[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ubuntu bulletproof x



On 9/2/07, Douglas McClendon <dmc fedora filteredperception org> wrote:
> To me, that seems like it might be enough.  The fact that ubuntu is
> investing so much energy in this, makes me suggest that there might be
> something to it.

We've no idea how much "energy" Ubuntu is investing in this. We do
know they are re-using code available in hwdata as seen in rhl/fedora.

> Which sounds really stupid to me.  It sounds like a trivial thing to me,
> to modify X so that it doesn't exclusively prefer width over height,
> resulting in the "hilarious situation" described.

> Honestly it doesn't sound very hard at all to modify X so that it
> understands that 1600x1200 is more preferable than 1680x1050.

Go back and read what Mr. Jackson wrote..again...specifically the
on-going work concerning using the maximum pixel clock setting to
discriminate modes.

> With that improvement, going only by my speculation, and the
> indisputable opinions/facts provided by Mr Jackson, I suspect there is
> room for value in the ubuntu-bulletproof-x method.

Or perhaps there's none at all, and the work being done to expose inf
file reading is a dead-end. Until we have a specific example inf file
situation to discuss, it's impossible to go any further in this
discussion.  In any event I look forward to seeing Ubuntu supplied
patches to Xorg to "fix" X so that we can all benefit from better
hardware detection.

-jef


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]