391–400 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awesome, a laptop with one-year OS support...
Dell doesn't support non LTS (long term support) releases. The next LTS release of Ubuntu is 20.04.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using WebRender on beta builds on Linux for several months already - it works quite well (AMD / radeonsi). WebRender is more raw indeed, but regular layers acceleration should surely be re-evaluated instead sweeping blacklisting like it happens now.
Always remember the YEINU principle: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/01/02/yeinu-your-e...
I'd say, if you care about using open source driver, you'd avoid Nvidia to begin with, and use AMD or Intel instead. Here is a very good post from one of the key Nouveau developers, about why you should do exactly that: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-d...
AMD cards for anything advanced are crap, they couldn't recogize one of my monitor (>2 monitor setup), and they're not playing fair with their AMF extension on Linux (works great on Windows though). Even on Windows, I cannot get the card to properly get my minitor resolutions (it's sitting beyond a multiplexer, though there no problem with nvidia).
What's an AMF extension?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reproducibility doesn't necessarily mean every component of the system is completely open and inspectable. If it's not "open and inspectable" then it cannot be reproduced by another group/researcher. It's just unsupported claims building on a wonky methodology. I wonder what percentage of "Machine Learning" results are based on such shaky foundations and when they'll receive the same amount of skepticism and scorn we…
> If it's not "open and inspectable" then it cannot be reproduced by another group/researcher. That doesn't follow. They can (attempt to) reproduce with the same hardware, firmware, and drivers. They can reproduce with similar hardware from another vendor (AMD). If you're using OpenCL, you can reproduce on CPUs, albeit much slower and probably only for partial results. Maybe you want to break out some pen and paper t…
If you cannot reproduce then you do not know whether it is due to the equipment/materiel varying or not and you have severely reduced options for investigating that.
If you look at the problems with even reproducing and testing the bugs that the specific situation under discussion exposes it is illustrative of the difficulties involved with working with a non-modifiable, unexaminable platform.
In your example, the researchers would be forbidden by IP laws from examining and testing the surface of the beakers for contaminants and publishing a description which allowed other researchers to make similar modifications.
It's the most sub-optimal situation in which to obtain something which starts to approximate reality. Not impossible, just difficult, and likely to lead to shenanigans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have Chrome Version 65.0.3325.162 (Official Build) (64-bit) on 4.19.13-300.fc29.x86_64 with i915 graphics 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation Skylake GT2 [HD Graphics 520] [8086:1916] (rev 07) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller]) And chrome://gpu says Video Decode: Unavailable And it points to this bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247
You need a VAAPI build of Chromium, it isn't on by default. Arch has a PKGBUILD in the repo: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-vaapi/ and I think there are builds for most popular distros out there nowadays. If you are on Arch or one of its family you can get a -bin version in the AUR or use ArchlinuxCN that builds it in their repo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD cards for anything advanced are crap, they couldn't recogize one of my monitor (>2 monitor setup), and they're not playing fair with their AMF extension on Linux (works great on Windows though). Even on Windows, I cannot get the card to properly get my minitor resolutions (it's sitting beyond a multiplexer, though there no problem with nvidia).
AMD cards work just fine. Not sure what kind of issues you are having with your dual monitor. May be you are using an ancient kernel? What's an AMF extension?
AMF == Advanced Media Framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMD cards work just fine. Not sure what kind of issues you are having with your dual monitor. May be you are using an ancient kernel? What's an AMF extension?
Triple monitor on two physical screen, and no AMD cards do not work, in this case using the display port output and DVI->HDMI adapter, and yes, it works with a third physical monitor (not acceptable in my setup). Nvidia/nouveau are not showing these problems. AMF == Advanced Media Framework.
AMF doesn't seem to have a Linux version to begin with, so not sure what you were testing exactly: https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/AMF/issues/4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Triple monitor on two physical screen, and no AMD cards do not work, in this case using the display port output and DVI->HDMI adapter, and yes, it works with a third physical monitor (not acceptable in my setup). Nvidia/nouveau are not showing these problems. AMF == Advanced Media Framework.
On Linux you have vaapi for hardware encoding. AMF doesn't seem to have a Linux version to begin with, so not sure what you were testing exactly: https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/AMF/issues/4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what is unclear to you here. They do support the idea of blacklisting for every possible unpopular config, despite it possibly working. This is not only common sense, it is what every company does. When you write your software, do you test it on every possible distribution users could use, or just the popular ones? The common distribution was blacklisted not because it was not tested, but because it clea…
...no, "every company" does not blacklist unpopular configs.
If a driver does not work in popular configs, and needs to be blacklisted in those configs, your solution is to still whitelist it in other configs and have the browser likely not work.
yes, "every company" does exactly what google did. you are being purposely dense, trying to catch a "technically correct" chance of not admitting the stupidity of your question. The problem is, you are not even technically correct - just purposely dense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome has the special sauce — distributors and administrators cannot rebuild it, only Chromium.
Is that different than the branding/trademark issue that Firefox also had for years? (Not bring cynical, I genuinely don't know.)