[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Future releases of Debian

On 21-Jul-03, 16:10 (CDT), Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote: 
> Don't you agree that game industry is not a minor industry related to
> computers? 

All I meant to ask was for a clarification of "card Foo is unsupported".
My *personal* experience is that I've gotten a wide variety of cards
to work acceptably in 2D mode, and that often people say "card Foo is
unsupported" when what they mean is a "I can't run Quake (or whatever)
on card Foo". These are related to the people who say "the stable
release is hopelessly outdated and useless" when in fact quite a few
people (myself included) have a variety of servers and desktops running
the Debian stable release, and amazingly enough, continue to get work
done with them.

I didn't mean to slam games, but to point out that "lack of hardware 3d"
is not the same as "useless".

Thanks to the others for clarifying, and while I can be quite happy
(well, accepting) with the performance of 2D VESA modes (admittedly with
the eye-candy turned down), I'll happily conceed that it's not the best
of all possible worlds.

> Well, sit in front of your computer for about 15 minutes and you'll
> see the big picture (if you have xscreensaver installed, indeed).

Eyecandy. Nice eyecandy for sure, but hardly worth making *the* basis of
hardware and software choice.

> I have no problem with the packages included in woody but defending
> them by telling that nobody cares about using its hardware at his
> full capacity (in fact, at least at 50% of it's capacity) seems just
> wrong.

I didn't say that nobody cared, what I said (or at least meant to imply)
was that a great many of us *don't* care about such things, and making
absolute statements (either way) is not useful in determining how Debian
does things.


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: