-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
For it running here on a Duron 1600, 512MB RAM and GForce 4 MX440. Snappy as it gets.
Best regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future.
_that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future.
_that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future.
_that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
[]s
which packages did you use because when I attempted it I got a butt-load of dependency issues?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future.
_that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
which packages did you use because when I attempted it I got a butt-load of dependency issues?
beryl-gnome. It will get all the dependencies for you. Most of them will be from CentOS itself. About 8 total from Fedora.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future. _that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
which packages did you use because when I attempted it I got a butt-load of dependency issues?
beryl-gnome. It will get all the dependencies for you. Most of them will be from CentOS itself. About 8 total from Fedora.
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:22:27AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future. _that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
which packages did you use because when I attempted it I got a butt-load of dependency issues?
beryl-gnome. It will get all the dependencies for you. Most of them will be from CentOS itself. About 8 total from Fedora.
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Whats your video board/chipset ?
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:22:27AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will > install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5. I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future. _that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
which packages did you use because when I attempted it I got a butt-load of dependency issues?
beryl-gnome. It will get all the dependencies for you. Most of them will be from CentOS itself. About 8 total from Fedora.
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Whats your video board/chipset ?
Oops... sorry about that.
SiS 630/730
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:11:18PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Whats your video board/chipset ?
Oops... sorry about that.
SiS 630/730
SiS ? Sorry about that.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 20:20 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:11:18PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Whats your video board/chipset ?
Oops... sorry about that.
SiS 630/730
SiS ? Sorry about that.
[]s
So, what you're telling me is that my SiS card sucks so badly that it left you speechless! ;)
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 20:20 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 03:11:18PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Ok... got all the packages installed, however it would appear that my machine doesn't meet the necessary video requirements and I don't seem to be able to find that information on the Beryl site. Any idea what those requirements are?
Whats your video board/chipset ?
Oops... sorry about that.
SiS 630/730
SiS ? Sorry about that.
So, what you're telling me is that my SiS card sucks so badly that it left you speechless! ;)
No, you are missing the point. YOUR SiS card doesn't suck. ALL SiS cards suck ;)
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
That would be rubbing it on my face that I don't have a graphic card as good as that :)
Oh, you mean, if that would work ? Sure. You would need ATI proprietary drivers for that (I suppose), but it is more than enough.
I have it running here with a GForce 4 MX440, for crying out loud ehehehe
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
That would be rubbing it on my face that I don't have a graphic card as good as that :)
Oh, you mean, if that would work ? Sure. You would need ATI proprietary drivers for that (I suppose), but it is more than enough.
ATIs proprietary drivers don't support compiz/beryl yet.
The good news: The 9600 (M10) should work with the r300 drivers from Xorg 7.1.
Ralph
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:19:50AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
That would be rubbing it on my face that I don't have a graphic card as good as that :)
Oh, you mean, if that would work ? Sure. You would need ATI proprietary drivers for that (I suppose), but it is more than enough.
ATIs proprietary drivers don't support compiz/beryl yet.
Why not ? No XGL support ?
The good news: The 9600 (M10) should work with the r300 drivers from Xorg 7.1.
With all the extras (DRI, XGL etc) ?
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:19:50AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
ATIs proprietary drivers don't support compiz/beryl yet.
Why not ? No XGL support ?
Oh, there is XGL support, yes. But CentOS uses AIGLX.
The good news: The 9600 (M10) should work with the r300 drivers from Xorg 7.1.
With all the extras (DRI, XGL etc) ?
Supposedly yes - but as said: CentOS doesn't use XGL (which is just a technology showoff hack needing a second X server) but indirect rendering via AIGLX.
Ralph
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:19:50 +0200 Ralph Angenendt ra+centos@br-online.de wrote:
Oh, you mean, if that would work ? Sure. You would need ATI proprietary drivers for that (I suppose), but it is more than enough.
ATIs proprietary drivers don't support compiz/beryl yet.
They don't support CentOS5 or RHEL5 either. ATI proprietary drive support rhel3/4 & Ubuntus.
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 00:19 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 01:20:26PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
That would be rubbing it on my face that I don't have a graphic card as good as that :)
Oh, you mean, if that would work ? Sure. You would need ATI proprietary drivers for that (I suppose), but it is more than enough.
ATIs proprietary drivers don't support compiz/beryl yet.
The good news: The 9600 (M10) should work with the r300 drivers from Xorg 7.1.
Wonderful! that means I won't have to play silly-buggers hunting down vendor drivers to make it work.
Mark Weaver wrote:
So, what you're telling me is that my SiS card sucks so badly that it left you speechless! ;)
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
I do not own any ATI cards, but in the past, I had read there were some issues with then & Linux. What I own is a Geforce 7300 GT card, and previously a GeForce4 MX440 (if I recall well the model), and NVIDIA support has been *excellent* on both so far. MX 440 is no longer supported in the latest NVIDIA drivers, it was too old, that's why I got the 7300 GT.
