Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's BulletProofX To Be Canned?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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, 12:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      By default you have got one backup as /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X