BerylonEdgy guide

[Eric Butler]

Hi,

wiki.ubuntu.com is the wrong place for such documentation.

There is already documentation for Beryl and AIGLX on help.ubuntu.com:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompositeManager/InstallingBeryl

And AIGLX:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompositeManager/AIGLX

This page does mention/linkto the beta binary nvidia drivers, explaining
that they can be used to run AIGLX. If you would like to create a new
page that explains the ubuntu way to install these, that would be
helpful, as long as it was clearly marked as beta, not supported, might
blow up your video card, etc.

It should probably be linked from both the AIGLX page above, and
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BinaryDriverHowto/Nvidia

If you could merge any information from your page on wiki.ubuntu.com
into the appropriate pages under
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompositeManager, then set your
BerylOnEdgy page to redirect to redirect there, that wold be very helpful.

Regards,
Eric

Joseph Price wrote:
> Hi there.
> 
> I initially wrote my guide with Amaranth and posted it on the ubuntu
> forums here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=263851
> 
> Keeping it regularly updated, i also ported it to the USDF:
> http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/BerylOnEdgy and then the Ubuntu wiki:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CompositeManager/InstallingBerylonEdgy#preview
> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CompositeManager/InstallingBerylonEdgy#preview>
> 
> 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 terms.
> 
> 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.
> 
> PriceChild
>