In case you didn't know or forgot

[Guy Fraser]

The nVidia card on my FC3 machine works fine, and other than 
building an new module and re-creating initrd to include the 
nvidia module after upgrading the kernel, I haven't had any 
issues for a while.

On Mon, 2005-10-01 at 11:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:37:17 -0500, Paul Iadonisi <pri.rhl3 at iadonisi.to> wrote:
> >   Take a deep breath, Jeff.  ;-)  Though I do think you are mostly
> > right, you'll note that 'gslink at one.net' did, in fact, imply in his
> > original post that it is nVidia that needs to provide an updated driver.
> > Though I would be curious as to what the problem actually is, the
> > implication didn't seem to be that the glibc update was the source of
> > the problem, but rather that nVidia is lagging again.
> 
> Scapegoating nVidia whenever an individual sees a video related
> problem on their system, while fun to do, isn't particularly
> constructive. Other than's gslink's naked claim that the problem is
> widespread and everyone running nvidia drivers on the list should
> avoid the glibc updates what evidence is there that there is a
> widespread problem? Did gslink cite a discusion where nvidia
> developers have ackownledged a problem? Did gslink cite an on-going
> discussion among nvidia hardware owners where problems have been
> cross-checked and confirmed on multiple systems? There isn't much
> supporting evidence to suggest this is a problem with the nvidia
> libraries or kernel drivers or even a problem associated with the
> glibc update.  There could be a number of problems that gslink is
> misintepreting as being something inside the nvidia drivers.  I think
> gslink's initial post is classic FUD, and i strongly challenge the
> call for avoiding the glibc update that gslink made, without more
> supporting evidence beyond gslink's personal experience.  His comment
> about rpm saying files are missing.. speaks of deeper issues wholely
> unrelated to how the nvidia drivers and libraries actually operate.
> More likely than not he used nvidia's installer  instead of the nvidia
> rpms and forced the removal of the xorg-Mesa-libGL which provides
> libGL.so.1 thus breaking the rpm dependancy chain for ANY application
> that requires libGL.so.1.  Sadly gslink hasn't provided us with any
> specifics as to the exact errors he's seeing, so I can't be sure thats
> the problem. We can't be sure of anything really other thank gslink
> feels that avoiding the glibc update is the correct course of action.
> 
> If avoiding the glibc update is something nvidia developers have
> stated as a work-around to a widespread problem i demand the citation
> to such an annoucement. Telling other users to avoid updating glibc is
> pretty extreme in my opinion, and I want confirmation from multiple
> sources that avoiding the glibc update is the prefered workaround...
> otherwise this is at best unconstructive and at worst dangerous
> advice. Luckily that glibc update wasn't marked as a security update ,
> if it were, I'd actually be angry at the suggestion that people
> shouldn't update it. As it stands, im just slightly annoyed.
> 
> -jef"There is a vast difference between asking for others to confirm a
> problem that you are seeing and making a bold proclamation of a
> solution to a widespread problem which you assume exists."spaleta
> 
-- 
Guy Fraser
Network Administrator
The Internet Centre
1-888-450-6787
(780)450-6787