Ok, I don't know what list you want this F17-alpha stuff on but here goes...
I downloaded the F17 alpha DVD and installed it on one of my laptops today. I selected Use All Space and Encrypted. At repos I selected Installation Repo and Fedora-i386. Install completed just fine. Boot loader installed and then I rebooted. I created a user account and was able to login to that user account. When the GUI appeared I see Activities on the top left. I click on Activities and see a vertical left menu plus a horizontal menu with tabs Windows | Applications. I scroll through Applications and start a Terminal. All I get is a transparent box with no prompt. I can see an ibeam pointer so I try typing text. Nothing. So next I try to start Firefox. All I get is a blank white box.
Can someone point out what is needed here or do I just file bug reports?
On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Can someone point out what is needed here or do I just file bug reports?
I'd suggest installing something more recent, like F17 Beta TC1. http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/17-Beta.TC1/
Chris Murphy
Ok, I'll give that a try.
Thanks.
On 03/15/2012 07:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Can someone point out what is needed here or do I just file bug reports?
I'd suggest installing something more recent, like F17 Beta TC1. http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/17-Beta.TC1/
Chris Murphy
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 17:45 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Ok, I'll give that a try.
Thanks.
I suggest netinst.iso or livecd, and enable all the repos in anaconda, so that your installation is current from the first boot.
And if you still have trouble, it sounds rather like a graphics driver issue, so it would help to know your graphics card.
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
On 03/15/2012 09:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 17:45 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Ok, I'll give that a try.
Thanks.
I suggest netinst.iso or livecd, and enable all the repos in anaconda, so that your installation is current from the first boot.
And if you still have trouble, it sounds rather like a graphics driver issue, so it would help to know your graphics card.
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
On 03/15/2012 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
Looks like it.
My screen issues are a little bit different but I think it's the same underlying problem: driver issues.
On 03/15/2012 10:46 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
Looks like it.
My screen issues are a little bit different but I think it's the same underlying problem: driver issues.
I just saw comment 47 in the bug.
I'm not sure I understand the part about workaround with blacklisting.
At no time do I have a working Terminal after reboot. And what exactly ends up being blacklisted? I thought only drivers got blacklisted. How do you blacklist a card? Does someone have an example?
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 14:31 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:46 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
Looks like it.
My screen issues are a little bit different but I think it's the same underlying problem: driver issues.
I just saw comment 47 in the bug.
I'm not sure I understand the part about workaround with blacklisting.
At no time do I have a working Terminal after reboot. And what exactly ends up being blacklisted? I thought only drivers got blacklisted. How do you blacklist a card? Does someone have an example?
That's more a discussion for how we as the Fedora (and upstream GNOME) devs can fix the problem than how you as a user can fix it.
The 'blacklist' we're talking about is GNOME's blacklist of cards that have 3D-accelerated drivers that seem to satisfy all the Shell requirements, but are in fact known to be incapable of satisfactorily rendering Shell. It's located at /usr/share/gnome-session/hardware-compatibility (in F17, anyway, I think it may have been different in F16). It blacklists based on the Mesa renderer string; the level of granularity it's capable of depends on how each Mesa driver decides to write its renderer string. For the main drivers (Intel, Radeon, Nouveau) it's possible to achieve pretty much GPU-level granularity.
On 03/16/2012 02:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 14:31 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:46 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
Looks like it.
My screen issues are a little bit different but I think it's the same underlying problem: driver issues.
I just saw comment 47 in the bug.
I'm not sure I understand the part about workaround with blacklisting.
At no time do I have a working Terminal after reboot. And what exactly ends up being blacklisted? I thought only drivers got blacklisted. How do you blacklist a card? Does someone have an example?
That's more a discussion for how we as the Fedora (and upstream GNOME) devs can fix the problem than how you as a user can fix it.
The 'blacklist' we're talking about is GNOME's blacklist of cards that have 3D-accelerated drivers that seem to satisfy all the Shell requirements, but are in fact known to be incapable of satisfactorily rendering Shell. It's located at /usr/share/gnome-session/hardware-compatibility (in F17, anyway, I think it may have been different in F16). It blacklists based on the Mesa renderer string; the level of granularity it's capable of depends on how each Mesa driver decides to write its renderer string. For the main drivers (Intel, Radeon, Nouveau) it's possible to achieve pretty much GPU-level granularity.
Adam, thanks for that clarification.
