ATI r500 Open Source 3d
I had a strange issue last night. After updating a few X11 packages from git, I rebooted and everything seemed to work fine. I then shutdown and went over to a buddies, booted up only to see X was locking up my session. I would get a blank screen, and then the system would become unresponsive. I tried re-emerging a few of the applications but the problem still existed.
I instead removed all the keywording for the r500 drivers and the X11 beta applications, and then added back in just the things needed for xorg-x11-7.3. I downgraded everything else, and then my X came back. I then re-added the unmasking and kewording for the r500 drivers, updated everything is now my enviroment comes up. Crazy .. except one small issue. My AIGLX isn’t working. 3D seems to work, but I am getting strange errors.
First of glxinfo reports Direct Rendering: Yes. But when I run glxgears, I get an RGB error about double buffering. This seems to prevent any type of compositing manager from running. I tried running Frozen Bubbles, and it works fine. All my 2d acceleration is now working fine, just compositing/3d seems to be borked.
I guess this is the pain fun of working with live git packages http://gibbonsr.net/rsc/smilies/icon_smile.gif” alt=”:)” class=”middle” />
If there’s enough interest out there for a fork, and people want to do it, then they should go ahead. What’s the problem? That’s what open source is all about – options, and freedom.
I used to like KDE but I’ve tried the 4.1 beta and it pushed me back to GNOME. I just want to be able to slap files on my desktop and move them around easily. KDE 4.1 is too much eye candy and not enough simplicity. KDE 3 was much better in my opinion, and I understand why some people are asking for a fork. KDE 4 is like New Coke to some folks.
If there’s interest, I’d be happy to see a fork happen. If not, then that’s OK…I’ll probably stick with GNOME now unless KDE brings back the positive things that made the KDE desktop solid in the past.
While normally I would agree, and as a I said, some forks are good. And I would even venture to say all forks for the right reasons are good.
Here, the basic problem is, people don’t like the current state and quite possibly the direction KDE 4.x is taking. I was never a full KDE 3.5 fan, but it was nice, and I use it on a few red hat servers over the older GNOME. I can defiantly see how KDE 4.x is lacking the polish that KDE 3.5 had.
I don’t think KDE 4.1 will be ready like the developers thought it would, or how most would think 4.1 was. They are too eager to release early and release often. While that is fine and dandy, don’t call it stable when it isn’t.
As for the fork, I still thinking “Forking KDE” in the true sense is a bad idea. There are too many half dead projects out there. What I would like to see is a branch started from the KDE 3.5 that focus on moving Qt4 and maybe even Dolphin and a few other apps to KDE 3.5. The biggest problem this or any other type of fork with KDE 3.5 is the way that KDE handles applications, in my limit expereince and knowledge, it seems KDE 4.x has change the libs and the services that bind all KDE apps together. So as more applications are migrated to KDE 4.x that very well might stop working on KDE 3.5. Now you are asking to fork every core KDE application and make it work, back porting features bugs fixes everything.
Either way it is a danting task that effects more then just the core of KDE. What would be nice to see is the old KDE interface migrated to KDE 4.x. You get your panel and desktop just as before, but with all the added benefits of KDE 4.
We should be moving forward with change, not hanging onto legacy apps and old methodologies. (Assuming moving forward isn’t moving back
)
I completely agree with Ryan.
In my opinion the point is there’s no need to fork KDE.
KDE4 isn’t just an evolution of KDE 3.5, is a revolution, a completely new framework, which is still in a work in progress stage. The truth is it’s just not ready for production use yet.
Forking it wouldn’t do any good. Wanna speed up its development? Go help the developers out instead, there’s no point in forking it.
P.S.: I’m glad to see your blog is online again.
Of course a fork of KDE 3.0 makes ALL sense (for me, even a fork of KDE 1.0 makes sense!)
I just can’t run KDE 4.1 (or any KDE 4.X) on my Core2Duo MacBook running Ubuntu 8.X, and i’m not seeing it running fine on the first version of EeePC as well – and it seems to come with KDE 3.X
KDE 4.X can be the risk of the death of KDE development, really.
Not only, the KDE 3.X fork can call nicelly as LKDE (Light KDE).
And i suggest a challenge for QT4 developers to create a window manager lighter than LXDE (which is based on Gnome, isnt’ it?), named LQDE – can it be possible? i really and deeply doubt, and please show me that i’m wrong – very difficult challenge, isn’t it?