On 06/15/2010 10:24 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:22:21 -0500 Kevin Martin <kevintm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > >> On 06/15/2010 04:05 PM, David Boles wrote: >> >>> On 6/15/2010 4:35 PM, Kevin Martin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 06/15/2010 02:30 PM, mike cloaked wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I used to use kmod-nvidia(-PAE) and what I used to do was: >>>>> yum check-update >>>>> >>>>> Then if there was a kernel but no kmod update listed then I did an >>>>> update excluding the kernel - >>>>> >>>>> Later in the day do it again and if the kmod is then available do a >>>>> complete update - >>>>> Is that so difficult? >>>>> >>>>> I also used to use akmod-nvidia and found after some trial and error >>>>> that there was no -PAE version whereas there was a -PAE version of >>>>> kmod-nvidia-PAE so one had to be a little careful about exactly which >>>>> package to use! >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Not so difficult, just seems like it should be unnecessary. If there >>>> are dependencies in installed components that will be broken by an >>>> update then the update shouldn't be offered/shown by yum/packagekit >>>> until the an updated dependency is satisfied (that sounds odd to me but >>>> I hope you understand what I mean). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Fedora provides you, free of charge, a perfectly good, working, >>> operating system. And they maintain that system. As provided. >>> >>> You modified it by adding a package, or packages, from a non Fedora >>> site(s). Fedora provided improvements and bug fixes for the system that >>> they provide and maintain that 'broke' when you modified that system? >>> >>> You modified your system. So you should fix it. >>> >>> >>> >> This has nothing to do with "who broke what". This has everything to do >> with attempting to make Fedora, and other Linux variants, mainstream >> enough for the common person to use. Your attitude is why Microsoft, >> and to a lesser extent Apple, own the desktop...while Microsoft software >> and patches are by no means the end-all-be-all of stability, from an >> end-users point of view it's certainly more straight forward than what >> we're discussing here. While I applaud Fedora's attempt to not include >> closed-source software components, it *does* allow for the availability >> of secondary repositories that *do* make closed-source drivers available >> (using the same install mechanism that is used to install "Fedora >> approved and included" packages) and there should be an effort made to >> make sure that the tool is smart enough to handle the dependencies >> system-wide. If not, then take Apples approach and close the door on >> secondary repos and have complete control over what gets installed on a >> machine. The fact of the matter is, it's a good thing that there are >> these secondary repos out there to provide much needed "other" >> software...if it weren't for those repos, frankly, Fedora would be even >> less widely used than it is today. >> >> Kevin >> -- >> > Just a minor point: Apple's os's work only on very specific h/w. > Besides, you paid for the privilege of having your h/w and s/w dictated. > > But why are we paying so much attention to the OP again? > > Ranjan > Yes, that's true. And they control the software (which is apparently what the person I last responded to thinks Fedora does/should do since he's obviously against the use of software from non-Fedora controlled sites and/or the ability for software on Fedora sites and non-Fedora sites to play nice together and understand inter-dependencies that may occur). Kevin -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
