how to
trace and diagnose these types of problems are the same people that
develop and produce the software. They understand the code and the
procedures to trace the problem.
In this case, changing a kernel changes the problem. In one post on the
nvidia site, it was mentioned cfq, in the kernel may be causing the
problem. In a previous post in this thread I mentioned CFS but I was
wrong. Now if the problem is the Linux Kernel and cfq, who is then
responsible? Is it Nvidia or the kernel team? Who should be submitting
the bugs? Where does this leave the users that doesn't know how to do
the tracing and submit a proper bug?
FWIW, I am reading the same type of issues with Xorg going to almost
100% CPU and becoming almost unresponsive for all types of video cards.
As one article I read recently states. Linux development is geared
towards the server market and is ignoring issues with the desktop. From
the response to this issue, I am leaning towards believing this.
For many desktop users, 3D is a necessity. For home users it is almost
a requirement, especially with children who want to play games such as
PPRacer or Super Tux Kart.
</rant>
--
Due to the move to Exchange Server,
anything that is a priority, please phone.
Robin Laing
