Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Ubuntu's BulletProofX To Be Canned?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    A) It forces users to learn something about their system.
    Who the hell wants to learn something about their computer when they just want it to *work*?

    Forced education? What are you thinking about? They'll simply unisntall Linux and label it as a failing piece of crap.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadi View Post
    Who the hell wants to learn something about their computer when they just want it to *work*?

    Forced education? What are you thinking about? They'll simply unisntall Linux and label it as a failing piece of crap.
    So we lose a user. And hopefully get enough complaints to have the developers come up with a real solutions. What, exactly, is the problem?

    Adam

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    We lose a ton of users as it is *with* bulletproofx. For one, they aren't that easy to come by, and two, we'd lose even more.

    As for real solutions, those will take years, to come by. With even audio not properly sorted out yet, you can't make such risks with video, which is at an even worse state.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Our concern should be less on converting and keeping users and more on creating a better product. If the product is good enough, we won't lose users.

    Anyway, I don't see why it would take years to implement a better solution than BulletProofX when, frankly, a better solution is to make an automatic copy of the /var/log/Xorg.0.log file that shows the problem, rather than simply overwriting it.

    Adam

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    By default you have got one backup as /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Hate to break it to you, but you should check out the number of people whose /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old file is also against /etc/X11/xorg.conf.failsafe. I have yet to see anyone on #compiz-fusion with this problem who had a helpful /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old, so I don't know what BulletProofX is doing, but it's not the right thing :-)

    Adam

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    Anyway, I don't see why it would take years to implement a better solution than BulletProofX when, frankly, a better solution is to make an automatic copy of the /var/log/Xorg.0.log file that shows the problem, rather than simply overwriting it.
    Because it's taken years to make BulletProofX to begin with.

    In regards to your ideas of a product, hate to break it to you, and I'm confused as to why aren't you taking this into account, but there is no deadline or wages on this. If nobody wants to do this, nobody will.

    Developers should make less buggy code? Well, go ahead and tell them that upfront.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadi View Post
    Because it's taken years to make BulletProofX to begin with.

    In regards to your ideas of a product, hate to break it to you, and I'm confused as to why aren't you taking this into account, but there is no deadline or wages on this. If nobody wants to do this, nobody will.
    And I'm confused why you don't think that Canonical, Novell, and RedHat pay developers, and why you don't think they view their distributions as a "product". Because they do pay develoeprs and, let's face it, linux is a product.

    Adam

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Er, because failing drivers and X != distributions?

    What you are doing is actively arguing against any kinds of failsaves that the distributions make to make up for the failing state of video, saying that X and driver developers are to make less buggy code.

    And lets face it too, it's a damn pitiful product that's failing to get any markshare whatsoever if you take that stance.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    No, what I'm doing is actively arguing against BulletProofX because it's a bad hack. Yes, the best solution is truly failsafe X and drivers. That's not gonna happen. A better solution than the current is something like BulletProofX, but that actually backs up the log file showing what the problem is, rather than assuming users would rather continue to run in 800x600 resolution forever, and can therefore make it difficult for a new user (which you seem to be so concerned about) to find the source of the problem, which is what the current "solution" does.

    Adam

Posting Permissions

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