On 2021-01-21 at 13:35, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 21 ian 21, 06:30:16, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2021-01-20 at 21:17, Felix Miata wrote: >>> 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). I don't necessarily disagree, although there can be difficulties in practice with some use cases. My point was more musing about (differences in people's) definitions of "default". In one approach, the system defaults to using the optional driver if it is available, and falls back to a simpler one if it is not. In another approach, the system defaults to using the simpler driver even when the optional one is available, unless something has told it to use the optional driver. In the latter case, the simpler driver is the default by every definition that's occurring to me offhand. In the former case, by some definitions the simpler driver is the default, and by the other definition it is not. I think that's the case we're looking at in this instance. As a result of these multiple possible definitions being able to apply, the use of the bare term "default" can be confusing and result in people potentially talking past one another, which I've seen happen too many times in the past. (That being part of why I have such an interest in the multiple meanings of "default" that a manifestation of a new one grabs my attention.) >>> 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. I believe I recall this myself, but I wasn't sufficiently certain of it to declare it without doing digging which I did not at that point have time for. IIRC, Dwarf Fortress is one example of this being done, although it's irrelevant to Felix because it's still gaming (in which he's said he's not interested). -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature