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

Re: ubuntu bulletproof x



On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:40 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> 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.
> 

You obviously don't know much about Ubuntu's development model or where
most of their innovations actually come from, yes there is a problem
here with Fedora, but it isn't the problem you think it is...

Dave.


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