On Jo, 21 ian 21, 06:30:16, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-01-20 at 21:17, Felix Miata wrote: > > > The Wanderer composed on 2021-01-20 19:44 (UTC-0500): > > > >> Felix Miata wrote: > > > >>> Sven Joachim composed on 2021-01-20 23:18 (UTC+0100): > > > >>>> the upstream Xorg server still uses a graphics card specific > >>>> driver if available. > > > >>> That was exactly one of my points. "If available" equates to they > >>> are optional, not needed by primarily AMD, Intel and NVidia > >>> graphics devices made since somewhere around 2010. > > > >> This looks like another case (which I hadn't noticed before) of a > >> difference in possible meanings of "default". > > > >> Some people may read "the default DDX driver" to mean "the DDX > >> driver which will be used unless something tells it to do > >> otherwise". I'm guessing this is how Sven read it. > > > > Above was mine. > > In that case I'm not sure how this fits with your statement about "if > available", above. > > >> Other people may read it to mean "the DDX driver which will be used > >> in the default case where no better one is available". I'm guessing > >> this is how you intended it. > > > > Others might, but not me as worded. The crutch word there is > > "better". > > Acknowledged; discard that. Try "where no alternative is available" > instead. (I couldn't think of preferable wording at the time of posting, > but the latter has come to me since.) > > > To me in this context default means the one that will be used, if > > supported, when no /unneeded/ and thus optional DDX drivers drivers > > are installed, aka none of xf86-video-* are installed. > > In other words, "in the default case where no alternative is available". > > I used "better" originally because presumably the system would not > choose the other over this, when the other is available, if it did not > expect the other to provide better results. > > > Because most mainstream hardware of the day, and since, is supported, > > none of the optionals are /needed/ (as long as a fully-functional > > DRM/KMS kernel module exists). The installation of the optional > > drivers equates to something telling it to do otherwise. > > I don't read the action of installing an optional driver as telling the > system to use that driver. Installing a driver merely makes it > available, it does not explicitly tell the system to use it; telling the > system to use that driver would require something like specifying which > driver to use in a configuration file. In my opinion installing an *optional* driver to enable it makes for a nice user experience (as opposed to having to additionally edit configuration files). It's unfortunate that all drivers are installed by default (as in a standard Debian installation with a Desktop Environment) in order to ensure maximum compatibility. > > The latter. To me, 2D and 3D have no relevant meaning in a computing > > context. I can't tell where 2D stops and 3D starts. 3D only simulates > > 3 dimensions. A screen only displays 2 dimensions. What's the fuss? > > A 2D representation of a 3D space is much harder to calculate and render > on the fly than is a 2D representation of a 2D space, and so requires > much more computing power. If you happen to want the former, and your > system is only set up to be able to provide the latter, you may wind up > with an unpleasant low-performance surprise one day. As far as I understand the "3D" engines of GPUs are now being used also to render traditional 2D applications (i.e. without even trying to simulate three dimensions), so yes, at least some basic "3D" support and performance is important. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature