On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 08:11 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> They fooled me. I have:
>
> $ glxinfo
> name of display: :0.0
> display: :0 screen: 0
> direct rendering: Yes
> server glx vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
> ...
>
> It appears that they fool xorg too. Do we really have a terminology
> p
On 5/29/06, Peter B. Steiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Definitely. Maybe a "who should install this" paragraph, either listing
or linking to the cards supported by that version of driver?
I tried to add that, basically saying this configuration is for Mesa
only with links to the NVIDIA and A
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 21:07 +1200, Simon Geard wrote:
> Instead, I suggest you say something like "Binary drivers such as
> those
> provided by nVidia should not use this option as they do not make use
> of
> the DRI framework."
>
> Sound reasonable?
Definitely. Maybe a "who should install this
On 5/28/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/28/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that DRI is not always appropriate. If using the
> Nvidia proprietary drivers, the DRI line in the module section needes
> to be removed or commented out.
>
> Overall the se
On 5/29/06, Simon Geard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Terminology check on 'other DRI drivers'. The drivers provided by nVidia
(and I assume ATI) provide hardware acceleration, but they don't use the
Direct Rendering Infrastructure - referring to them as DRI drivers is
thus somewhat misleading.
T
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 15:48 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that DRI is not always appropriate. If using the
> > Nvidia proprietary drivers, the DRI line in the module section needes
> > to be removed or commented out.
> >
> >
Stefano Lampis wrote:
Peter B. Steiger wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 20:33 +0200, Stefano Lampis wrote:
(after Dan sez)
I was really surprised to see it wasn't in the book. I'm gonna put
on
my editor's hat for a few hours tonight, so if I beat you to it...
Probably the reason is that l
Peter B. Steiger wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 20:33 +0200, Stefano Lampis wrote:
> (after Dan sez)
>>> I was really surprised to see it wasn't in the book. I'm gonna put
>> on
>>> my editor's hat for a few hours tonight, so if I beat you to it...
>
>> Probably the reason is that lfs users shoul
On 5/28/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is that DRI is not always appropriate. If using the
Nvidia proprietary drivers, the DRI line in the module section needes
to be removed or commented out.
Overall the setting is hardware dependent.
Good point. I think I'll put in
On 5/27/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter B. Steiger wrote these words on 05/27/06 20:08 CST:
> I know that's covered in FAQs all over the world, but I figure it makes
> sense for it to be included with the other xorg.conf instructions.
This, to me, is a very good suggestion.
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 20:33 +0200, Stefano Lampis wrote:
(after Dan sez)
> > I was really surprised to see it wasn't in the book. I'm gonna put
> on
> > my editor's hat for a few hours tonight, so if I beat you to it...
> Probably the reason is that lfs users should be experienced users,
> withou
Stefano Lampis wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 5/28/06, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah. The suggestion is correct (except if you use a name instead of
gid, it must be quoted). This has been just 'known' for a long time. I
don't know why it was never added to the dri section. Perhaps
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 5/28/06, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. The suggestion is correct (except if you use a name instead of
>> gid, it must be quoted). This has been just 'known' for a long time. I
>> don't know why it was never added to the dri section. Perhaps using a
>>
On 5/28/06, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah. The suggestion is correct (except if you use a name instead of
gid, it must be quoted). This has been just 'known' for a long time. I
don't know why it was never added to the dri section. Perhaps using a
specific group vs eveyone. I'll pu
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Peter B. Steiger wrote these words on 05/27/06 20:08 CST:
I know that's covered in FAQs all over the world, but I figure it makes
sense for it to be included with the other xorg.conf instructions.
This, to me, is a very good suggestion. DJ, care to handle it?
I cannot
Peter B. Steiger wrote these words on 05/27/06 20:08 CST:
> I know that's covered in FAQs all over the world, but I figure it makes
> sense for it to be included with the other xorg.conf instructions.
This, to me, is a very good suggestion. DJ, care to handle it?
I cannot confirm it, as I don't
It took me a couple of hours to figure out why root could run glxgears
and my normal login could not - xorg.conf was lacking the Section DRI
settings that give the access mode to the DRI memory space and/or groups
who have rights to DRI:
Section "DRI"
Mode 0660
Group video
EndSecti
17 matches
Mail list logo
