pricechild at gmail.com
Sat Oct 21 19:50:11 UTC 2006
I initially wrote my guide with Amaranth and posted it on the ubuntu forums
Keeping it regularly updated, i also ported it to the USDF:
http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/BerylOnEdgy and then the Ubuntu wiki:
ATI and Intel sections were added to the USDF guide, but didn't immediately
appear in the ubuntu wiki version. Amaranth approached me on irc asking to
update the wiki entry with the new sections. He also requested that the
binary .run method for installing the nvidia drivers be removed. I asked him
to either keep that section intact, or mention that a more complete guide
was availiable on the USDF and to provide a link. We both agreed on these
Amaranth proceeded create the new wiki entry here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BerylOnEdgy correcting my poor grammar and generally
cleaning it up a bit. However, he did not follow my request to leave the
alternative nvidia driver install and so i added it back in.
He then regularly removed this entry for me to revert back, eventually
deciding to delete it completely several times.
I know that there or arguments for and against the use of his packages over
the binary drivers, and i wish to sum them up here:
For Amaranth's packages.
Allows the user to keep l-r-m for wireless cards etc. (although somehow i
still have them too)
Will be regularly updated and the user shouldn't have to worry.
For the binary nvidia .run:
The use KNOWS what he is installing, wheras with the packages you have to
trust the unsigned packages to be non-harmful and built well.
In the event of the kernel upgrade, the user can simply re-run the file to
recompile the module, wheras those using amaranth's packages may have to
wait a while for him to rebuild.
Both ways may therefore be considered unsafe but i feel that they should
both be included to give the user a choice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-doc