Linux.com

i92guboj

i92guboj

  • Linux.com Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Member Since: 04 Aug 09
  • Last Logged In: 28 Jan 10

Latest Posts

Posted by
Topic
Post Preview
Posted
  • i92guboj
    RE: ATI or NVIDIA?
    As other have said, if you don't care about the closed nature of the nvidia drivers, then go nvidia. fglrx (ati) is a pain and you will always live in troubleland with them. Ati is usually lacking a couple of kernel versons behind most of the time as well, and they get worse if you have a multiple head setup. Ati can be an option if you plan to use an older card, for r5xx based cards and below, 3d acceleration works out of the box with the OSS driver, so you don't depend on fglrx to get 3d. But all the newer cards are based on r6xx and r7xx chips. There's a branch in the git repository of the radeon driver that have some preliminar support for 3d acceleration, and some people are even using it for some purposes right now, but it's highly experimental stuff and you can only expect pain from them unless you enjoy testing and reporting bugs. So, the 3d support is coming soon for the ati radeon open source driver, but *right now* nvidia has better support if you don't mind using a close source driver.
    Link to this post 31 Aug 09

    As other have said, if you don't care about the closed nature of the nvidia drivers, then go nvidia. fglrx (ati) is a pain and you will always live in troubleland with them. Ati is usually lacking a couple of kernel versons behind most of the time as well, and they get worse if you have a multiple head setup.

    Ati can be an option if you plan to use an older card, for r5xx based cards and below, 3d acceleration works out of the box with the OSS driver, so you don't depend on fglrx to get 3d. But all the newer cards are based on r6xx and r7xx chips. There's a branch in the git repository of the radeon driver that have some preliminar support for 3d acceleration, and some people are even using it for some purposes right now, but it's highly experimental stuff and you can only expect pain from them unless you enjoy testing and reporting bugs.

    So, the 3d support is coming soon for the ati radeon open source driver, but *right now* nvidia has better support if you don't mind using a close source driver.

  • i92guboj
    RE: ALSA vs OSS Digital sound cards
    [b]Goineasy9 wrote:[/b] [quote]OSS is the older Linux sound system, and is on a usage decline at the moment.[/quote] Mind that there are currently two branches. Oss 3.x is the in-kernel Oss stuff, which is effectively being deprecated. Oss 4.x is being developed outside the kernel tree and it has actually some good things about it, though it isn't admittedly as broadly used as ALSA is nowadays. [quote]ALSA is the current standard, and seems to work pretty much universally. I have the same nvidia high def mcp51 setup as you do in the other thread, and remember having to wait until drivers arrived in order to get sound on a MSI AMD64 mobo I have at home. And by the way it runs alsa fine. Maybe your laptop has special needs.[/quote] ALSA is -by no means- the panacea. It works for most people, but it does some nasty things. As an example, if you have an audigy you will suffer from the fact that dmix doesn't work with surround, which means that you can't hear anything else if you are playing something through the surround filter. So you are limited either to stereo or a single sound at a time. It also lacks a true master channel which means you have to go sliding three controsl each time you need to regulate your volume. I work around this with a bit of shell scripting to set all of them to the same value with a keybinding, but it's quite annoying. However this seems to affect only some models, not all the audigy's, but a number of people have reported this same problem. I don't know if it happens for other cards. The sound is not the cleanest either. I hadn't any of these problems with Oss4, but it didn't had any -functional- support for midi, and most proffesional audio apps just don't work with oss4. Gkrellm and most wm* dockapps do not work -at least not correctly- either with oss4, which is a pity. [quote]PULSEAUDIO seems to be the future, when the bugs are finally ironed out. From what I read, many are still having problems with pulseaudio and are reverting to alsa to get their sound working.[/quote] Pulseaudio is just an high-level sound server, you still need either ALSA or OSS to get sound. Pulseaudio is not a driver, you still need either of these to get pulseaudio working, which just adds another level of complexitly and another source for bugs, problems and annoyances. I am not saying that pulsaudio is useless but most users really don't need yet another layer to do what alsa and oss4 can do natively (or should do natively if they weren't as buggy as they are). So, to sum up and answer the topic at hand. I usually would live much better with oss 4.x (not 3.x), but only if you don't need midi, if the apps you need to run can run with oss4, and if your card is supported. If one of these conditions fail, you have no option but to use ALSA.
    Link to this post 11 Aug 09

    Goineasy9 wrote:

    OSS is the older Linux sound system, and is on a usage decline at the moment.