Also, can you boil this down a little for those of us with nVidia FX NV3/NV4 graphics?
What can we expect for F17 in the way of supporting our nvidia graphics cards?
Just some type of non-accelerated solution?
Or will there be a driver written that will properly support these nVidia cards?
And I went looking into nVidia non-free driver but it appears there is a problem with glibc conflict that prevents use of these drivers. Any comment on that situation?
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 17:01 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/16/2012 02:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 14:31 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:46 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/15/2012 10:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 22:22 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Yeah, installed the beta and I'm still having the exact same problem.
Graphics is Geforce FX 5600
Ah. Then that'll be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202 .
Looks like it.
My screen issues are a little bit different but I think it's the same underlying problem: driver issues.
I just saw comment 47 in the bug.
I'm not sure I understand the part about workaround with blacklisting.
At no time do I have a working Terminal after reboot. And what exactly ends up being blacklisted? I thought only drivers got blacklisted. How do you blacklist a card? Does someone have an example?
That's more a discussion for how we as the Fedora (and upstream GNOME) devs can fix the problem than how you as a user can fix it.
The 'blacklist' we're talking about is GNOME's blacklist of cards that have 3D-accelerated drivers that seem to satisfy all the Shell requirements, but are in fact known to be incapable of satisfactorily rendering Shell. It's located at /usr/share/gnome-session/hardware-compatibility (in F17, anyway, I think it may have been different in F16). It blacklists based on the Mesa renderer string; the level of granularity it's capable of depends on how each Mesa driver decides to write its renderer string. For the main drivers (Intel, Radeon, Nouveau) it's possible to achieve pretty much GPU-level granularity.
Adam, thanks for that clarification.
Also, can you boil this down a little for those of us with nVidia FX NV3/NV4 graphics?
What can we expect for F17 in the way of supporting our nvidia graphics cards?
Just some type of non-accelerated solution?
Or will there be a driver written that will properly support these nVidia cards?
With the blacklist in place, you'd get the fallback mode. Right now, anyway. It may change so that you wind up with software rendering of the Shell.
Ben is working on a rewrite of the driver for these cards; what's unclear is whether it will be done in reasonable time to get merged into F17. If it does, we'll see if we can merge it in and remove the blacklist. If it doesn't, you'll have the blacklisted behaviour with the released F17.
And I went looking into nVidia non-free driver but it appears there is a problem with glibc conflict that prevents use of these drivers. Any comment on that situation?
It's a fairly well-known issue that you can't build the NVIDIA driver against a debug kernel without tweaking something somewhere. It works fine if you use a non-debug kernel.
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a fairly well-known issue that you can't build the NVIDIA driver against a debug kernel without tweaking something somewhere. It works fine if you use a non-debug kernel.
Not really: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751891 Anything dlopening libGL directly or indirectly can still cause glibc errors. Neither glibc's nor nvidia's fix solved that issue for everyone. We still get duplicates of this bug reported regularly.
Kevin Kofler
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 23:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a fairly well-known issue that you can't build the NVIDIA driver against a debug kernel without tweaking something somewhere. It works fine if you use a non-debug kernel.
Not really: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751891 Anything dlopening libGL directly or indirectly can still cause glibc errors. Neither glibc's nor nvidia's fix solved that issue for everyone. We still get duplicates of this bug reported regularly.
Oh, yeah, that one. I *think* the issue the OP was referring to was the well-known one with getting it to even build against a debug kernel, though. It complains about the license on some symbols or other.
On 03/16/2012 06:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 23:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a fairly well-known issue that you can't build the NVIDIA driver against a debug kernel without tweaking something somewhere. It works fine if you use a non-debug kernel.
Not really: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751891 Anything dlopening libGL directly or indirectly can still cause glibc errors. Neither glibc's nor nvidia's fix solved that issue for everyone. We still get duplicates of this bug reported regularly.
Oh, yeah, that one. I *think* the issue the OP was referring to was the well-known one with getting it to even build against a debug kernel, though. It complains about the license on some symbols or other.
And for anyone interested in the history of 3D graphics hardware here's an article with a lot of good hardware photos and info:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/graphics_extravaganza_ultimate_gpu...
It's a couple years old but still good.
On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 00:17 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/16/2012 06:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 23:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a fairly well-known issue that you can't build the NVIDIA driver against a debug kernel without tweaking something somewhere. It works fine if you use a non-debug kernel.
