On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy
> > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up
> > > stabilization of a kernel
> >
> > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is
> > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days
> > pretty solid IMHO for my uses.
> last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i 
> dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia

Well ati's stuff has gotten much better over the last year. But really
IMHO from my experience. It's entirely about your xorg.conf. Wrong
config or etc and it will totally blow. In that regard nVidia seems to
be way more tolerant, and maybe detects stuff at runtime, ati requires
to be configed in xorg.conf.

> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that 
> i 
> do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds 
> for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild

Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open
source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work
with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable

I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their
systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the
new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our
stable tree.

William L. Thomson Jr.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to