    Mind that there are currently two branches. Oss 3.x is the in-kernel Oss stuff, which is effectively being deprecated. Oss 4.x is being developed outside the kernel tree and it has actually some good things about it, though it isn't admittedly as broadly used as ALSA is nowadays.

    ALSA is the current standard, and seems to work pretty much universally. I have the same nvidia high def mcp51 setup as you do in the other thread, and remember having to wait until drivers arrived in order to get sound on a MSI AMD64 mobo I have at home. And by the way it runs alsa fine. Maybe your laptop has special needs.

    ALSA is -by no means- the panacea. It works for most people, but it does some nasty things. As an example, if you have an audigy you will suffer from the fact that dmix doesn't work with surround, which means that you can't hear anything else if you are playing something through the surround filter. So you are limited either to stereo or a single sound at a time. It also lacks a true master channel which means you have to go sliding three controsl each time you need to regulate your volume. I work around this with a bit of shell scripting to set all of them to the same value with a keybinding, but it's quite annoying.

    However this seems to affect only some models, not all the audigy's, but a number of people have reported this same problem. I don't know if it happens for other cards.

    The sound is not the cleanest either.

    I hadn't any of these problems with Oss4, but it didn't had any -functional- support for midi, and most proffesional audio apps just don't work with oss4. Gkrellm and most wm* dockapps do not work -at least not correctly- either with oss4, which is a pity.

    PULSEAUDIO seems to be the future, when the bugs are finally ironed out. From what I read, many are still having problems with pulseaudio and are reverting to alsa to get their sound working.

    Pulseaudio is just an high-level sound server, you still need either ALSA or OSS to get sound. Pulseaudio is not a driver, you still need either of these to get pulseaudio working, which just adds another level of complexitly and another source for bugs, problems and annoyances. I am not saying that pulsaudio is useless but most users really don't need yet another layer to do what alsa and oss4 can do natively (or should do natively if they weren't as buggy as they are).


    So, to sum up and answer the topic at hand. I usually would live much better with oss 4.x (not 3.x), but only if you don't need midi, if the apps you need to run can run with oss4, and if your card is supported. If one of these conditions fail, you have no option but to use ALSA.

  • i92guboj
    RE: Web Development in Linux
    It doesn't really matter what tricks do you use. Wine will never render the fonts 1:1 like Windows does. To do so would only be possible if MS liberated their font rendering engine so the wine programmers can integrate it inside wine. Firefox doesn't render the fonts itself, no program does nowadays, that's what X, fontconfig, libXfont and such things are there for. It would be completely dumb if every program reinvented the wheel. Wine, if my memory serves correctly, renders the fonts using freetype2, libXft and libXrender, in other words, the same bits and pieces that most of the rest of the X based programs, so it will never render the fonts like in windows 1:1 Or course, it can be used to get *a taste* of how it will look in windows, but not as a 1:1 perfect copy.
    Link to this post 05 Aug 09

    It doesn't really matter what tricks do you use. Wine will never render the fonts 1:1 like Windows does. To do so would only be possible if MS liberated their font rendering engine so the wine programmers can integrate it inside wine.

    Firefox doesn't render the fonts itself, no program does nowadays, that's what X, fontconfig, libXfont and such things are there for. It would be completely dumb if every program reinvented the wheel.

    Wine, if my memory serves correctly, renders the fonts using freetype2, libXft and libXrender, in other words, the same bits and pieces that most of the rest of the X based programs, so it will never render the fonts like in windows 1:1

    Or course, it can be used to get *a taste* of how it will look in windows, but not as a 1:1 perfect copy.

