Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Ubuntu's BulletProofX To Be Canned?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    73

    Default Unaddressable bugs?

    The article mentions "unaddressable bugs" while in effect the original message only says "unaddressed bugs". Big difference. The first suggests that BulletproofX is just a bad idea that can't be made to work while latter only suggests lack of time or support.

    Personally I've always thought this was a pretty basic feature. Drop anyone who is not an X config wizard into a tty and they will have no idea what to do. Given them same basic VESA support and they'll still be able to Google around for solutions or chat with some more knowledgeable friends for support.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quintesse View Post
    The article mentions "unaddressable bugs" while in effect the original message only says "unaddressed bugs".
    Bad typo, that's what I get for typing a news article when exhausted Fixed now. Thanks.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Good. Do you know how many users have come into #compiz-fusion on freenode asking for help because their display is driving at 800x600 and compiz won't work. /var/log/Xorg.0.log shows that it's using the failsafe xorg.conf file and, to make matters worse, /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old also ends up showing /etc/x11/xorg.conf.failsafe. So you then have to walk the user through stopping gdm, logging in at the console, trying to start X, copying a useful Xorg.0.log file to their desktop, and then restarting gdm.

    This doesn't help anyone, including newbie users.

    Adam

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    So a tty console is better?

    I guess it would for you, they wouldn't get to #compiz-fusion in the first place.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Yes, dropping BulletProofX is better for a couple of reasons.

    A) It forces users to learn something about their system.
    B) It forces developers to come up with a better solution that the current piece of crap.

    Adam

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quintesse View Post
    Personally I've always thought this was a pretty basic feature. Drop anyone who is not an X config wizard into a tty and they will have no idea what to do. Given them same basic VESA support and they'll still be able to Google around for solutions or chat with some more knowledgeable friends for support.
    In fact, they should take a look at what is done in Mandriva:
    - startx (with proprietary driver)
    - if that fails, then indicate there is a fallback to the open-source, but less powerfull driver, yes there is a WARNING
    - if that still fails, show the log and drop to a console.

    And then, you just need to launch drakx11 to reset your configuration, et voilą.

    That's the kind of features where there is really a strong need for sharing

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    Btw. did somebody look at the new xorg.conf created on current intrepid? It is absolutely clear that it breaks on many systems because of the fbdev override.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    Yes, dropping BulletProofX is better for a couple of reasons.

    A) It forces users to learn something about their system.
    B) It forces developers to come up with a better solution that the current piece of crap.

    Adam
    Dropping tools that make setup easier accomplishes:

    A) Keeping new users away
    B) Gives MS trolls more food
    C) Slows down linux adoption


    So if your net goal is to hang on or decrease the already minuscule ~1% marketshare linux has on the desktop then by all means scrap every gui tool that allows the layman to setup their system. Just don't ever bitch when a manufacturer or software vender doesn't do squat for linux because instead of spending resources on ~1% the market they decide to focus and deliver 100% of their product that appeals to 99% of the population.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    When you look at the mail then you see that they just recreate the xorg.conf with defaults. Thats usually enough as it would even start without xorg.conf in many cases. Just the current default xorg.conf is not that optimial.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Dropping tools that make setup easier accomplishes:

    A) Keeping new users away
    B) Gives MS trolls more food
    C) Slows down linux adoption


    So if your net goal is to hang on or decrease the already minuscule ~1% marketshare linux has on the desktop then by all means scrap every gui tool that allows the layman to setup their system. Just don't ever bitch when a manufacturer or software vender doesn't do squat for linux because instead of spending resources on ~1% the market they decide to focus and deliver 100% of their product that appeals to 99% of the population.
    Allowing developers to develop hacky workarounds to major problems just results in a piss poor product.

    Develop the correct solution and then deploy it. Seriously, all the developers need to do is make sure they back up the /var/log/Xorg.0.log file that shows the actual problem with the driver before starting X with the failsafe xorg.conf file.

    Adam

    EDIT: As an example of what I'm talking about... There's someone on #compiz-fusion now with a fglrx problem. He starts by saying that he can't get 1920x1200 working with fglrx. He's not even aware that the root of the problem is that BulletProofX kicked in and he's using the failsafe mode, so he doesn't relay that fact to us. It takes a series of questions before I realize that he's running in 800x600 mode and, therefore, fglrx must be failing and BulletProofX has kicked in.

    This is what I call an absolutely crappy workaround. I'd rather have it dropped completely, forcing the users to complain to Ubuntu about being left at a TTY, so that the Ubuntu developers actually develop a real solution. In the short term, perhaps linux loses a few newbies... So what? In the long term, we end up with a better product.
    Last edited by adamk; 07-07-2008 at 12:38 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •