F21/F22: xorg-x11-drv: which for SiS?

[Felix Miata]

Alex Deucher wrote on 2014-09-25 22:55 (UCT-0400):

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
...
>> The sis and mga drivers are yet more cases of pushing hardware toward
>> landfills and recyclers before their suitability to task naturally expires.
>> Fedora seems to be the leader in this anti-eco-friendly realm.

> Most developers have limited numbers of round tuits as well. 

I'm sure that's true. A lot surely depends on their motivation to do whatever
it is they do. Keeping old hardware going isn't likely to improve income or
prestige. Something else has to be the motivation, and that motivation to be
able to sustain needs arbitrary obstacles to that end avoided.

> This older hardware still works perfectly fine with older versions of
> distros or distros focused on older hardware. 

People need internet access that's secure, regardless of the age of their
hardware. They don't upgrade an OS because they want to, but because they
need to keep safe, and need access to web tools new enough not to cause
access denial. Older versions thus become inappropriate. People who use some
particular spin or distro don't appreciate being forced to choose between
changing to something unfamiliar, or familiarity coupled with newfound
insecurity, particularly if they know the insecurity trigger is nothing but a
compilation flag (e.g. sse2 for qt5, IIRC).

> In many cases the older
> hardware can't handle the requirements of the newer distros.

3D? More bling? A bazillion background daemons some people might use? Often
the "requirements" are no more than a compilation switch that's an arbitary
choice, not to deny use to hardware on account of its age, which it does do,
but to add nominally more speed to help compensate for code and feature
bloat. Not everybody cares to have everything happen instantly, either at
all, or to spend any money to get more. DEs like Mate, TDE, IceWM and XFCE
exist why? So excessive requirements aren't insurmountable or unnecessary
obstacles.

> Additionally, older hardware gets tested less and less on newer
> distros so there is less and less chance of everything just working
> smoothly.

Hence reasons I do what I do. I have the hardware to do it, so I test with
it, and report problems found.

> Even if you test it, there's a good chance developers won't
> have enough round tuits to actually fix the problem if you encounter
> one.

Unfortunate, but true. Of course for some, those round tuits are allocated
and/or provided by commercial interests that don't profit from old machines
keeping on keeping on. Lack by others need not be impediments to those with
more noble motivation and availability.

> And speaking of anti-eco-friendly, a lot of older hardware uses
> more power than newer hardware

How much is "a lot"? How does one tell whether any particular proposed
replacement in fact uses more or less than that which is in use? Marketing
specs are typically less than entirely trustworthy, designed to produce
sales, not compare to out-the-door products.

Full size desktops from 9 or more years ago typically got by just fine on
200w or 250w power supplies, significantly less than typically recommended
for newer. Newer gfxcards often require *2* fans blowing on their coolers,
not just one, or the none from yesteryear's machines I test on. That means
heat generation, and thus power consumption, from the video component of
newer systems has gone up, making buildings' A/C systems work harder whether
there are eco-friendly labels on the machines or not.

I'm aware of no hard and fast rules to make any determination whether any
particular replacement would really be better. Much power, maybe in many
cases most, consumed by older computers in actual use went into CRTs putting
heat into the environment. That translates into consumption from newer, using
less power hungry panel displays, skewed when compared to older, which often
today are being used with newer, less expensive, space saving displays.
Energy Star has been around long enough that very little not featuring it
remains in use.

> so it has it's own anti-eco-friendly
> costs.  You should be recycling anyway ;)

Where did I write anything that says I'm not? You expect people to purchase
newer just so that they can recycle working older? The bulk of machines I've
acquired, including those I kept to test on, were gratis acquisitions,
recycling on its own level. Without more such, I'd have to invest money above
my past pattern. For what, just to give other recyclers something to do? The
motherboard that spawned this thread is actually my latest acquistion, one of
my 5 newest counting the two that run here 24/7. Refurbing old machines with
new operating systems and giving them new homes *is* recycling, recycling
which arbitrary cutoff of driver support for would put a stop to.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/