Not really: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751891 Anything dlopening libGL directly or indirectly can still cause glibc errors. Neither glibc's nor nvidia's fix solved that issue for everyone. We still get duplicates of this bug reported regularly.
Oh, yeah, that one. I *think* the issue the OP was referring to was the well-known one with getting it to even build against a debug kernel, though. It complains about the license on some symbols or other.
And for anyone interested in the history of 3D graphics hardware here's an article with a lot of good hardware photos and info:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/graphics_extravaganza_ultimate_gpu_retrospective/It's a couple years old but still good.
Hey, that's pretty good. Don't see any big mistakes, and they even got the i740 in there. Solid 8 or 9 out of 10 I'd say.
I've owned far too many of those...
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 21:51:19 -0700, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Hey, that's pretty good. Don't see any big mistakes, and they even got the i740 in there. Solid 8 or 9 out of 10 I'd say.
I wish they had included chip set names for more of the cards. They didn't list the rv280 / ATI 9200, which was a very nice card. It was reasonably priced and didn't need a fan on the card.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 16:36:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
They didn't list the rv280 / ATI 9200, which was a very nice card. It was reasonably priced and didn't need a fan on the card.
That's still the graphics card on my primary computer. :-)
I still have one in my main desktop at home. I'd be tempted to get something more modern as the OpenGL 3 support for this card will never be good, but modern cards wouldn't work in my motherboard.
On 03/17/2012 12:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 00:17 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
And for anyone interested in the history of 3D graphics hardware here's an article with a lot of good hardware photos and info:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/graphics_extravaganza_ultimate_gpu_retrospective/It's a couple years old but still good.
Hey, that's pretty good. Don't see any big mistakes, and they even got the i740 in there. Solid 8 or 9 out of 10 I'd say.
I've owned far too many of those...
Same here.
Anyway, back to the original problem of seeing my old laptop with NVidia GeForce FX 5600 graphics work with F17.
I tried the following live cds with these results:
Fedora 15 i686 Live: graphics work Fedora 16 i686 Live: graphics work Fedora 17-alpha i686 Live: graphics fail
So whatever got broken appeared to happen between F16 and F17 - at least for my FX card.
Question then would be, can I do a yum upgrade to go from F16 to F17 or F18 if things aren't fixed for F17?
On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Question then would be, can I do a yum upgrade to go from F16 to F17 or F18 if things aren't fixed for F17?
Might work. Not tested. What you're after is preupgrade. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
On 03/18/2012 05:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Question then would be, can I do a yum upgrade to go from F16 to F17 or F18 if things aren't fixed for F17?
Might work. Not tested. What you're after is preupgrade. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
Thanks, Chris.
I know about preupgrade. What I'm actually concerned about is whether there is any incompatibility between those releases that would prevent upgrading. Like what happened a while back where you couldn't upgrade between certain releases.
On 03/19/2012 03:02 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/18/2012 05:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Question then would be, can I do a yum upgrade to go from F16 to F17 or F18 if things aren't fixed for F17?
Might work. Not tested. What you're after is preupgrade. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
Thanks, Chris.
I know about preupgrade. What I'm actually concerned about is whether there is any incompatibility between those releases that would prevent upgrading. Like what happened a while back where you couldn't upgrade between certain releases.
There were no stable releases that you couldn't upgrade using Anaconda or PreUpgrade. For this release, it hasn't reached beta yet and we need testers to test the upgrade process and report bugs but whatever issues are well known are documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F17_bugs
Rahul
On 03/18/2012 05:38 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/19/2012 03:02 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/18/2012 05:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
Question then would be, can I do a yum upgrade to go from F16 to F17 or F18 if things aren't fixed for F17?
Might work. Not tested. What you're after is preupgrade. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
Thanks, Chris.
I know about preupgrade. What I'm actually concerned about is whether there is any incompatibility between those releases that would prevent upgrading. Like what happened a while back where you couldn't upgrade between certain releases.
There were no stable releases that you couldn't upgrade using Anaconda or PreUpgrade. For this release, it hasn't reached beta yet and we need testers to test the upgrade process and report bugs but whatever issues are well known are documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F17_bugs
Rahul
Maybe it was the signing key thing I remember that messed up some upgrades.
Anyway, once the nouveau driver gets fixed for nv3/nv4 cards then I can test the upgrade process.
-
Adam Williamson -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Murphy -
Gerry Reno -
Kevin Kofler -
Rahul Sundaram