This was resolved time ago. The tutorials page is monitored and updated regularly.

Fixed now. Thanks for the report!

There are quite some difficulties implementing email verification. Please refer to inbound configuration page of Phabricator documentation for more details.

Is there an issue that allows to confirm emails in Phabricator?

Inbound mail in Phabricator is somewhat unauthorized and we don't have facilities to constantly monitor spam activity in the developers resource.

Well, it is convenient to some degree. Roundup and GitHub support this and I suppose Bugzilla too. So, what is the rationale for disabling it?

This is intentional behavior, we do not recieve any email by the developer.b.o infrastructure.

The site was updated now, guess we can mark this one resolved! Thanks everyone :)

Hi Stanislav,

Thats valid for the current 2.7x series, soon for 2.8x, 3.2 will be the minimum. We should mention that on this page.

Looks good to me actually.

Guys! The problem is not in quantifying anything. I appreciate the discussion, but please let's return to the title of this report. The problem is that the system requirements page on blender.org:

The font issue usually has to do with quality settings in the driver set to performance instead of quality or so. So it is a driver issue.
The problem, as Campbell mentioned, is that you can't really quantify what "proper support" means. We try to be compliant to the OpenGL standard. However, drivers, even new ones, can be very particular in what they like OpenGL to do. So even newer GPUs can have glitches. For instance take T45117. What newer drivers have is better support, the driver teams still work on them. But this is a no brainer I hope. And in the end, it all depends on having the GPUs available for testing.
For 2.8 if we move to OpenGL 3.2 such requirements will be more enforcableI hope.

If it is indeed software implementation, as is stated on that page, would it give any benefit over simply running bundled Mesa with blender-softwaregl? Regardless, what users might do to improve their experience with Blender is beside the point of this report. This report is about (lack of) clarity of information on the blender.org site, not a particular issue of a particular Blender installation on a particular machine. As it is worded right now, users should expect the software to work without a hitch so long as their GPU supports OpenGL and is not an integrated one.

@Stanislav Blinov (radcapricorn):
Do you know that GeForce FX (5xxx) Series supported OpenGL 2.1 by the latest driver?
List of Nvidia graphics processing units

...And yet the screenshot in my first post was taken by a user in #blender on a machine with a GeForce 5700 FX LE (GL1.5). Cycles is selected as render engine, Solid shading mode, yet some objects are rendered completely white. As mentioned, same file opened by several people on newer cards didn't show the same issue. I understand that this particular case needs to go in a separate report, but that's not the first (or second, or tenth) time when people come in with similar problems.

Blender is functional on OpenGL 1.4 on a basic level, so its incorrect to say it doesn't work on OpenGL1.4 too.

In T46713#345616, @perfection cat (sindra1961) wrote:

Such people can acquire the Previous releases of Blender.

@Stanislav Blinov (radcapricorn), Blenders use of OpenGL (for interface and solid mode drawing) doesn't change frequently.

Such people can acquire the Previous releases of Blender.
The Previous releases of Blender works in such an environment.

And thanks for the report and for troubleshooting!

Changed link, should be working now :)

It needs a simple address change:

Do you mean seriously like, did I seriously file a bug report for this? :S It was suggested that I mention it in #blendercoders so so I did, then in #blendercoders suggested that I file a report about it so I did. I wasn't aware of the direct link on the support page. When you google things like "bug report blender" the archived page comes up. I didn't even notice or associate "archive" in the URL to mean that it was no longer used, the archive page is the first hit on google. I'm sure others probably google it thinking that whatever is the top link will be valid, as I have done, as others seem to do (or perhaps people just don't follow the template) and don't even consider that the topmost link in google is no longer valid because it is tagged as archive. If bug reports don't follow the format for whatever reason, I'd suspect it's because people might be following the top google link to report bugs. The course of thought is not "i need to report a bug so i'll go to blender.org and follow links to do it". People just google it and click the link. Anyway, apologies for any disturbance and I hope you've at least enjoyed the video of the goat!

Seriously? archive.blender.org, url says it all imho, this is archived stuff, what matters is current page (http://www.blender.org/support/), which links valid report page…

Not sure who’s in charge of main website these days, but Francesco or Pablo should know. :)

These changes seem to tweak the background color when we use a transparent splash screen, but that would mean we have to use PNG which is not really good for full color images, file might get too big. I'd rather tweak the background color before and upload a JPG instead.