New Dell Inspiron 9400: From Vista to Fedora/Vista.

[Sam Varshavchik]

Nat Gross writes:

> On 5/7/07, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> wrote:
>> Nat Gross writes:
>>
>> > On 5/7/07, Nat Gross <nat101l at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 5/7/07, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> wrote:
>> >> > Nat Gross writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On 5/7/07, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> Nat Gross writes:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > I would like to have Fedora on it in a dual boot config.
>> >> > >> > If I have to, I'll reinstall Vista (and free Win software) from scratch.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Are you really sure you can do that?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The Vista CD you have included with your shiny machine is, most likely, a
>> >> > >> castrated "rescue CD" that merely copies over the original Vista install
>> >> > >> image off a hidden, extra partition.  I'd be surprised if it even gave you
>> >> > >> an option of choosing your partition layout.  More than likely it just wipes
>> >> > >> everything clean and sets up an entire disk-spanning partition, again.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > This is a Vista DVD and it seems like the complete Vista is on it.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Currently I am trying the rescuecd but, although it boots ok, it won't
>> >> > > startx, so I cant do gparted - yet.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Make me wonder if Fedora might also have gui problems on this.
>> >> >
>> >> > More than likely.  I'll probably get tired of repeating this: but you just
>> >> > can't pull a random laptop off the shelf, and expect that video will work
>> >> > flawlessly, in Linux.  That's not the way it works.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, if you have the basic model, with the Intel 950 video, you might
>> >> > actually have lucked out, and there's a good chance that you'll get
>> >> > accelerated 3D out of the box.  If, however, you "upgraded" to the ATI
>> >> > x1400 video option, well, you've upgraded yourself out of Linux video
>> >> > compatibility (although you should be able to get basic 2D video working).
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that the preceding paragraph was based solely on the information I
>> >> > could easily pull off Dell's web site, and www.mesa3d.org.
>> >>
>> >> Uh oh. We (we? *I* ) have a problem. I have the ATI X1400.
>> >> I think I'll return the sucker. Hope they let me.
>> >
>> > There is a RAY of HOPE. Namely:
>> > http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/linux/linux-radeon.html This is a
>> > bran new driver!
>> > But.... although the install does not seem too complex per:
>> > https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/linux_8.36.5-inst.html
>> > I am not sure if:
>> > a) I know the answers to the installer questions as it pertains to FC
>> > 6 (hint hint).
>> > b) Will I be able to get to the point where I can run the installer?
>>
>> Well, feel free to ignore my advice, but:
>>
>> 1) This is binary-only blob driver, that has to be recompiled every time you
>> upgrade to a new kernel.
>>
>> 2) Is generally considered to be a royal pain the ass.
>>
>> 3) Again, if this ati chipset is fubared to the point that you can't even
>> run the installer, well, you can try to hack through the installer in text
>> mode, and cross your fingers and hope that you can pummel the binary blob
>> ATI driver into submission after you finish the install.
>>
>> I strongly encourage everyone to boycott vendors that refuse to provide
>> free/open source software drivers for their hardware, and instead pay lip
>> service to Linux support by offering buggy binary-only, non-free device
>> drivers.  Generally, if you insist on futzing around with ATI's binary
>> driver, then if later down the road you experience any kernel-related
>> problems (some USB device doesn't work, for example, or mysterious disk
>> errors, etc) you won't get any help unless you uninstall ATI's binary
>> driver.  Since its source code is not available, it is impossible to
>> determine what it does to the kernel, and it cannot be debugged, with the
>> driver already installed.
>>
> [Off the record, let me ask you this, please.]
> Although I have been with Fedora since FC2, since Dell just announced
> official support for Suse 10, do I go for Suse for this machine? I
> cringe at the thought of re-learning stuff where they differ from red
> hat. (/etc files and what not.)

Personally, I would not, under any circumstances, choose to support either 
Dell, or Novell.  I would've given a different answer six months ago, before 
Novell signed their cross-licensing patent deal with Microsoft, regarding 
supposed patent claims Microsoft alleges they have that Linux allegedly 
infringes, in an indirect assault on Linux and a blatant attempt to subvert 
the GPL.  The Dell deal is just the other shoe dropping.

After Novell announced their pact with Microsoft, the Free Software 
Foundation delayed GPL 3, and revised it slightly to legally prohibit Novell 
from distributing any GPL 3-licensed software, with these patent provisions 
in place.

It's a done deal that as soon as GPL 3 is officially adopted, all software 
that FSF holds the copyright on will be relicensed under GPL 3.  That 
includes glibc, and plenty of other stuff too.  Novell's only option at that 
point will be to remain with the last version of FSF-copyrighted software 
that was released uder GPL 2.  In about a year from now, it's a safe bet 
that SuSE will begin to stagnate, since Novell will no longer be able to 
legally ship the current version of key Linux software components, and 
remain in compliance with their Microsoft patent deal.

If you were not aware of this, you'll need to hit Google.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070508/b35750d3/attachment-0001.sig>