I am using the latest NVIDIA drivers from ATRPMS repository:
[john@localhost download]$ rpm -qa |grep nvidia nvidia-graphics-devices-1.0-5.el5.at nvidia-graphics9755-devel-1.0_9755-86.el5.at nvidia-graphics9755-kmdl-2.6.18-8.1.1.el5-1.0_9755-86.el5.at nvidia-graphics9755-1.0_9755-86.el5.at nvidia-graphics-helpers-0.0.18-19.el5.at nvidia-graphics9755-kmdl-2.6.18-8.el5-1.0_9755-86.el5.at nvidia-graphics9755-libs-1.0_9755-86.el5.at
[john@localhost download]$
So myself would go for an NVIDIA instead of an ATI due to my good experience of it, but it is up to you to decide.
On 4/21/07, Mark Weaver mdw1982@mdw1982.com wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
Then we'd get to mock you for having a high end card on which compiz and beryl will not function :-P
Get yourself an nvidia card if you want good linux support. Even if the driver is proprietary, it functions REALLY well.
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 21:39 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 4/21/07, Mark Weaver mdw1982@mdw1982.com wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
Then we'd get to mock you for having a high end card on which compiz and beryl will not function :-P
Works fine on a 9000pro using the Xorg drivers.
I believe the 9600 is supported also, I could be wrong.
Get yourself an nvidia card if you want good linux support. Even if the driver is proprietary, it functions REALLY well.
nVidia sucks for Open Source 3D support of the proprietary drivers it's probably the best.
Paul
Jim Perrin wrote:
On 4/21/07, Mark Weaver mdw1982@mdw1982.com wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
Then we'd get to mock you for having a high end card on which compiz and beryl will not function :-P
That really depends. The 9600TX is supported while the 9600XT only is supported with 2D.
Ralph
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 21:39 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 4/21/07, Mark Weaver mdw1982@mdw1982.com wrote:
How's about if I put an ATI 9600 256MB card into this machine? How would that be?
Then we'd get to mock you for having a high end card on which compiz and beryl will not function :-P
Get yourself an nvidia card if you want good linux support. Even if the driver is proprietary, it functions REALLY well.
but since I'm not much of a gamer any more, and that ATI sitting in my wife's windows machine isn't really being used it only makes sense to pull it out of her machine and put it into mine.
mocking! :) thats ok... I'd still have my trusty Linux workstation where I can get work done and it would look even prettier even if Beryl won't work. Eye-candy is real nice, but I'm far happier when my OS simply works and allows me to do the same.
Reminds me of my workstation at work; Boss tells me one Monday morning that the Vista Business disks came in and that I should think about loading it on my workstation so I can get to know it and be able to support it cause sooner or later our clients are going to start ordering PC's running it. I had it on my system for a week and just scrapped it cause I spent more time working on getting things fixed or working than actually getting real work done. Now I tell our clients to stay as far away from Vista as possible if at all possible.
When they ask me what can they run if all they can get from mainstream vendors is Vista, I tell'em the only OS that really makes any sense! Linux!! and with the wonderful things Novell is doing with Suse linux these days whether you're running a windows domain or a novell NDS tree Linux will fully integrate. Although I still much prefer CentOS (RHEL) over all the other distros, but when ya get right down to it, it's all still Linux under the hood.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:01:40AM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
mocking! :) thats ok... I'd still have my trusty Linux workstation where I can get work done and it would look even prettier even if Beryl won't work. Eye-candy is real nice, but I'm far happier when my OS simply works and allows me to do the same.
Actually, I use IceWM. I plan on having Beryl installed only as a separated session, so I can sometimes load it to show to other people. Not to regular day to day usage. I'll probably just keep using IceWM.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Sun, 2007-04-15 at 01:51 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:55:53AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
For those interested, the beryl packages from Fedora-Extras (FC6) will install cleanly and run perfectly on CentOS 5.
I would expect all FC6 packages to be fully compatible. The problem I see is support for them into the future.
_that_ is the reason I plan on running C5.
I see your point, and that is why I also use C5. Then again, I'm really, really not worried about this particular computer (hence, I have beryl on it).
Well, it's a bust. After attempting to get my ATI 9600 to work in this old machine it's not going to happen. Apparently the BIOS and chipset is just too old to run this PCI beast. Don't know if I'd have any better luck with an AGP card, but since I don't have one of those around I can't test it out.
I think I'll just build a new workstation. It's long over due any way.
Thanks all
-
centos＠911networks.com -
Ioannis Vranos -
Jim Perrin -
John Summerfield -
Mark Weaver -
Paul -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rodrigo Barbosa