8 ms·

you're the only one saying the don't. they are saying the most common linux configuration causes issues so blacklist the buggy driver in it they are also sayin

by a11595 8y ago

you're the only one saying the don't. they are saying the most common linux configuration causes issues so blacklist the buggy driver in it they are also saying their that driver may work fine on some less common linux configurations, and the chrome team does not have the resources to test those. you are literally saying they are saying the opposite of what they said, then blaming them for it.

Dylan16807 8y ago
They were using "not enough resources" to support the idea of blacklisting. If they meant it as you say, that means they're blanketly blacklisting the most common config despite having the resources to test it, which is even worse.
- magicalist 8y ago
  Huh? It appears they did test it, and for that matter (according to the linked post) so did the Nouveau devs who also found it failed the easily accessible test suite.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    We agree Nouveau is completely blacklisted right? That's the main problem here. And the test suite failed on a minor issue where the cause was uncertain, which gets in the way of checking for the bigger definitely-the-driver problem.
    - magicalist 8y ago
      If you can hang the GPU with regular webgl content, that's not a minor issue.
      - vfq 8y ago
        That's the reason I have webgl disabled even though I'm on Windows with a supported driver. It opens a gaping security/DoS hole without any benefit (do you ever see webgl used in any website?)
- a11595 8y ago
  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 clearly has issues observed and reported by the users.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    ...no, "every company" does not blacklist unpopular configs.
    - a11595 8y ago
      If your software doesn't work in a popular config they don't blacklist it in all the untested less popular configs? You are clear they are blacklisting the GPU driver, not blacklisting a linux install - right? 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.

by a11595 8y ago

Dylan16807 8y ago

They were using "not enough resources" to support the idea of blacklisting. If they meant it as you say, that means they're blanketly blacklisting the most common config despite having the resources to test it, which is even worse.

magicalist 8y ago
Huh? It appears they did test it, and for that matter (according to the linked post) so did the Nouveau devs who also found it failed the easily accessible test suite.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  We agree Nouveau is completely blacklisted right? That's the main problem here. And the test suite failed on a minor issue where the cause was uncertain, which gets in the way of checking for the bigger definitely-the-driver problem.
  - magicalist 8y ago
    If you can hang the GPU with regular webgl content, that's not a minor issue.
    - vfq 8y ago
      That's the reason I have webgl disabled even though I'm on Windows with a supported driver. It opens a gaping security/DoS hole without any benefit (do you ever see webgl used in any website?)
a11595 8y ago
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 clearly has issues observed and reported by the users.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  ...no, "every company" does not blacklist unpopular configs.
  - a11595 8y ago
    If your software doesn't work in a popular config they don't blacklist it in all the untested less popular configs? You are clear they are blacklisting the GPU driver, not blacklisting a linux install - right? 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.