John wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 22:23 +0100, Ned Slider wrote: >> Akemi Yagi wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ned Slider <nedslider at f2s.com> wrote: >>>> John wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ralph, Akemi, and Ned >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.centos.org/HardwareList/Nvidia_Graphics >>>>> >>>>> That will be the Link. >>>>> >>>> Thanks John. I should be able to have a bash at the RPMForge/dkms method in >>>> about a week (unless someone beats me to it!). >>>> >>>> Ned >>> I suppose this page will have a description for the differences >>> between the three methods and how to choose one. ?? >>> >>> Akemi >> That would be great - thanks for volunteering!!! >> >> I was kind of avoiding that one due to lack of experience with methods 1 >> & 3. I went straight with method 2 and it has worked great for me, the >> obvious advantage being that "it just works" upon a kernel update. YMMV :) >> > > "What did you have in mind? A separate introductory and/or summary > section, or a pros & cons for each section and leave the reader to make > up their own mind which is best for them (I tend to prefer the latter > option)." > > Now that sounds good to me. Like a comparative analysys and let the reader decide on what method they want to use. > Agreed it's best to let the reader decide. The problem IMHO with a direct comparative analysis is that one method is bound to come out on top so you are in danger of making the decision for the reader - hence my suggestion of a pros & cons section within each method. Keeps them separated and avoids any direct comparison whilst still affording the reader enough information to make an informed choice which is best for them. It forces the reader to make the decision based on what criteria are important to them rather than making it for them.