Hi, I looked through Fedora 9 release notes and there is no mention of ATI or Nvidia cards and their proprietary drivers. Because lots of people have these cards and know that in order to get compositing working on their desktop that they need proprietary drivers. I'm fortunate to be using intel video chips in all of my laptops but others aren't so lucky or knowable. I don't see it in release notes but I hear from other users that these proprietary drivers don't work with latest X.org server. Is that information not relevant enough for release notes?
Cheers, Valent.
Valent Turkovic wrote:
Hi, I looked through Fedora 9 release notes and there is no mention of ATI or Nvidia cards and their proprietary drivers. Because lots of people have these cards and know that in order to get compositing working on their desktop that they need proprietary drivers. I'm fortunate to be using intel video chips in all of my laptops but others aren't so lucky or knowable. I don't see it in release notes but I hear from other users that these proprietary drivers don't work with latest X.org server. Is that information not relevant enough for release notes?
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
I'm aware of Fedora Project and proprietary software but I'm just trying to say that we need to at least say that somewhere and although common bugs page is really nice I would expect it also in release notes. The link is really helpful - thank you Rahul.
Cheers, Valent.
Valent Turkovic wrote:
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
I'm aware of Fedora Project and proprietary software but I'm just trying to say that we need to at least say that somewhere and although common bugs page is really nice I would expect it also in release notes. The link is really helpful - thank you Rahul.
The common bugs link is already referred to from the release notes very prominently.
Rahul
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 10:59 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
I'm aware of Fedora Project and proprietary software
This is a requirement that we haven't documented well. Maybe big, flashing letters on DocsProject?
"We do not document how to install or use proprietary, closed source software."
... nicer way ...
"If it is not in Fedora, we won't document it."
It's hard enough documenting the world of software that is in Fedora. :)
- Karsten
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 10:59 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
I'm aware of Fedora Project and proprietary software but I'm just trying to say that we need to at least say that somewhere and although common bugs page is really nice I would expect it also in release notes.
I just sent a flippant reply to this, but it is worth taking a moment to respond with more detail.
There are *many* good reasons not to document the use of closed source software. Perhaps it is worth writing this up into a short essay on a wiki page so we can refer to it always.
At the same time, it can be very painful to not be able to help someone with their problem, especially when "all you have to do is ..." It is very human to want to take away their hurt. In Fedora, we know that if we try to take away short term hurt, we have to be careful that we are not perpetuating the long term hurt.
Is this something that is unclear to other people? The reasons why we only document software that is provided in Fedora?
Earlier today I removed instructions that Valent put on the ForbiddenItems page. The instructions pointed to a bug in Firefox that prevented Firefox's plugin finder from working with installing Adobe's Flash player. In addition, a link was included to a page describing how to install Adobe's Flash player. This was all in replacement of a previous statement that one could use Firefox to install the Flash plugin. Valent was correcting that original "how-to install" statement with the bug report et al. In consideration, I think the original statement was incorrect being there.
I'm calling this out because this content is a blatant violation of the very reason that page exists. Just as it is blatantly obvious to me why we do not document software Fedora does not and/or cannot ship.
I'm going to answer my own question and say, yes, it is unclear for people, dangerously so. As we invite more end-user helpers to use the fedoraproject.org/wiki, it needs to be crystal clear to them what is and is not permitted for content.
- Karsten
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 10:59 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote:
We don't usually document proprietary software. Also refer
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs/F9Common#Proprietary_.28third-party.29_v...
Rahul
I'm aware of Fedora Project and proprietary software but I'm just trying to say that we need to at least say that somewhere and although common bugs page is really nice I would expect it also in release notes.
I just sent a flippant reply to this, but it is worth taking a moment to respond with more detail.
There are *many* good reasons not to document the use of closed source software. Perhaps it is worth writing this up into a short essay on a wiki page so we can refer to it always.
At the same time, it can be very painful to not be able to help someone with their problem, especially when "all you have to do is ..." It is very human to want to take away their hurt. In Fedora, we know that if we try to take away short term hurt, we have to be careful that we are not perpetuating the long term hurt.
Is this something that is unclear to other people? The reasons why we only document software that is provided in Fedora?
Earlier today I removed instructions that Valent put on the ForbiddenItems page. The instructions pointed to a bug in Firefox that prevented Firefox's plugin finder from working with installing Adobe's Flash player. In addition, a link was included to a page describing how to install Adobe's Flash player. This was all in replacement of a previous statement that one could use Firefox to install the Flash plugin. Valent was correcting that original "how-to install" statement with the bug report et al. In consideration, I think the original statement was incorrect being there.
I guess that you also need/want to correct the page : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/Flash
Cheers, Valent.
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Karsten Wade -
Rahul Sundaram -
Valent Turkovic