  • i92guboj
    RE: An Unfortunate Divorce from CLI
    If you truly want to get into command line, Gentoo or Arch are two very effective shock treatments. The Gentoo handbook (which you will be following to install it if you decide to try) will give you a basic insight on how it all works. I am not that experienced with arch, but I know that the arch community is knowledgeable enough, and you will surely have a great time with it if you decide to try it. About your issue with GDM, I know nothing about Mint (or any other Ubuntu alike for that matter), but anyone that is screaming at you just because you want to ditch GDM can never be considered a guru or an expert. I am not saying that everyone should stop using GDM, KDM or whatever they like. All I say is that it makes perfect sense to want to run without it, if that's your desire. Anyone yelling at you because of that is just a lamer, not because s/he uses GDM, but because they should respect your opinion. That's what free software is about.
    Link to this post 05 Aug 09

    If you truly want to get into command line, Gentoo or Arch are two very effective shock treatments. The Gentoo handbook (which you will be following to install it if you decide to try) will give you a basic insight on how it all works.

    I am not that experienced with arch, but I know that the arch community is knowledgeable enough, and you will surely have a great time with it if you decide to try it.

    About your issue with GDM, I know nothing about Mint (or any other Ubuntu alike for that matter), but anyone that is screaming at you just because you want to ditch GDM can never be considered a guru or an expert. I am not saying that everyone should stop using GDM, KDM or whatever they like. All I say is that it makes perfect sense to want to run without it, if that's your desire. Anyone yelling at you because of that is just a lamer, not because s/he uses GDM, but because they should respect your opinion. That's what free software is about.

  • i92guboj
    RE: video decoder drivers for linux
    The linux kernel supports the cx23885 chip, so you should probably be looking at video4linux. I have of course no way to guarantee that your concrete card will work, even if the chip is supported.
    Link to this post 05 Aug 09

    The linux kernel supports the cx23885 chip, so you should probably be looking at video4linux. I have of course no way to guarantee that your concrete card will work, even if the chip is supported.

  • i92guboj
    RE: ati-catalyst 9.6 on kernel 2.6.30(x86) Crash!!
    Hi, ;) A couple of things: [ol] [li]glxgears is NOT a benchmark, it doesn't really matter how much fps does it report as long as DRI is working, also, take into account that if your monitor refreshes the screen, let's say, 60 times per second, it doesn't really matter how much fps your card can do, your monitor will not magically be able to output 3200 frames per second, period.[/li] [li]fglrx (catalyst, or whatever you call them) DO NOT WORK officially with anything above 2.6.28.10, which is the latest .28 release of the linux kernel. 2.6.29 and 2.6.30 releases are plainly unsupported. This holds valid for fglrx 9.6 and 9.7. Yes, I am perfectly aware that there are patches around to make them kind-of-work with newer kernels, but if you use them expect all kind of annoyances (spam logs which will fill your /var/ partition, hangs, lockups, acpi stuff not working, etc etc etc), you get the idea. Of course, the magically work for *some* persons, which doesn't mean they truly work at all.[/li] [/ol] So, to sum up: if you truly need the propietary fglrx driver, the best idea is to stay at linux 2.6.28.x.
    Link to this post 05 Aug 09

    Hi, ;)

    A couple of things:

    [ol]
    [li]glxgears is NOT a benchmark, it doesn't really matter how much fps does it report as long as DRI is working, also, take into account that if your monitor refreshes the screen, let's say, 60 times per second, it doesn't really matter how much fps your card can do, your monitor will not magically be able to output 3200 frames per second, period.[/li]
    [li]fglrx (catalyst, or whatever you call them) DO NOT WORK officially with anything above 2.6.28.10, which is the latest .28 release of the linux kernel. 2.6.29 and 2.6.30 releases are plainly unsupported. This holds valid for fglrx 9.6 and 9.7. Yes, I am perfectly aware that there are patches around to make them kind-of-work with newer kernels, but if you use them expect all kind of annoyances (spam logs which will fill your /var/ partition, hangs, lockups, acpi stuff not working, etc etc etc), you get the idea. Of course, the magically work for *some* persons, which doesn't mean they truly work at all.[/li]
    [/ol]

    So, to sum up: if you truly need the propietary fglrx driver, the best idea is to stay at linux 2.6.28.x.

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board