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

Re: ubuntu bulletproof x



Jeff Spaleta wrote:
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.


Cmon man. The fact that you see so much press about 'bulletproof-x' does give you "an idea" about how much "energy" ubuntu is investing in this.

No, it doesn't tell you $1k, or $5k, or $250k, but it does tell you something.



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.

Why?

Is there something in there describing how that work can automagically recreate the information that cannot be retrieved from a 'broken' edid hardware implementation, in which the data in the inf is correct? Going beyond 'speculation', I did a little googling, and found these two posts, which seem to suggest that the situation Olivier Galibert described, and which I have speculated, is a real scenario-

http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/xorg/2005-October/010716.html

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83575

Again, I don't claim to be an X hacker, but it sounds like there are legitimate situations in which there is *NO* way for the X driver to autodetect the monitor specs, while *AT THE SAME TIME* it is possible to get useful information from inf files.

Again, I could be wrong, but I really do think your telling me to STFU was uncalled for.



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.


And perhaps, if fedora actually respected ubuntu, and kept up with their advances, rather than exclusively playing catch up, they wouldn't be having their asses handed to them.

Yes, I know redhat has learned well from microsoft, that the way to be successful is to let others do the expensive trailblazing, and then only copy the trails that led to success, rather than those that led to failure. I have no problem with that attitude, I think it is intelligent. But please, this is just a mailinglist where people routinely talk about blowing goats. So don't tell me to STFU like the rest of the people on this list can't handle the signal/noise ratio.

-dmc


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